• 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.

The mechanism isn't clear enough for me to evaluate it entirely, but I'm going to put in an early vote for failure to consider a compound lever. This is based on how I picture him using the drinking straws, the attention to the center of gravity, and the articulated overbalanced chain:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/frcm.htm
 
Desire said:
I'm outta here!
Click to expand...
Oh dear - ignorance factor increase! Warning! Warning!... (amnday!) Must you go? I could show you my flange collection? <wiggles eyebrows>

Ririon said:
Ah. Just nitpicking? Good. Carry on..
Click to expand...
...nitpicking? OK: about that T-Shirt you keep wearing...

AgingYoung: I'm afraid I cannot make head-nor-tail of your data without seeing the model. Could you take a photo and/or provide a drawing and post to my private e-mail? (See my profile.)
 
Simon Bridge,

Not today. Tomorrow's not looking too good either. It's very likely that the model won't work. That's been the history for most people. Currently I'm batting zero also. On the other hand if it would work it's worth a million dollars as a model that proves that gravity isn't a conservative force. I'd hesitate to share that with anyone until I entered the competition. I hope you can understand that Simon. I do think that if it manages to work that the Randi site is going to be deluged with traffic. They might have to order extra servers. If you've never donated to them this might be a good time to consider it. They're going to need some extra help and equipment. It will be quite an event and the publicity it will generate will be unreal. I can always dream.

Petre,

I looked at the articulated overbalanced chain. Man what a nightmare. I'm glad they put a simplified description at the end of that. One difference between what I'm doing and it is the amount of weight going up and down. In that chain there's less weight going up than coming down. I wish that were the case in what I'm doing yet it isn't. Another difference is where the leverage is at. In my design there is less leverage going up than coming down. The chain is the opposite of that. In the chain since there is more leverage going up the less amount of weight effectively balances the more weight coming down that is trying to drive the less weight going up. In my design equal amounts of weight have more leverage coming down than it does going up.

I also looked at the The Roberval Balance. Very neat idea. It eliminates any torque that the weight would have. That's also not the case with my design. I can feel the difference in torque that two marbles exert on either side of a disc with a diameter of 11 inches. It's a noticeable difference. Also the design isn't that of a compound lever.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on it, Petre.

Gene
 
AgingYoung said:
Simon Bridge,

Not today. Tomorrow's not looking too good either. It's very likely that the model won't work. That's been the history for most people. Currently I'm batting zero also. On the other hand if it would work it's worth a million dollars as a model that proves that gravity isn't a conservative force. I'd hesitate to share that with anyone until I entered the competition. I hope you can understand that Simon. I do think that if it manages to work that the Randi site is going to be deluged with traffic. They might have to order extra servers. If you've never donated to them this might be a good time to consider it. They're going to need some extra help and equipment. It will be quite an event and the publicity it will generate will be unreal. I can always dream.
Click to expand...


Out of curiosity, do you see how the gambler's fallacy might apply to this line of thought?
 
Hmmm... I can imagine a disk with two weights - if both weights were the same distance from the center then the torques would balance. Since the torques are different to feel, then they must be different distances from the center.

I can imagine a mechanism, say I put the weights on cog-wheels that rotate with the rotation of the main disk and each other. They could be aligned so that the right-hand (say) weight is always further away.

Is this the sort of thing?

It could be done with any number of weights, each on their own little wheel. The path each weight takes is circular, with center always offset from the center of the main disk.
 
Last edited:
Fowlsound,

I don't think the odds are changing for me to have solved this problem. I think there's a very high probability that I'm overlooking something. I have a friend that has an idea that I'm sure won't work yet he can't see it. I've described in great detail why it won't yet he still can't see it. His fallacy is similar to the articulate chain where he requires less leverage moving up than he has coming down. It is very likely that I'm overlooking something but it doesn't cost much to make the sort of models that I do. They're like a dynamic scale or analog computer that sums up the forces moment by moment. Even if I'm mistaken that scale won't be.

When I told Simon not today and tomorrow's not looking too good what I meant was I had no plans on letting them see a picture of what I'm doing. Although some things are way over my little woo head a million dollars isn't.

Simon,

I don't think it's possible to make the center of gravity always further from the center on one side than it is on the other. If you like you can post a picture and I'll tell you what I think. :)

Gene
 
Last edited:
Actually none of those ideas are even close. I've seen quite a few ideas and there isn't anything I've seen that looks like what I'm building. Thanks for the comments

A Gene...

I tried to post the image from that site with the spiraling teardrop water vessels (3 chambers) that radiate from the middle of the circle. I think that describes the nature of most overbalanced wheels. The author of the site states:
Perpetual motion wheels are invariably cyclic, that is, all motions of the wheel and its parts are repeated exactly during each complete revolution. So if a weight moves to a larger radius once per cycle, it must also be pulled back to the original radius later during the cycle. The work done in changing the radius by a certain amount from large to small is equal and opposite to the work done in changing the radius by the same amount from small to large. We gain no net energy per cycle.
Click to expand...

To me that sounds like a really good pat answer that can be offered to most anyone that is trying to make an over blananced wheel. That doesn't describe what I'm presently looking at though. The models I make are tedious yet very inexpensive to make. Can't hurt to try. It's a cheap harmless hobby.
 
Last edited:
OK. I was having trouble visualizing what you were describing, but it sounded like an overbalanced wheel so I thought I'd post the link.
 
AgingYoung said:
The models I make are tedious yet very inexpensive to make. Can't hurt to try. It's a cheap harmless hobby.
Click to expand...

It is a waste of time though. No matter what you do, entropy will win. Entropy ALWAYS wins. You might be better off employing your design energies toward something that may ultimately be useful.
 
FortyTwo
It is a waste of time though. No matter what you do, entropy will win. Entropy ALWAYS wins. You might be better off employing your design energies toward something that may ultimately be useful.
Click to expand...
You are overlooking a couple of things. A key thing you're overlooking is who's time. Since it's mine I should be the one to determine if I waste it or not or in fact if it is a waste of time. The skill developed to make these models is like cross training and can be practice for other things. It really isn't a waste of time as I see it. I've done circuit board repair and that can be very tedious work. Making these models or instruments is comparable and good practice.

Of all the sites posted here since I've posted the one I've enjoyed the most was by Genesius, (w.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/overbal.htm). The author of the site distilled a rule of thumb that can be used to evaluate most over balanced wheels
work required to gain leverage by moving weight away from the axis is consumed to move weight back to the axis (less friction)
Click to expand...
I paraphrased that rule of thumb. I think in most cases that's the truth. If it weren't for 2 key ideas that I'm attempting to model I'd have to agree with that rule of thumb. Instead of taking that quoted idea and looking at it as a good reason to not consider an overbalanced wheel I consider the idea and think about how to get around it.

I think the two ideas I'm considering might be a way around what seems so obvious. Now if I never attempt it I'll never know. If I never attempt it based on someone elses conclusions I'll be letting them do my thinking for me. I don't dismiss the ideas of great minds but I do like to know why they came to the conclusions they did. I'm certain that a lot of work went into those conclusions. When I can see the reasoning I can save a lot of work. If I accept the conclusions I can limit my imagination by them. In other words why consider something that's obviously impossible? If I notice something that was missed in the reasoning I can take their work and build on it; I can stand on the back of a giant and see a little further.

Gene
 
Genesius,
I like your quote...
"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the same extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." - H. L. Mencken
Click to expand...
I think my wife is beautiful because when we're in public she turns men's heads. Is that what Mencken was driving at? I'm sure they're not looking at me.

Gene....
 
AgingYoung said:
FortyTwo
You are overlooking a couple of things. A key thing you're overlooking is who's time. Since it's mine I should be the one to determine if I waste it or not or in fact if it is a waste of time. The skill developed to make these models is like cross training and can be practice for other things. It really isn't a waste of time as I see it. I've done circuit board repair and that can be very tedious work. Making these models or instruments is comparable and good practice.
Click to expand...

While you are correct that the value of time spent pursuing something that will ultimately fail, regardless of how well you perform is certainly determined solely by you. I would not deny you the pleasure of the frustration.

