• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Help with a perpetual motion machine

KingMerv00 said:
Incorrect. Michael Bay is and will always be the worst director of all time.
Click to expand...
Objection.jpg


Uwe Boll, Brian Levant, and those god awful morons Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer are all far, FAR worse than Bay.

At least Bay made The Rock and Bad Boys. Yeah, they're stupid, but they're really good fun.



As for the PMM, I'd definitely go with the idea to make him take the battery out, once it's up to speed, or put in a dead one.
 
DavidS said:
If no useful output work is claimed, it might be a little tougher to estimate an appropriate free-running test duration. On the other hand, such a device offers little more to mankind than the joy of watching it run... who cares?
Click to expand...



I'd have to disagree here. If it were real, any violation of Conservation of Energy would have huge implications for mankind. A small violation that can be clearly demonstrated by some guy in his basement, once recognized and studied by scientists and engineers who really understand what they're doing, could have far greater potential effect.

Of course, as always, its that "If it were real" first step that keeps screwing things up.
 
Horatius said:
I'd have to disagree here. If it were real, any violation of Conservation of Energy would have huge implications for mankind.
Click to expand...
That "here" wasn't my "there". The second test I described -- free-running duration -- would validate (more precisely, potentially refute) a perpetual motion machine of the third kind, which violates neither energy nor entropy conservation.

On further consideration (OK, and a quick wiki consult to confirm kind designations), though, such a device needn't be totally useless; it could store kinetic energy. Demonstrating that storage and recovery would be more convenient or efficient than more conventional energy storage (batteries, flywheels, etc.) would remain as an exercise for the reader.

The other test -- output more useful work than provided at startup -- would (on failure) rule out perpetual motion machines of the first or second kind. A machine failing that test is certainly not an effective PPM(1) nor PPM(2). The test as described is fairly simple and therefore hopefully convincing, and sufficiently severe to weed out most deluded and many deceptive implementations. A machine passing that test might warrant further scrutiny to find its energy source or entropy sink, if for no other reason than to explore a cheater's ingenuity.
 
Brian-M said:
This can produce the illusion that it's putting out far more power than it's consuming, unless you use very sophisticated meters. Or are savvy enough to use the output for the input once it's up to speed to see how long it lasts.
Click to expand...
That's why I suggest such electrical measurements may not be helpful to convince a believer his machine ain't what he thinks it is. Even if the examiner convinces the claimant that his faulty measurements led him to think he'd found free energy, the education may only turn similar poorly-understood questions on the examiner's instrumentation.

Claimant: My meter says I'm making free energy.
Examiner: Your meter doesn't correctly respond to the waveforms. My meter says you're NOT making free energy.
Claimant: Your meter doesn't correctly respond to the waveforms.
 
Thanks guys

The thread on the Beldini machine was interesting. Thanks Brian-M

Had forgotten about Steorn although their stuff seems to be smaller from what little I can see.

I dont intend to spend too much time on this. A few hours googling, some time picking your collective brains and a trip to see the machine. I was supposed to go this Friday but the meeting is off. Will possibly go early next week.

I will post a detailed report when I get back. Should be better prepared with questions and testing ideas thanks to the Forum

However, I am mentally prepared to get the "this is the secret part - I cant show/explain to you unless you give me 200 million Dollars" runaround or some variant thereof.

Amazing how many cranks there are in the world !!
 
burrahobbit said:
However, I am mentally prepared to get the "this is the secret part - I cant show/explain to you unless you give me 200 million Dollars" runaround or some variant thereof.

Amazing how many cranks there are in the world !!
Click to expand...

If they do that, I would suggest that they are not cranks.

Con-men, sheisters, frauds, thieves, charlatans; sure. But if they can take something worthless and successfully convert it into $$ they are not worthy of the name crank.

I expect there are a few folks here that would love to get in on that scheme, were it not for the inconvenient matter of ethical behavior.

V.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Uwe Boll...
Click to expand...

Uwe Boll is a machine built to simulate a human director. It was sent back in time by Michael Bay just so he wouldn't look so bad by comparison.

Besides, Uwe Boll never "directed" a movie. He was actually stealing money from Germany. In that respect, he was quite competent.

Brian Levant,
Click to expand...

Directed a movie with Halle Berry and John Goodman in the cast.

and those god awful morons Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer
Click to expand...

Directed a movie with Leslie Nielsen in the cast.


At least Bay made The Rock and Bad Boys. Yeah, they're stupid, but they're really good fun.
Click to expand...

The Rock had Sir Sean in it. No director can ruin a movie with James Bond. Bad Boys = Martin Lawrence...QED.

Sorry. I've been derailing a lot of threads lately.
 
There is a simple test which may be applied here.

If the "inventor" has been planning to go into production for some time but requires some seed capital in the form of investment from members of the public, having been refused credit by banks in the pay of Big Business,... then it's a perpetual motion machine.
 
Soapy Sam said:
There is a simple test which may be applied here.

If the "inventor" has been planning to go into production for some time but requires some seed capital in the form of investment from members of the public, having been refused credit by banks in the pay of Big Business,... then it's a perpetual motion machine.
Click to expand...

With that sort of cynicism, I doubt you'll ever see a herd of unicorns.

Meanwhile, back at the non-ppm edge of this:

I've heard of some relatively light, fiber flywheels that can remain intact at 10,000 rpms. On magnetic bearings, in a (mostly) evacuated container of helium, one has spun for two years.

(It was a few decades ago that I read of this; Scientific American article, if memory is working. Haven't kept up with it, and have no links. Perhaps someone would be generous enough to provide an update on this type of energy storeage?)
 
The laws of conservation, and those things that Newton came up with, can be thought of as being unbreakable. I haven't even gotten them to bend a little.

I didn't go after PMM, I went after rotational propulsion systems. It was an expensive lesson, and now I can recognize a violation of Newtons laws pretty quickly.

When you try to draw energy from a PMM machine you can't see the magnetic field that opposes the motion of the rotor when you attempt to pull energy (current) out of it. Because the transfer of energy is invisible, people tend to be fooled by it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom