Perpetual motion machine examination rules, please.

[Ducky]

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.

Ok but in this case there is no pushing the laws of physics. This is reinventing the wheel. I agree there should be questioning and inquiry, but why study something that has been studied to certainty? This is not questioning string theory to revolutionise physics, this is questioning basic physical happenings that are known to be fact.

It is a fact that entropy wins.

This is not developing a new jump, or supermarket.

This is beating one's head on the wall.

 

[AgingYoung]

It's a mathematical fact that a blackjack deck that is rich in high value cards, 9s, 10 values (10s, Jacks, Queens, Kings) and Aces, called a positive composition, gives the advantage to the player and the deck that is lacking in these cards, "negative composition", and are consequently rich in small cards will shift the advantage to the house

It's a skill but not too hard to acquire.

Do you honestly think several genereations of PhD's haven't thoroughly tried to do what you are doing?

If you're persuaded something is impossible you won't even attempt it so yes I'd say that most PhD's since Hermann Helmholtz (1847) won't be looking for perpetual motion. Hermann's idea that energy is conserved and can't be created nor destroyed was modified well after his death by hiroshima (matter and energy can be changed in form). Da Vinci felt the search of pmm's was like a search for the philosopher's stone yet he also said, 'the sun doesn't move'. Even Da Vinci could be wrong. I consider him one of the greatest minds that ever lived. He also had ideas about ppm. I considered one idea and later found out that he had drawn something quite similar. I suppose great minds think alike.

Davefoc,

That's pretty cool. Thank you very much. Any monies I get over one million (providing I solve this riddle) will be donated to Randi.


Fowlsound,

It's my head.


FortyTwo,

I'm a young man with a beautiful wife and good cashflow. Life's great.


Gene

 

[AgingYoung]

I've been considering how to mechanically connect 3 of the mechanisms that I've built together and an idea came to me. First let me say that I'm going to forgo the torque measurements that I contemplated with the cd that I have shots on. The reason I'm going to skip that is I've felt the difference in torque that these slight weights (14.86% of an ounce moving over a 2.375" radius) rotating around a common straight pin (diameter of 0.295") feels significant. At this point of my understanding it makes more sense to build a wheel than it does to analyze what I'm seeing. I waiver between understanding where I'm at and moving forward. Now I think I should move forward.

Now to the idea that came to me. Is it possible to beat the world record holder in the 100 meter dash? I can beat them yet with a stipulation. With that sipulation I can hold the world's record in the 100 meter dash. If you're a critcal thinker you'd jump to the idea, 'what's my stipulation?' If you're not you might be thinking, 'blarney.' My stipulation is that can I make '100 meters be 10 meters'. If you're not too much of a critical thinker you might be thinking, 'what in the world are you talking about?' ok, I'll just plain state it:

If you can instantaneously shrink distances you can accelerate mass beyond comprehension.

This is probably enough for now.

Gene

 

[andycal]

Late to the party... sorry

 

[AgingYoung]

Welcome to the feast of woo's, Andycal; grab a fork. I'd recommend you read the whole thread. I've taken the time to do that.

A. Gene Young

 

[AgingYoung]

If you can instantaneously shrink distances you can accelerate mass beyond comprehension.

Initially I thought that if what I was seeing was true you could change the amount of effort (foot/pounds at a given rpm's) pretty quickly from one side of a wheel to the other. Then I thought, well, there must be a flaw in what I'm thinking. I'm sure generations of PhD's wouldn't have missed something that simple. I'm going to have to model it before I decide for sure but right now I'd like to equivocate.

A. Gene Young

 

[rwguinn]

Ok but in this case there is no pushing the laws of physics. This is reinventing the wheel. I agree there should be questioning and inquiry, but why study something that has been studied to certainty? This is not questioning string theory to revolutionise physics, this is questioning basic physical happenings that are known to be fact.

It is a fact that entropy wins.

This is not developing a new jump, or supermarket.

This is beating one's head on the wall.

All due respect, Fowlsound--I have read enough of your stuff to know you are well-schooled in your field, and passsionate in your pursuit of woo-ism.
However--folks with a mechanical engineering bent are fiddlers. At least, the good ones are. Never satisfied with status quo, always trying to improve. We are the ones of whom it is said "At some point, it becomes necessary to shoot the engineers and begin production".
Now, AgingYoung is not going to whip-up on entropy. We all know that. He probably is intellectually aware of it, also. But he is hurting nobody, deluding no one (other than possibly himself), and taking no one in. He's not asking for financial backing (that I can tell), and if nothing else, he may come up with a better way to explain to folks that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
The philosophy that there is no sense beating your head against the wall is not a whole lot different in this engineer's eyes than the "No sense investigating because goddidit" philosophy of the ID group.
I have fought the "We've always done it this way" idea and philosophy since I started real-world engineering in 1975. I hate that phrase. I learn something every day. If AgingYoung keeps it up, he will learn things too. There is always the possibliity that a few of those bricks may crack. IF not, well, it always feels good when you quit hitting the wall with your head
As Andy Capp said "It's not doing better than average that keeps the average down"

 

[Mongrel]

All due respect, Fowlsound--I have read enough of your stuff to know you are well-schooled in your field, and passsionate in your pursuit of woo-ism.
However--folks with a mechanical engineering bent are fiddlers. At least, the good ones are. Never satisfied with status quo, always trying to improve. We are the ones of whom it is said "At some point, it becomes necessary to shoot the engineers and begin production".
Now, AgingYoung is not going to whip-up on entropy. We all know that. He probably is intellectually aware of it, also. But he is hurting nobody, deluding no one (other than possibly himself), and taking no one in. He's not asking for financial backing (that I can tell), and if nothing else, he may come up with a better way to explain to folks that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
The philosophy that there is no sense beating your head against the wall is not a whole lot different in this engineer's eyes than the "No sense investigating because goddidit" philosophy of the ID group.
I have fought the "We've always done it this way" idea and philosophy since I started real-world engineering in 1975. I hate that phrase. I learn something every day. If AgingYoung keeps it up, he will learn things too. There is always the possibliity that a few of those bricks may crack. IF not, well, it always feels good when you quit hitting the wall with your head
As Andy Capp said "It's not doing better than average that keeps the average down"

I'd like to add my small font of knowledge to pot even though I'm not technically versed and I can sympathise with both side of the argument

Yep, I can fully understand the fact that a lot of mechanica\science minded people are tinkerers. a lot of how we do things has been because someone has looked at a theory or sits there with a widget in his hand thinking "Can I make this better?". Often unfortunately the answer is no, but even then good things can come of it whether it sparks another idea, inadvertantly answers another question or, like Edison, the person learns 1 more way how not to make a widget.

But

Sometimes we do things the way we've always done them because it's the best way. I've come to hate such phrases as "Thinking outside the box" or the concept of changing something because "We've always done it like this, change is good" as it normally meant I was going to lose my job again. (yes it's an opinion but you're welcome to share it )
Unfortunately some things are going to stay the same, no matter how much you want them not to. The basic principles of the universe (as we know them) will stand tall no matter how much we rally at them, shout "It's unfair" or try to sneak past them to the fire exit will always be there.

Ok now I've got that out of my system a quick question (that may already have been answered) from the non-technical person. How is it possible to make a PMM while without frictionless bearings or room temperature superconductors?(if there's an electrical connection anywhere). Whilst I appreciate that this may be the same as saying "That's entropy at work, that is" as far as I can see without first solving either of these problems any PMM device is doomed to failure. At some point the device will need to have more energy applied from outside the system - therefore crossing the line from a "Perpetual motion machine" to an "incredibly efficient machine"

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Not unless the amount of magic energy is sufficient to compensate for the losses. With some left over.

 

[petre]

Well heck, I guess if I'm allowed to continue thinking the Bills will win the Superbowl some day, he's welcome to continue working on it. Tell ya what, when the Bills do win it I'll come back here, and when you've got a working model you come back here

 

[rwguinn]

I'd like to add my small font of knowledge to pot even though I'm not technically versed and I can sympathise with both side of the argument

<<<SNIP>>>>
But

Sometimes we do things the way we've always done them because it's the best way. I've come to hate such phrases as "Thinking outside the box" or the concept of changing something because "We've always done it like this, change is good" as it normally meant I was going to lose my job again. (yes it's an opinion but you're welcome to share it )
Unfortunately some things are going to stay the same, no matter how much you want them not to. The basic principles of the universe (as we know them) will stand tall no matter how much we rally at them, shout "It's unfair" or try to sneak past them to the fire exit will always be there.

and sometimes we do things the way we've always done them because we're too lazy, or too stubborn, or too miserly to look at other methods. That is the part I object to. Strenuously. and often

Ok now I've got that out of my system a quick question (that may already have been answered) from the non-technical person. How is it possible to make a PMM while without frictionless bearings or room temperature superconductors?(if there's an electrical connection anywhere). Whilst I appreciate that this may be the same as saying "That's entropy at work, that is" as far as I can see without first solving either of these problems any PMM device is doomed to failure. At some point the device will need to have more energy applied from outside the system - therefore crossing the line from a "Perpetual motion machine" to an "incredibly efficient machine"

Yes, PMM is doomed to failure, even with frictionless bearings and RT superconductors. Entropy will not be denied. But like collecting stamps or playing chess, it is an intellectual exercise that harms no one, and gives a great deal of satifaction to the one doing it.
And Ed knows, we can use some "incredibly efficient machines"....

 

[Powa]

I have a question. Does the energy required for the fan to spin come from the inside or outside the machine?

 

[Freethinker]

Anyone trying to develop a perpetual motion machine should first look at The Museum of Unworkable Devices for their idea: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

It will probably be there already, but maybe you have a new idea that they will be adding to their catalog soon.

You can also look here:http://www.richardclegg.org/htdocs/perpetual/perpetual.html

or here:http://www.crank.net/perpetual.html

Placing your device in a vacuum wouldn't prove anything. Batteries will work in a vacuum, as will solar panels and many other devices. It's easy to transfer power through the atmosphere or a vacuum, and it can be done through a box.

All of the discussion is moot unless you have a working model. Get busy, the JREF million is a pittance to what you would make in a week with this amazing device. Please don't waste our time by coming back in a few months saying you've almost got it working, with just a "few bugs" to work out. That's the standard operating procedure for PM "inventors".

 

[Ririon]

Yes, PMM is doomed to failure, even with frictionless bearings and RT superconductors. Entropy will not be denied. But like collecting stamps or playing chess, it is an intellectual exercise that harms no one, and gives a great deal of satifaction to the one doing it.
And Ed knows, we can use some "incredibly efficient machines"....

Personally, I would rather build some kind of renewable energy setup. I'd love to do something with hydrogen storage. (Not an option living in the city as I do now...) That way I would at least have a chance of having something actually working, and the challenge and satisfaction would be more than adequate. It would probably save the planet only slightly more than a PMM attempt (obviously doomed), but who cares. Let people have hobbies.

(Check out some articles from Home Power. Brilliant stuff!)

 

[homer]

Some good points here . Suppose I made a machine that was so carefully built that it would run for 20 years before running down . How could anybody disprove that this was not a perpetual motion machine in the short term ? Also it might be possible to make a machine that tapped into some less than obvious power source .Something like solar power might not have been obvious 100 years ago and such might be possible now.
Alright if anybody was that clever they would not be messing about here.

 

[FortyTwo]

Some good points here . Suppose I made a machine that was so carefully built that it would run for 20 years before running down . How could anybody disprove that this was not a perpetual motion machine in the short term ? Also it might be possible to make a machine that tapped into some less than obvious power source .Something like solar power might not have been obvious 100 years ago and such might be possible now.
Alright if anybody was that clever they would not be messing about here.

This is why it would be unacceptable not to permit an inspection of the machine. For an example of a machine that appears to run indefinitely with no apparent source of power, look up the Atmos Clock, which runs off of small fluctuations in ambient temperature.

 

[Mongrel]

and sometimes we do things the way we've always done them because we're too lazy, or too stubborn, or too miserly to look at other methods. That is the part I object to. Strenuously. and often



Yes, PMM is doomed to failure, even with frictionless bearings and RT superconductors. Entropy will not be denied. But like collecting stamps or playing chess, it is an intellectual exercise that harms no one, and gives a great deal of satifaction to the one doing it.
And Ed knows, we can use some "incredibly efficient machines"....

Fair enough. From my field of work too much damage was done by "change for the sake of change". I agree that sometimes a new perspective is needed and a voice saying "have you tried this?".

Saying that though if for whatever reason I, and hopefully you, had two engineers in front of me and I had to pick one would you rather have the "I tinker and try to improve efficiency" or the "I'm working on a device that breaks the fundamental laws of the universe as we know it"? Yes I agree, science is fuelled by people who ask "What if?" and "Are you sure?" but with our current knowledge if they can't ask "This seems too perfect, what am I missing?" then they should ask peers or build a model. Finding out why you got fooled is (I'd guess) a fair proportion of this sort of work. Occasionally it's finding something that has been previously undiscovered as in Homers Time machine/Solar Cell example, who'd a thought exposing Selinium to light produced Electrons, when we knew it happened and could replicate it we worked out why, over time our understanding has improved and it still doesn't breach any of the known laws.

I just wonder how any person versed in Physics\Engineering can delude themselves into thinking that they can "break the rules"?

 

[rwguinn]

Fair enough. From my field of work too much damage was done by "change for the sake of change". I agree that sometimes a new perspective is needed and a voice saying "have you tried this?".

Saying that though if for whatever reason I, and hopefully you, had two engineers in front of me and I had to pick one would you rather have the "I tinker and try to improve efficiency" or the "I'm working on a device that breaks the fundamental laws of the universe as we know it"? Yes I agree, science is fuelled by people who ask "What if?" and "Are you sure?" but with our current knowledge if they can't ask "This seems too perfect, what am I missing?" then they should ask peers or build a model. Finding out why you got fooled is (I'd guess) a fair proportion of this sort of work. Occasionally it's finding something that has been previously undiscovered as in Homers Time machine/Solar Cell example, who'd a thought exposing Selinium to light produced Electrons, when we knew it happened and could replicate it we worked out why, over time our understanding has improved and it still doesn't breach any of the known laws.

I just wonder how any person versed in Physics\Engineering can delude themselves into thinking that they can "break the rules"?

IF I'm funding it, I want results. I'll take the tinker. We can't get too fond of our theories to the exclusion of reality--we leave that to NASA. But if I'm playing around--well, I'll probably just tinker myself. Breaking the "Laws" of nature is not only a lesson in futility, the attempt can be fatal! No appeals, no last-minute reprieve from the Governor...

 

[Simon Bridge]

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.

heh heh heh - I had a go attaching an image but it didn't work. You havn't made your private e-mail available in your prifile so I cannot send it to you.

However, you're right - you cannot keep the com on one side of the axis, it will always swap sides at some point in the motion and in such a way as to completely balance the motion. The wheel I discribed would finish up rocking.

There is the same trouble with unbalanced torques in cyclic systems - the torques always swap around at some point in the motion.

But build away - the result will, at worst, be a work of art.

 

[AgingYoung]

When I was in 8th grade (iirc) in introductory physical science (ips) I learned that 'matter and energy can't be created nor destroyed; they can only be changed in form.' Everyone should have learned that. What I didn't know at the time and only recently learned was that it was Hermann Helmholtz's idea. Hermann's thought about the conservative nature of energy was that you can't get something from nothing but more importantly it was a philosophical assertion. He made this assertion based on the idea that there is a cause for everything and if there's not as much of a result as you'd expect from a cause you've lost some effort thru friction or some other sort of loss. His perspective was 'what you see is what there is.'

Hermann considered everything he looked at with this bias. I noticed that he wasn't above saying when he was wrong and if he honestly felt he was mistaken he would say as much. I'd say he was an honorable person. If he were aware of the manhattan project he would have been the first to amend his law of the conservation of energy to include matter. With all his curiosity and ability though Hermann wasn't looking for an answer contrary to his philosophical bent. He would consider things and explain them mathematically with the precision of an accountant and show that it was all there; the forces added up.

If Hermann instead looked at the idea of how can you get more force than is actually there he might have been able to solve this riddle. In a circuit with electromotive force (caused by some energy) you have a difference of potential that you put components in line with and 'power the circuit' (with that difference). Perhaps the circuit of mass, as it orbits with its various and different momentary forces acting in the field of gravity, can produce a gradient or difference of forces that can be applied to sustain its orbit; that is to power its rotation.

If you don't imagine something is possible and you're reasonably intelligent you won't waste your time looking to accomplish it. Yet if you're reasonably intelligent you should always know that there maybe things that you haven't considered. Skepticism isn't a denial of anything that differs from your perspective. Every intelligent person has their skepticisms.

Below are some thoughts I had as I was reading thru the thread. I was wondering where you went Simon. AGeneYoung@yahoo.com

Please don't waste our time by coming back in a few months saying you've almost got it working, with just a "few bugs" to work out. That's the standard operating procedure for PM "inventors".

...I have no control over what you do with your time.​

Ok but in this case there is no pushing the laws of physics.

...the laws of physics aren't immutable; they're our best understanding of the world we live in.​

I've come to hate such phrases as "Thinking outside the box"

...a favorite one frame cartoon (I haven't drawn it yet) is an x-ray picture of a cat with 2 mice in it's stomach. The one mouse says to the other, 'we need to think outside the cat.'​

The basic principles of the universe (as we know them) will stand tall no matter how much we rally at them, shout "It's unfair" or try to sneak past them to the fire exit will always be there.

...In that thought the key point is 'as we know them.' It's possible we don't know everything. I know it's remote yet still it's possible.​