However, there are many other pastimes that can provide training in detailed, and tedious, operations which would potentially result in successful completion of the endeavor as well as gaining the skills incidental to the activity.

Model building and clock/watchmaking come to mind. Just a suggestion.

Have you done any mathematical modeling of your device to determine whether it is even theoretically possible that it might work?
 
AgingYoung said:
Fowlsound,

I don't think the odds are changing for me to have solved this problem. I think there's a very high probability that I'm overlooking something. I have a friend that has an idea that I'm sure won't work yet he can't see it. I've described in great detail why it won't yet he still can't see it. His fallacy is similar to the articulate chain where he requires less leverage moving up than he has coming down. It is very likely that I'm overlooking something but it doesn't cost much to make the sort of models that I do. They're like a dynamic scale or analog computer that sums up the forces moment by moment. Even if I'm mistaken that scale won't be.

When I told Simon not today and tomorrow's not looking too good what I meant was I had no plans on letting them see a picture of what I'm doing. Although some things are way over my little woo head a million dollars isn't.

Simon,

I don't think it's possible to make the center of gravity always further from the center on one side than it is on the other. If you like you can post a picture and I'll tell you what I think. :)

Gene
Click to expand...



You're missing my point. In the end, the house always wins. The house in this case being entropy. That you would further persue it saying "ah! almost got it" is akin to the logical fallacy of someone playnig the lottery that says "I matched on number! I almost got it!"
 
This thread is interesting to me in a variety of ways. I thought I might share a few of them while we are waiting for AgingYoung to provide us further word on the status of his PMM.

When I was in college, I lived briefly with my aunt and uncle. My uncle was a bright, personable fellow (I felt he was charismatic) who had made his living through a variety of entrepreneurial ventures. One day, after I had come home he talked to me about an idea for a PMM that he had that he thought I should pursue. I am sorry to say that I don't remember what it was, but I do remember my reaction, which was one of total amazement that anybody that was as bright as my uncle would even consider the possibility of a PMM. I hope that I was diplomatic when I told him of my doubts about the feasibility of his device. My aunt and uncle were very good to me, but I am afraid that tact was not one of my strengths back then (and perhaps not now if you would like my wife's opinion on the matter).

Which kind of segues into describing my own feelings about this matter. The law of the conservation of energy always made perfect sense to me. I think I accepted it not because of any detailed analysis or grand review of the empirical evidence. I just accepted it, perhaps because of my general overall view of life that there was indeed no such thing as a free lunch. Since forming a view on the matter long enough ago that I have no recollection of the time or the circumstances, a technical carreer and a general interest in science has only strengthened my belief in the law of the conservation of energy. But the law can not be exactly right. Everyday with absolute certainty we see evidence that the law of conservation of energy was violated at least once otherwise from whence we came? So if it happened once, perhaps it could happen again?

Which roughly leads into my thoughts about AgingYoung. My initial reaction when I saw that he was serious (and decided that he wasn't a complete wacko) was to attempt to convince him of the futility of his quest. But to what purpose? Lots of people enjoy pursuits which in the end have little benefit (anybody tracked how much the world is better off because I managed 82 free cell games in a row without a loss?). And there is always the possibility that AgingYoung might find something of interest because he takes the path less traveled even if it in the end has little to do with PMM's. And truth be told my view that the law of conservation of energy is absolutely correct is religious like in some ways and it would be a touch hypocritical of me to claim my religion is absolutely correct given my skepticism of other people's religion.

So, assuming Pat Roberts is right that God has struck down Sharon for giving up the Gaza Strip, perhaps we should keep an open mind about AgingYoung's PMM.
 
Fowlsound
You're missing my point. In the end, the house always wins. The house in this case being entropy. That you would further persue it saying "ah! almost got it" is akin to the logical fallacy of someone playnig the lottery that says "I matched on number! I almost got it!"
Click to expand...
My reasoning for considering the matter isn't that I almost have it, that I 'matched on number'. My reasoning is that I see something that I think might have been overlooked.

Although the house always wins if you time the size of your contribution to the pot in spite of the fact that the house will win more times than you it's possible to increase your chips. That's readily seen by playing blackjack and counting the cards. You can increase your odds of winning more jack even though you won't increase your chance of winning more often. It's a skill.


FortyTwo,

In the model making of these tedious, clock-like mechanisms that I build (all the while maintaining my skill in doing tedious and precise work) I've stumbled upon a mechanism that is gravity actuated that significantly shifts the center of gravity to one side of the wheel for about 20 degrees. This shift takes place at 90 degrees where the sine is 1 and torque is maximum. Also this shift isn't the product of a compound lever or hindered as in articulated overbalanced chain. In the articulated overbalanced chain the greater leverage fights the mechanism and balances the sides because it occurs on the ascending side of the wheel. Gravity also causes the mechanism to shift the cog back toward the center.

I do have a cad program that I could use to do a more extensive math analysis. Maybe I should replace the cpu in a box I have and load that cad program on it. But then I'd be cheating myself out of this tedious clock-like model making.


Davefoc,

I've managed to make one mechanism on a cd using shot for weights. I've decided to use that one to take some torque measurements and actually build the model on cd's with marbles. I think the cog movement is significant but maybe a comparison of the momentary torques around 360 degrees would be helpful also.

Gene
 
AgingYoung said:
FowlsoundMy reasoning for considering the matter isn't that I almost have it, that I 'matched on number'. My reasoning is that I see something that I think might have been overlooked.

Although the house always wins if you time the size of your contribution to the pot in spite of the fact that the house will win more times than you it's possible to increase your chips. That's readily seen by playing blackjack and counting the cards. You can increase your odds of winning more jack even though you won't increase your chance of winning more often. It's a skill.
Click to expand...

Who over looked it? Do you honestly think several genereations of PhD's haven't thoroughly tried to do what you are doing? Are you so arrogant as to assume you can somehow create a revolutionary machine that defies everthing known about the physical world?

Again you missed the point of my analogy. You will continue to place your bet and try try again to create this, and you will end up losing to the laws of physics. If you don't understand how it is I know this, please consult a high school physics book.



ETA: your blackjack example is the gambler's fallacy personified, by the way. did you even read the link? On a long enough timeline, ALL gambling leads to the house winning.
 
Last edited:
fowlshound,
I share your view that is approaching certainty that any mechanism such as AgingYoung is proposing will not succeed.

Still, I probably would have said something to Fosbury like what you said to AgingYoung if Fosbury had told me that he had an idea to revolutionize high jumping by changing the technique. Hundred's of thousands of people before you have high jumped, many of them dedicated experts and not one of them did what you are proposing. How arrogant can you be to think you have a valuable idea that hasn't already been tried by people with a lot more experience in this than you have.

I am sure I would have said something like that to Sam Walton when he was founding Wal-Mart.

Of course, this case is different. My sense of it is that there is almost no chance that we are wrong in the case of a PMM and in the two cases I mentioned above I just would have thought it was very unlikely I was wrong.

Still, in the end is the world better off if people like AgingYoung are convicnced that it is futile to try their idea or is the world better off if people like AgingYoung try out their idea and maybe they find something interesting along the way that we didn't expect and would never have been found if everybody just went down the path of trying to do things that weren't precluded by the current known rules of physics?

I would like AgingYoung to know that I really hope he succeeds and as part of that I hereby pledge that if he wins the million for his gadget, I will personally chip in another 100 bucks. So make that 1,000,100 dollars up for grabs if you develop a successful PMM, AgingYoung.
 
AgingYoung said:
In the model making of these tedious, clock-like mechanisms that I build (all the while maintaining my skill in doing tedious and precise work) I've stumbled upon a mechanism that is gravity actuated that significantly shifts the center of gravity to one side of the wheel for about 20 degrees. This shift takes place at 90 degrees where the sine is 1 and torque is maximum. Also this shift isn't the product of a compound lever or hindered as in articulated overbalanced chain. In the articulated overbalanced chain the greater leverage fights the mechanism and balances the sides because it occurs on the ascending side of the wheel. Gravity also causes the mechanism to shift the cog back toward the center.
Click to expand...

I look forward to congratulating you on your JREF Challenge win and your subsequent Nobel prize. Until then, entropy is depleting both your bank and your life accounts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom