• 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.

Perpetual motion machine examination rules, please.

from webster, 2nd connotation...
2 : to become deadened or depressed
Click to expand...
Although you might not agree with the use of the term (thinking of it being only something done with sponges) it indeed describes the effect an opposing force would have on a cycle (hence the term dampened oscillation).

sigh to you...

Gene
 
AgingYoung said:
I offered to sell you options on this idea and I'd like to say that offer is still available. Unfortunately for you (if you're interested) the option has appreciated 266%. The underlying idea has gone from some thoughts in a spreadsheet with a model in wm2d and a crude pop model to the point there now exists a cursory mathematical proof. You should have tried to get to the head of the line in reviewing this idea sooner. There's an MIT professor, a Texas state senator, a local multimillionaire businessman and of course James Randi in the line before you. If you want to buck line you'll have to buy an option.
Click to expand...

OK, with this post Gene has, in my view, crossed the line from confused but enthusiastic amateur to nascent scam artist. Since he's got an MIT professor on board I'm sure he won't need my lowly thoughts anymore, and I'm certainly not going to have anything to do with anyone who's soliciting money for this foolishness. Cursory mathematical proof? Don't make me laugh, he's got nothing.
 
I'm in no way soliciting a penny, Thing. I've considered a process for close to three years and I'm on track with that same process. The process is what I plan on doing with this idea once it develops. Now if anyone would like for me to abandon that process they're going to have to pay me.

illuminatedwax has repeatedly asked for details of this idea. I have no objection to derailing the process to satisfy their curiosity if they can afford it. Otherwise they along with most everyone else will have to wait. Or they could use their imagination if they have any. I think you have a good imagination if you think I honestly expect illuminatedwax to pay for the privilege.

Gene
 
Cursory mathematical proof? Don't make me laugh, he's got nothing.
Click to expand...
Everyone's entitled to their opinion; you're no exception.

Gene

edit: If anyone would like the same generous offer I made to illuminatedwax I'm asking $2,000,000 for the rights to derail this process. I can accept wire transfers. If you can't afford it or don't want to afford it you'll have to wait.
 
Last edited:
AgingYoung said:
illuminatedwax has repeatedly asked for details of this idea. I have no objection to derailing the process to satisfy their curiosity if they can afford it. Otherwise they along with most everyone else will have to wait. Or they could use their imagination if they have any. I think you have a good imagination if you think I honestly expect illuminatedwax to pay for the privilege.

Gene
Click to expand...
Here's how it goes: You say you have a brilliant idea for a perpetual motion machine. We say that's impossible and the conversation begins. However, having a conversation without you telling us anything is completely pointless - you say "oh the dampening of the synergy and the conservative force and I'm building it I am misunderstood" and we say "no, you're making a mistake somewhere, let us show you where" and you say "no way buster, only if you pay me" and we're at a stand still because of course no one will pay to see your ideas.

So unless you want to discuss your ideas, the conversation is over.

No offense, but you are on a skeptics board.
 
I don't suppose there are options available to short the success of this enterprise are there? You might have a better chance looking for investers that would like to back fundamental laws of physics. No, I'm not one of them.

Good luck though.
 
Petre,

Markets can be kind of treacherous at times. Thank you for your kind thoughts.

Gene
 
Last edited:
As far as I'm concerned this thread has served it's purpose. I've developed a good sense for Mr. Rand's idea of what he'd expect as proof and there's no doubt in my mind that if proof exists he'll award the 'Randi'.

I think it's admirable for Mr. Randi to offer this prize. I consider it a humanitarian thing to do; well beyond what the average person does. If anyone has any comments they'd expect me to read they'll have to send them to AGeneYoung@yahoo.com.

Although I've said it twice I'll say it again for the slow learners...
If this build doesn't work I'll say as much and I'll say it on this thread.
Click to expand...

A. Gene Young
 
Freethinker said:
It can only represent the programmer's understanding of reality, so even if there is an unknown way for nature to do what you want, the simulator won't know about it.
Click to expand...

I've managed to simulate the ideas. You were right, Freethinker. The Newtonian physics of wm2d couldn't compute the ideas. The system center of gravity changed directions and that change accelerated then it suddenly stopped. For about 32,000 frames of the simulation it was a flat line. You might say I modeled perpetual motionless.

The initial model of these ideas didn't work. I couldn't constrain the model in the way I needed to working with drinking straws, etc. I would need something more rigid than drinking straws to model these ideas the way I was attempting to. For what it's worth I've figured out a different design such that drinking straws might work. I'm working on that now.

Gene
 
Freethinker,

No, probably not. You might consider the improbability of having an unrealistic model (ie with no friction) coming to a complete halt. As the forces are calculated to the degree that a cad program calculates them there is always a difference out there in 32 or 64 places of significance. The sucker should always move one way or the other. The system center of gravity flat lined.

I've seen other examples of wm2d not 'behaving' the way I see reality. That view of reality is based on observing actual models. It's getting curiouser and curiouser.

Gene
 
An interesting article on the perpetual search for perpetual motion can be found here.

Short excerpt:
Jacob T. Wainwright, a civil engineer, expressed a frustration with these laws of thermodynamics that many undoubtedly shared. He suggested that to deny the possibility of perpetual motion was un-American. He denounced the tyranny of a foreign “postulation” that ruled out prima facie any perpetual-motion machine. In a paper for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, he claimed that thermodynamics was “based upon nothing more substantial than faith and a bald supposition.” He would put his faith in practical mechanics.
Click to expand...
 
That was a good read, Raja. I thought...
These principles were first spelled out as “laws” around 1850 and were actually based on the empirical but unprovable “axiom of nature” that perpetual motion is impossible.
Click to expand...
was humorous.

Gene
 
Raja said:
An interesting article on the perpetual search for perpetual motion can be found here.
...
Click to expand...

"honest victim of self-delusion, believing that he had hit upon an epoch-making discovery, eager to secure its employment in the best interests of mankind.”

History does repeat itself: As a tragedy, a farce, more tragedies. When the latter tragedies get diluted by time, they get mixed with boringness and finally pass as habits.
 
What a dim view. Fortunately you don't have the power to call things that aren't as though they were causing them to be. If you had your way I'd be tempted to check into another reality.

Gene
 
robinson said:
Oh that is just brilliant.
Click to expand...

Thread bumper in the hizzouse. :rolleyes:

Robinson, has your Mrs. cheated on you, has your alleged skepticness crusted over your brain or do you simply feel bored and look for friction?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom