Perpetual motion machine examination rules, please.

[russingram]

of course, I left out the people sitting at 2:00 and 5:00 to move the weights in and out!

 

[AgingYoung]

Nathan,

• Are you simulating the internal stresses and flexing of your beam under its own weight?

No. The beam is only 0.3 meters tall and 30k meters long. I think you can simulate the stress but a beam of those dimensions wouldn't be able to be picked up off the ground. It's defying newtonian physics but it's a virtual reality or simulation.

• You have no evidence that my monitor is either inexpensive or low end (and you'd be wrong in both assumptions)

I was thinking that the screen shot I took and pasted into paint then converted to jpeg might have been effected by my low end monitor. Maybe not.

• Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? And furthermore, if you do succeed in simulating such a material, what would you prove?

Fine point and very good question. A better question would be, 'what would this material's characteristics be?'

Gene

 

[AgingYoung]

of course, I left out the people sitting at 2:00 and 5:00 to move the weights in and out!

I fired those malingerers. I'm going to replace them with this new element I'm creating.

Gene

 

[Thing]

Whatever this new element you're 'creating' is, work will have to be done to move the weights in an out. The rate at which that work has to be done can never be less than the energy of the rotating wheel. So you can't power it from the wheel. If you've got an element that moves a weight in and out which requires less energy than is needed to do its work then that element in itself would be a perpetual motion machine, in which case you don't need the wheel.

As William S Burroughs was wont to say, "Thermodynamics won at a crawl."

There is no way out.

 

[roger]

Thing, yes, but all we have to do then is create a gravity wheel to power those weight pushers!

 

[Ginarley]

There is no way out.

I haven't read the whole thread but a brief comment on statements like this. There is a real tendency for skeptics to become almost religiously fanatical in the defense of scientific "truths". Personally I applaud anyone who spends the time and effort to try and create perpetual motion because if someone actually achieves it then it is incredible and would shake up the way we view the world. In other words it would prove what we know as "truth" to be not quite right. Skeptics spend all their time attacking other's notions of "truth" but rarely stop and challenge their own.

From my limited understanding of the physics behind this I dont see that perpetual motion is possible but i have huge respect for those that charge on regardless. The real battle for skeptics is not stopping people from exploring new ideas and challenging old ones, but to stop people from making unethical gain from deliberately decieving people and to make people open their eyes and challenge beliefs. What if the laws of physics are wrong? Even very slightly wrong? That is part of being a skeptic. It is not just about atheism. We all roll our eyes when people say god exists and shudder at how incomprehensible it is that they can't see the "truth" for what it is. And then we turn around and emulate them by clinging to the laws of physics as absolute "truth".

The people who need to be stopped are those who claim their product is doing one thing when they are really deliberately decieving people by doing something normal and disguising it as special. There is no value in trying to stop people who are exploring things out of interest and passion because there are only 2 possible outcomes - either they are right or they are not. If they are not then who cares, if they are then its of immense value.

The search for perpetual motion isn't a bad thing - in fact its a great thing.
Good luck to everyone who's looking!

 

[Thing]

Whatever.

[REVERB]
There is no way out.
[/REVERB]

 

[AgingYoung]

You are beside yourself, Thing.

You made the point that a simulation would approximate Newtonian physics. A physicist from down under that has posted on this thread made the point that Newtonian physics are an approximation of reality. That would give me an approximation of an approximation of reality using a simulation. But that's not entirely true. A simulation will approximate the approximation of Newtonian physics to the extent that I define it. For instance I made a very slender beam of 30K meters that didn't fall apart under it's own weight. I can also simulate absolute zero by not having pin friction yet also have mass that doesn't cease electron movement (in the presence of that absolute zero). Your points of ...

• (a)Well your simulations are going to (approximately) obey Newtonian physics so (b)you can stop wasting time on them.

are not accurate. My simulations can at times not even come close to Newtonian physics and also I get some interesting insight with some of the models I make; they aren't a waste of time.

So what is reality or what is real? Nathan made the point of what I could see with my ( 'your' ) monitor several times then when I suggested that I had a cheap, low end monitor he said I was being presumptuous about what 'his' monitor was. All that time I thought he was talking about me, my momma and my cheap monitor.

I would love to share all of the ideas I have about what I'm doing but it's too early to do that. When I first joined another forum some self proclaimed mechanical genius named Raaaaaaaalph introduced themselves and explained to me what a good and honest person he was and how he would be willing to help me with my ideas if I wanted the help. He would do it for free. He made the point that people need to have relationships and 'trust' each other and that non-disclosure agreements were an affront to his integrity; he wouldn't sign one.

Some time later Raaaaaaaalph made fun of me for my inability to use wm2d. It seems he had the computer savvy to restore models that people would post but I was too stupid to do that. The truth is that Raaaaaaaalph is smart enough to know when he can steal something and get away with it. I'm not that smart. I haven't stolen the key to wm2d although I've had several opportunities to do that. I appreciate being able to use a demo copy. But anyway am I suppose to trust this guy with my ideas? I don't think so.

But what is real? If I let this guy paint reality for me I suspect he's going to screw me if he thinks he can get away with it. Is it real that I can model materials that don't exist in the real world and if I can does that idea have any merit? I think I've figured out all the details of this material that I'm making so at my normal snail pace I'm going to begin to model it.

My intentions for this material are to create a mechanical system that is a virtual reality that resides in our reality; a virtual reality that I can manipulate on the fly in the same manner I can manipulate the ranges of values within a simulation. I'm proposing that I can mechanical simulate a reality that is subject to it's own laws and not those of Newton's.

I could be wrong about Raaaaaaaalph being a liar and a thief. I do know that when someone explained that I didn't have the key that was published on the web he didn't make the point that he had bought the software. I'd change my mind about him if I could audit his records but I wouldn't trust his word.

Gene

 

[nathan]

• Are you simulating the internal stresses and flexing of your beam under its own weight?

No. The beam is only 0.3 meters tall and 30k meters long. I think you can simulate the stress but a beam of those dimensions wouldn't be able to be picked up off the ground. It's defying newtonian physics but it's a virtual reality or simulation.

ok, I was trying to determine why the end of the beam slopes up, and that was one hypothesis -- given the dialog box showed certain bulk properties of the beam's material.

• You have no evidence that my monitor is either inexpensive or low end (and you'd be wrong in both assumptions)

I was thinking that the screen shot I took and pasted into paint then converted to jpeg might have been effected by my low end monitor. Maybe not.

ROFL let me ask you, did a little eye-on-a-stalk pop up out of your keyboard, look at the screen and then blink, when you made the screenshot? No? thought not. so the fuzziness of your monitor's phosphors is irrelevant. The screenshot was made by looking at the display buffer memory and pulling bits from there. Thus, if it has jaggies, then they are as rendered.

As you have jaggies, the orientations of the (end of the) rectangular beam and the camera are not coincident. Either that or there's a bug in your cad package. (and as I showed, the mismatch was about 1/250'th radian, not 10^-bignumber).

• Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? And furthermore, if you do succeed in simulating such a material, what would you prove?

Fine point and very good question. A better question would be, 'what would this material's characteristics be?'

I can tell you exactly what its characteristics would be: It would be ... <fanfare> a perpetual motion machine </fanfare>

Your wheel is not generating energy, right? it's merely acting as a reservior. (If you disagree with that, then your description was insufficient for me to tell what you thought.) Therefore all the 'magic' is in the 2 and 5 oclock widgets. AFAICT you've merely pushed your perpetual motion problem into two boxes within your machine. You should be able to remove the wheel, connect the two boxes together someway and be done.

That of course leads to the problem of what is inside the boxes

 

[AgingYoung]

Nathan,

.... or low-end graphics capability of some sort.

• I can tell you exactly what its characteristics would be: It would be ... <fanfare> a perpetual motion machine </fanfare>

That's not a characteristic of the element.

• You should be able to remove the wheel, connect the two boxes together someway and be done.

Well, I suppose that's so. I might connect them with ......
heck, a wheel?

Gene

 

[AgingYoung]

Nathan,

You could resolve the question about wm2d if you downloaded a demo copy. Since you have a good monitor and a good graphics card (I'm assuming the good card and I'm also assuming that you play animated games) if you made a 30K meter body 0.3 meters high then duplicated it then pinned the two on the background then rotated one of them very slightly you might have a different result.

The best way to get from one end to the other of a 30K meter plank is to zoom to extents then to use the magnifier (+) held on the point that you want to magnify and start clicking. If you try to scroll to the other end you'll be there all day.

Gene

• ROFL let me ask you, did a little eye-on-a-stalk pop up out of your keyboard, look at the screen and then blink, when you made the screenshot?

They don't put the eyes in the keyboards any more. That's so last century. The eyes are built into the monitors.

 

[davefoc]

AgingYoung,
Are you using a dem copy of wm2d?

I downloaded wm2d but decided against installing it when I saw how expensive the package was. I assumed that the demo package would be so defeatured that it wouldn't be worthwhile for even something to play with.

Is this wrong? How does the demo package compare to the real thing?

 

[Kaarjuus]

Personally I applaud anyone who spends the time and effort to try and create perpetual motion because if someone actually achieves it then it is incredible and would shake up the way we view the world.

That's the exact equivalent of applauding someone who spends the time and effort to try and lift themselves up by their own hair.

 

[AgingYoung]

davefoc,

Yes, its a demo version. The limitations are that you can't save models and you can't print from the demo; for example to a plotter. It's a good tool for what I'm using it for. Rather than save a model I put my machine on standby. You can document a model then later reconstruct it. You can take screen shots but if you're doing work where you'd need to produce blue prints a demo version wouldn't do the job. It all depends on what you're planning on doing with it.

I look at it as a graphic and multidimensional spreadsheet. I like it.

If you run linux you might consider looking at CAELinux. There are several distributions that are free and open source.

Gene

 

[rwguinn]

Why, with all this talk of simulation, am I reminded of the way things used to be in my business?
Engineers/scientists wrote the equations, and handed them to programmers (or very junior engineers!) to put in FORTRAN or whatever was available.
One young sprout was doing some stuff which had some springs involved. He figured that "K" was spring compression, so "-K" was tension.
With that interpretation, one could launch the STS into LEO by merely hitting it with a 30kt wind gust...
No--I was not that sprout--but I did know him. Very bright fellow, who actually learned from his mistakes.
You can do a lot in a simulation. Not much of it is correct when done by mythologists...

 

[AgingYoung]

rwguinn,

• You can do a lot in a simulation. Not much of it is correct when done by mythologists...

On the surface this seems like a rather asinine statement. What is the relationship between a person's vocation (studying myths) and their ability to use and get meaningful results with a cad program? Am I missing something here? ...

Gene

ps: formula translation is a good language for crunching numbers.

 

[rwguinn]

rwguinn,

• You can do a lot in a simulation. Not much of it is correct when done by mythologists...

On the surface this seems like a rather asinine statement. What is the relationship between a person's vocation (studying myths) and their ability to use and get meaningful results with a cad program? Am I missing something here? ...

Gene

ps: formula translation is a good language for crunching numbers.

I can take the average high school graduate and with a couple of weeks training, get them to produce answers to structural and mechanical systems problems using NASTRAN , I-Deas, and Ansys (ok-my ANSYS is a bit rusty).
The programs will do the simulations. Without bombing out.
The answers will be pretty much wrong. Using a sim program is easy. Knowing what the answers mean, and even if they are realistic, is a totally different proposition.
your 10^-22radians example is typical. Small differences in large numbers, large differences in small numbers--all of them screw up the math when you end up generating mass and stiffness matrices internal to the programs--these are things you never see, unless you know the mechanics and math that go into doing the modeling.
If you don't understand how it works--the science and math behind it--you are using folklore and mythology. Making pretty pictures.
And that knowlege is what differentiates the mythologist from the engineer and scientist.

 

[nathan]

Nathan,

.... or low-end graphics capability of some sort.

Are you just not listening to what I'm saying? Your screen shots show your resolution to be at least 800x600 and probably 1024x768. Anyway, *whatever* resolution you have is unimportant, *given* your rendering has jaggies. The jaggies show the viewing frustrum and beam edge are rotated wrt each other. And as I showed, that rotation is bigger by several orders of magnitude to the 10^-19 that you mention.

• I can tell you exactly what its characteristics would be: It would be ... <fanfare> a perpetual motion machine </fanfare>

That's not a characteristic of the element.

Yeah right. You admit the wheel is a reservoir -- not an energy source. Yet you disagree that the two remaining components of your system -- the two pieces that you say are responsible for making the wheel turn continuously (i.e. make the whole thing a perpetual motion machine) -- are perpetual motion machines.

• You should be able to remove the wheel, connect the two boxes together someway and be done.

Well, I suppose that's so. I might connect them with ......
heck, a wheel?

yes, certainly, but why the complexity of the wheel?

 

[nathan]

Nathan,

You could resolve the question about wm2d if you downloaded a demo copy. Since you have a good monitor and a good graphics card (I'm assuming the good card and I'm also assuming that you play animated games) if you made a 30K meter body 0.3 meters high then duplicated it then pinned the two on the background then rotated one of them very slightly you might have a different result.

I've told you several times, that the resolution is mostly irrelevent for showing that there is a non-negligible rotation. Your rendering has jaggies. End of story.

A quick grep of the internet shows that wm2d is for windows and macs, so it won't work for me. And quite frankly I don't think it'd help -- you seem incapable of understanding what I'm telling you.

I'm now going to take chill pill. You go play with your simulator.

 

[Ginarley]

That's the exact equivalent of applauding someone who spends the time and effort to try and lift themselves up by their own hair.

Except the implications for success in perpetual motion are a little more interesting lol. It is a tired old cliche but failure to achieve something is not a failure to learn something. I have issues with those people who set out to decieve people by claiming perpetual motion when they know all too well it is a trick. I have no problem with people pushing the boundaries of science to try and find holes. It is a win-win proposition because either established rules get further evidence or something fundamental is discovered. It is exactly on this basis that science has got where it has got today. Poke holes in logic all you want but don't poke holes in genuine effort.