Perpetual motion machine examination rules, please.

[Simon Bridge]

Perpetual motion is not the challenge - it is a perpetual motion machine which is the challenge.

Hence, the shifting-weights wheel would have to do some useful work without slowing down.

There are a good set of examples at the museum of unworkable devices (link in previous thread). This also includes a simple way you could test the thing yourself - even if you havn't eliminated friction in the prototype.

In general, a perpetual motion machine must violate the law of conservation of energy, as it is currently understood.

however, a machine could also have a fuel-source which skeptics would typically disbelieve. Perhaps if you got a machine that drew on kharmic energy or etheric energy?

Machines operating at absolute zero do still have friction. You are thinking of the behavior of charge-carriers (ions) in superfluids.

 

[Simon Bridge]

Non conservative forces? Friction is non-conservative.

 

[Flange Desire]

...
If you could rearrange weights on a disc as it was spinning and with that rearrangement of weights cause the disc to continue to spin would that be considered perpetual motion....

No, because work is required to "rearrange weights".

 

[Simon Bridge]

Flange: not quite correct.

A rotating wheel does no net work.
It would be considered perpetual motion, but not a machine.
To be a machine, you have to be able to extract energy from it. To be a perpetual motion machine, you have to be able to extract energy without slowing it down.

Sure, you'd need to do work to get the weights moving. once moving, it could - in principle - keep going for ever.

In this case, the arraingement is for the weights to slide around so the distribution of their masses (or something about their distribution) keeps the wheel turning. Such a thing would probably be a perpetual motion machine - if you could get it to work.

Under the law of conservation of energy, you wouldn't get it to work because you have to do the same work lifting the weights a you gain dropping them ... regardless of the path taken.

If you consider a water-wheel, with weights in the cups on the left but not in the cups on the right, this thing will rotate clockwise under gravity.

If you arrainged things so that weight exiting the bottom cup would be placed into the top cup, you would have a perpetual motion machine.

You could lift tem - but you would get tired and you need feeding - so it isn't perpetual motion in any suprnatural sence. Even if you used shifts of lifters as well as workers to make food for them... this machine is ultimately solar powered.

Perhaps you use psychic powers to teleport them?
Energy conservation says that this will take as much effort as lifting manually. It should take at least as much effort as the energy lost as the weight goes round the wheel.

The point is, that the machine described would be a proposed perpetual motion machine for the purposes of the test. Remember, Randi isn't testing supernatural stuff, but proposed supernatural stuff. It ain't the thing untill it's passed the test.

 

[Flange Desire]

Simon, you say "not quite correct", however your later words all appear to support the view that work is required to rearrange weights.
Please help me to see your point.

 

[Simon Bridge]

Excuse me, we seem to be misunderstanding each other.

You seem to be claiming that, because work is required to rearrange the weights, that the described motion of the device would not count as perpetual motion.

I am not disputing the facts stated, only the conclusions drawn from them.

While work would be needed to rearrainge the weights, this does not disqualify the device from perpetual motion. (Actually, I can think of ways of rearrainging the weight with no work, but I guess the author intended "dynamic" rearraingement, as in overbalanced wheels.)

The statement by itself could be taken to mean that you are asserting that net work is done on the weights in the motion. This need not be true - and in the described device, no net work is done on or by the weights to sustain the motion.

The writer asked "I you could...". From the description, if I could make such a thing which exhibits those properties, I don't see any reason this would not qualify as a perpetual motion machine - especially if I take it that it is the arraingement of the weights themselves that cause the motion (accelerate the disk) in the first place.

Of course, this is a lot of interpretation from such a short description.
It would be better to have a schematic.

 

[AgingYoung]

PixyMisa,

If perpetual motion in the form of a gravity wheel is possible there's a principle that would allow it. It would be similar to the forces of lift, drag, gravity and thrust in aerodynamics. There are countless ways to make those forces come together to cause a plane to fly. You can't patent a principle. Also a simple patent in one country can cost $30K. There is also the idea, as you mention, could it produce useful amounts of energy. If someone discovered that principle or maybe 2 principles and the Randi organization would award them a million dollars for doing that it would be a win/win for everyone. The scientific world would have something new to think about and maybe we could get clean energy. The Randi organization would be considered a hero. The pr would go a long way for them.


Flange,

The idea behind a gravity wheel is that the work required to shift the weights is caused by their falling (by gravity) and/or by centrifugal force which is caused by gravity causing the wheel to spin faster.

Simon Bridge,

Any power source under load loses potential. It's like being in a place with poor plumbing and flushing the jon while someone's taking a shower. You load the cold water supply and scald them. Or if you try to start a car with the headlights on you can see the lights dim. A perpetual motion machine wouldn't be that different; it would slow down under load.

Thanks for the comments.

A. Gene Young

 

[Flange Desire]

You seem to be claiming that, because work is required to rearrange the weights, that the described motion of the device would not count as perpetual motion.

No, such a device is a 'failed attempt at a perpetual motion machine'.
Work is required to rearrange the weights.
Work is not free.

One may well say "if you could do so-and-so then that would constitute a perpetual motion machine", but the sticking point here is that one cannot come up with a workable so-and-so.

The 'so-and-so' required for perpetual motion is, simply stated, 'free energy'.

 

[Simon Bridge]

The idea behind a gravity wheel is that the work required to shift the weights is caused by their falling (by gravity) and/or by centrifugal force which is caused by gravity causing the wheel to spin faster.

Hah! I was right <tap dances>

And such a device would be valid for the challenge. You'd also overturn conservation laws in physics - requiring, indeed, the discovery of a new principle.

You understand why it is thought that it cannot work - even in principle?

A perpetual motion machine wouldn't be that different; it would slow down under load.

Depends on the type - but you'd want to distinguish the PMM from, say, a gyroscope. A gyroscope under any load at all will decelerate to a standstill.

Of course, a PMM may be capable of only a maximum rate of work. A higher load and it slows, perhaps to a stop, but once the load is removed it speeds up again right? And it should be possible to figure out a load light enough that the wheel keeps spinning? You said it accelerates... so you could introduce a break so that, by soft application, you can make the wheel spin at a constant speed?

It would be similar to the forces of lift, drag, gravity and thrust in aerodynamics. There are countless ways to make those forces come together to cause a plane to fly. You can't patent a principle.

But you can patent an aircraft.

note: lift and drag are both from thrust. The balance of the four helps engineers design aircraft. In physics we talk about pressure differentials instead.

or by centrifugal force

The centrifugal effect (it's not a force) would tend to make all your moveable weight shift out from the center. A fast-moving gravuty wheel would end up with all the weights equal distant from the center, giving you a top speed.

There is also the idea, as you mention, could it produce useful amounts of energy. If someone discovered that principle or maybe 2 principles and the Randi organization would award them a million dollars for doing that it would be a win/win for everyone. The scientific world would have something new to think about and maybe we could get clean energy. The Randi organization would be considered a hero. The pr would go a long way for them.

You know - lots of PMM people fear their machine will be stolen or that the skeptics would discredit it even though it is true. But I see you realise that this is nonsence.

The skeptic who first validates a genuine PMM would be famous - it's worth a fortune just in lecture fees. Randi would make his million back easy.

Similarily - the publicity makes it impossible for anyone else to claim authorship of the design.

Note - the prototype don't have to work to be tested. There's ways around that.

 

[nathan]

I think all that is meant by gravity as a conservative force is that the kinetic energy of a falling body is exactly equal to the potential energy that the body had when it was released in the gravitational field excluding losses of kinetic energy to firiction.

Pretty much. In a conservative field the amount of work you have to do (= energy you have to expend) to go from point A to point B is exactly equal to the amount of work you'll get going from point B to point A (= energy you recieve). An example of this is a pendulum. Start at the top of the swing where the bob is stationary. At the bottom of the swing, the bob has gained some kinetic energy (which could be extracted). but that kinetic energy is exactly the right amount to return the bob to the starting height on the upswing (ignoring air viscosity )

Formally any closed loop in such a field neither gains nor loses energy.

What forces are not conservative?

Friction. You'll notice that this force always requires work input to move round a loop. A perpetual motion machine would be like anti-friction in that you'd get work output moving round a loop.

 

[Simon Bridge]

Flange Desire:

I am sorry - but a device with shifting weights can exhibit perpetual motion (at least in principle). It just won't be a machine in the sence of a device for doing work.

I guess, though, I should define some terms. It may be that we are just using some words etc in different ways.

http://www.answers.com/topic/perpetual-motion
Notice the dictionary distinction between perpetual motion and a perpetual motion machine?

Any system which returns to it's initial state through a conservative feild has this property. It will remain in periodic motion until acted on by an unbalanced torque. This is just Newton's Laws.

But don't take my word for it:

(1) Devices that are claimed to remain in continual motion without input of energy and without producing output work. Obviously such devices require energy to get them moving, but none thereafter. This description is nothing more than a statement of what perpetual motion means.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

It may be that work must be done on some weights as part of the motion, fine, then the system can only return to it's initial position if the same work is done by the weights - so the work (not free) is paid for.

Stevin's Principle says that such a device will not turn of itself - but Newton's Laws say that once turning, it'll keep going.

Of course, some of the shifting-weights PMM proposals will not return to their initial state. These will stop at some point.

Work need not be done to shift weights. I can shift weights about on a horizontal surface without doing (gravitational) work on them or them on me.

For more on the physics of Shifting Weights PMM, I'd suggest the following:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/overbal.htm - that is, to anyone who feels they have found a gravity engine or whatever.

I think this last bit is a matter of semantics: you say that a proposal which would be a perpetial motion machine but for the existance of something like free energy is a "failed PMM".

This is to take the position: free energy does not exist, therefore PMM is not possible.

That position is unscientific in that it is not empiricist.

However, PMM, working, would surely demonstrate that this "free energy" you speak of actually does exist?

(Actually, according to the dictionary definition, this would not be PMM since it involves an external energy source - the "free energy". However, it would still be a candidate for the challenge.)

 

[Ririon]

(Actually, according to the dictionary definition, this would not be PMM since it involves an external energy source - the "free energy". However, it would still be a candidate for the challenge.)

Do you have a suggestion for such an energy source? Except for you yourself moving weight around manually, as you seem to suggest? Since gravity/sentrifugal/"wheel with weights moving about" clearly will not work on it's own, I mean? Sure, a wheel with or without some arrangement of weights can run forever in the theoretical case of zero friction, but that's not really that interesting, is it?

 

[AgingYoung]

Simon Bridge,

You understand why it is thought that it cannot work - even in principle?

...yes I do.

but once the load is removed it speeds up again right? And it should be possible to figure out a load light enough that the wheel keeps spinning?

I think both of these are true.

You know - lots of PMM people fear their machine will be stolen or that the skeptics would discredit it even though it is true.

It would be hard for anyone to discredit an idea like that if it could be accomplished. You could post a working model on the internet with plans and the idea would take on a life of it's own. It couldn't be stopped. The fact that Randi has a prize for the proof of perpetual motion goes a long way toward wanting to share it if it's discovered. As you mentioned an aircraft can be patented yet the principles of aerodynamics can't. A while ago my brother worked with a company that sold document data bases. One of their clients was boeing and they had the maintenance manual for a 747 in a data base. It consisted of about 50 volumes. If there was maintenance problem a mechanic could sort thru those volumes and find the pertinent items and print up a much smaller volume of information they'd need to do the repair. My point is there are a lot of subassemblies in an aircraft and a lot of patents. That's a lot of jack.

People that are afraid that their idea will be stolen .... humm. I don't think that anyone owns ideas. Something about owning an idea is just not right.

Gene

 

[Simon Bridge]

Ririon: I have explained this and you have presumably read the previous posts. Here is what happened:

1. The question was put:

If you could rearrange weights on a disc as it was spinning and with that rearrangement of weights cause the disc to continue to spin would that be considered perpetual motion....

2. The reply was given:

No, because work is required to "rearrange weights".

3. I stated that this reply was incorrect.

As you can see, the question only asks if the device exhibits perpetual motion. And, indeed, as described, it does. (Once pointing that out - the responce is: "So what?" ... with explaination of why this is unimportant.)

What Desire intended (I'm guessing) was that the described device would not perform as a perpetual motion machine. However, this was not stated in the reply. The stated reply was, thus, incorrect.

To clarify my personal position here:
From the description quoted above, it is the dynamic rearraingement of weights which causes the wheel to spin. This would suggest that the wheel accelerates as a result. If this could be arrainged (the question again) then this would be a candidate for a perpetual motion machine.

The trouble, of course, is that this situation can not be arrainged. however. This doubt has already been expressed.

I did not top with this, actually quite mild, criticism of Desire's (I am fighting serious temptation to have fun with that alias, you just won't believe...) reply, I tried to improve on it. Only fair after all.

Now: I expected to come under fire for being pedantic - especially as I can be a bit careless with words myself. However, I feel justified on the grounds that we should at least be accurate in our refutations and skepticism. If we make a refutation using physics, we should jolly well get the physics right. If we feild a question we should answer the question in front of us.

Of course - that's me. I've found that this approach gets more converts. Y'know - decreases the ignorance factor...

 

[Simon Bridge]

People that are afraid that their idea will be stolen .... humm. I don't think that anyone owns ideas. Something about owning an idea is just not right.

Yup - ideas want to be free

So anyway - you wanna share this device? If it is good, it can still gain fame.

 

[AgingYoung]

Simon Bridge,

Right now the device is just a few principles. I don't want to share them just yet. I've been looking at the idea of perpetual motion for maybe 2 years. It's like a hobby but borderline obsession. I have had ideas and modeled them only to find out they weren't viable.

The current idea that I'm looking at is rather interesting. If you were to take a single weight and rotate it 360 degrees you'd find that the center of gravity between 1-179 minus the cog between 181-359 would be zero. It would be balanced. At every moment the cog on the left side of the wheel would have a corresponding cog on the right that is equidistant from a perpendicular thru the center. The idea that I'm looking at has a net difference on the descending side of the wheel (1-179) as the moment arm rotates clockwise. The difference between the cog's moves very slightly to the right of center at about 3 degrees (maybe about 2%) then at 90 degrees extends to the right by about 50% for about 20 degrees. After that the cog's are balanced. I think that's a significant amount and quite possibly able to cause the wheel to accelerate.

That idea or principle is exchanging vertical drop for horizontal distance and increasing leverage. There are people that have seriously looked at that idea and found it isn't viable. My contention is that the way most have tried it isn't viable. The way I accomplish it might be thought of as a differrent principle. Since force is the product of mass and acceleration and you can't change the mass if you change acceleration you'll end up with more force. I think I've accomplished that by shifting the cog's and increasing the leverage for that short moment of 20 degrees. And I started by saying I didn't want to share my ideas.

Gene

 

[Simon Bridge]

If you were to take a single weight and rotate it 360 degrees you'd find that the center of gravity between 1-179 minus the cog between 181-359 would be zero.

Hmm...

I think I'd need to see a diagram - concept sketch? Can you show me what you are trying to modify, say, so I can understand the description.

If you don't want all these folk to see such an incomplete idea, perhaps you can tell me in private? I can at least check the core concept and save you time

And I started by saying I didn't want to share my ideas.

... I told you: ideas want to be free

 

[Ririon]

Ririon: I have explained this and you have presumably read the previous posts. Here is what happened:
...

Ah. Just nitpicking? Good. Carry on..

 

[AgingYoung]

Simon Bridge,

The idea isn't all that incomplete but that's about as much as I'd care to share. ok, maybe I'll share this much more:

If there can exist a resultant reaction to the gravity induced (equal) action of a pair of masses with an acceleration greater than that of their orbit, perpetual motion is possible.

That's my contention. I think it's possible. I'm going to attempt a model in the next couple of days.

Gene

 

[AgingYoung]

Simon Bridge,
Earlier I said:

The current idea that I'm looking at is rather interesting. If you were to take a single weight and rotate it 360 degrees you'd find that the center of gravity between 1-179 minus the cog between 181-359 would be zero. It would be balanced. At every moment the cog on the left side of the wheel would have a corresponding cog on the right that is equidistant from a perpendicular thru the center. The idea that I'm looking at has a net difference on the descending side of the wheel (1-179) as the moment arm rotates clockwise. The difference between the cog's moves very slightly to the right of center at about 3 degrees (maybe about 2%) then at 90 degrees extends to the right by about 50% for about 20 degrees. After that the cog's are balanced. I think that's a significant amount and quite possibly able to cause the wheel to accelerate.

I constructed a model of this on a disc of cardboard with weights of marbles. The mechanism is hot melt glued to drinking straws and everything that pivots does so on straight pins. My initial assessment of where the centers of gravity were was incorrect. I more accurately looked at them and the following is closer to what's going on:

1. 80.......10%
2. 90.......10%
3. 91.......18%
4. 95.......36%
5. 100.......50%
6. 110.......72%

I'll try and describe what I've measured and maybe someone that's good at math can give me their assessment of what it means. There is a center of gravity between the two weights (marbles) when they're closest to the center. As the weights rotate around the axis clockwise when they arrive at 80 degrees that center of gravity is displaced away from the center 10% of the original distance. There's no significant change in the cog until 91 degrees where the difference doubles. Then at 110 degrees the difference doubles again.

That accelerated change in the shift of cog remains there until it rotates to 250 degrees at which point it rapidly returns to its rest position. If I have another mechanism like this one 180 degrees out of phase with it, it will be at 70 degrees. And if the momentum of that initial accelerated pulse will carry the rotation another 10 degrees that out of phase mechanism will begin to pulse the wheel. It might be that I haven't given enough information to come to any conclusion one way or another. If you think I've lost a marble ....

I'd appreciate any comments except for maybe the ones about a lost marble.

A. Gene Young