Perpetual motion machine examination rules, please.

[Simon Bridge]

I'm attempting to vary torque by using gravity to accelerate mass faster than the rate of the wheel to a point on the wheel where it would have more force (higher point on the sine wave) then using gravity to decelerate that mass back where it came from. When the mass is accelerating and decelerating their movement is independent of the wheel.

This is an unusual use of the words "accelerate" and "decelerate".

You want to free-fall a mass to a longer lever arm, hoping that the wheel is turning slower. Then another part of the motion, the mass free-falls back? I think this gives me a good picture of your machine... or one using the same principles.

I dare say you would get a larger torque with weights in the positions you expect. However, in normal operation, the weight won't be there. There will be at least one weight which will be in a place that will look odd to you.

You've got to figure the dynamics. How do the weights get there by small steps... ?

It's a bit like the chess problem - how do you get a check-mate with just two knights? You can set up the mated position, but there is no way to actually get there without a stalemate on the way.

 

[Simon Bridge]

We used 'pounds' both as a mass and a force unit by specifying them as 'pound-force' (lbf) and 'pound-mass' (lbm). Obviously, when using them in an equation, one had to enter a conversion factor, which was 32.2 ft-lbm/lbf-sec2 (=1) (Sorry, I don't know how to use TeX). Leave off that conversion factor and you get some interesting answers.

So you are saying that the mass of 1lb would have a weight of 32.2lb (using lb as both force and mass) ... this way a force of 1lb pushing on a mass of 1lb would give you 1ft/s/s acceleration?

No wonder you needed the m and f suffix to tell the units apart.
The conversion factor is needed to get the right dimentions.

However, this is an engineering convention. It's done for mathematical convenience. One of the good reasons for adopting the SI system is that confusion about the uses of the units goes away and you can actually land your Mars rovers with international cooperation.

 

[AgingYoung]

Simon,
Thank you for your input. You've got a pretty good idea of how I'm attempting this. One thing I've done to track the motion is to take a cardboard representation of the masses then figure the center of mass and punch a straight pin thru that. Then I spin the cardboard (around a straight pin) on top of a piece of bond paper a degree or two then poke a hole thru where the center of mass is. I adjust the center of mass as the masses move. It ends up being a trail of punched holes that the center tracks. It's kind of crude. I have a demo copy of working model 2D that I could use. It would be a lot more accurate and probably faster.

Gene

 

[AgingYoung]

Simon,
I have a computer that accumulated a lot of dust on the heat sink of the cpu and I suspect cooked it. I'm planning on taking it to Fryes and having them replace the cpu. Then I'm going to load wm2d on it and do some accurate modeling. You've made a very good point and I appreciate it. If it is a stalemate I want to see that yet if I find it isn't I plan on upgrading my modeling ability and produce one. I mentioned my computer that fried because most people don't pay attention to the inside of their box and that heat can mess up your day. A can of compressed air is less expensive than a cpu.

Hitch,
Ford started out with a very low budget. He would use the time and material at Edison Electric to work on the automobile. Hewlett and Packard begin tinkering in their garage. Keeping expenses down when working on an idea is a good idea. I think google still uses used servers and look what they've managed. Ultimately it's not your income that is important yet it's how much you get to put in that discretionary fund that counts. If I had about 10K in discretionary funds I might look around for a used milling machine.

One thing I've used cardboard for is to model nonworking yet moving ideas so I could see where things would move in 3 dimensions. I use clay for mold making and also to help me visualize in 3d. Making models with these materials is frustrating though because at times I'm expecting a perfect balance and I let the model drop and it's sure not balanced. I can get the level of accuracy to 1/64th or so but it would be nice to hit that 1/1000 level. When I get wm2d up and running I can get it beyond 1/1000. That should eliminate a lot of excuses.

Gene

 

[IXP]

A free falling mass should fall 32 feet in one second.

Please go back and read your high school physics book, starting at chapter 1. A free falling body in the earth's gravitational field will fall approximately 16 feet in the first second, and will then be travelling at a velocity of approximately 32 feet per second. No wonder you think you can make a perpetual motion machine work!

IXP

 

[AgingYoung]

ixp,

You must not have read the last page. I was a little tired when I posted that. Robert has already made the point you just repeated. I explained after that I wasn't calculating any particular rate yet only expected to see more than one inch in 3 seconds. It's kind of funny that you half way read something then come to the conclusion that someone needs to reread something.

I believe that within creation that small acts of creation are possible. I think that in the intersection of the straight line force of gravity (for all practical purposes it acts in straight lines on earth) and the circular orbit of masses on a wheel there exists moments that the resultant forces can be applied to the rotation to cause that rotation to continue (and probably do some work) and resultant moments where the masses can't overcome that sustained rotation.

Because of the philosophical views of Hermann Helmholtz we have the understanding that what you see is what there is. I have a different philosophy. I think that there might be more than what you see; there's more to things than meets the eye. But we'll see.

Gene

 

[Simon Bridge]

Please go back and read your high school physics book, starting at chapter 1. A free falling body in the earth's gravitational field will fall approximately 16 feet in the first second, and will then be travelling at a velocity of approximately 32 feet per second.
IXP

I would be pleased to see better physics in this thread. I think if folk are going to get emotional, condescending or just plain rude when correcting someone, they should at least get the correction right.

Bodies accelerate in the earth's gravitational feild, at least at first.

A compact body without significant air resistance (btw: a marble - glass sphere approx 0.45in diameter - has significant air resistance), realeased from rest, will, indeed, fall about 16' in the first second. But will accelerate at around 32' per second every second.

Draw a v-t graph and you get a trianglular shape. The displacement for this motion is the area under the graph and the acceleration is the slope. So the total distance fallen is [latex]$d=\frac{vt}{2}$[/latex].

At the end of the first second, the speed is 32fps, for a distance of 16ft. After two seconds the speed is 64fps, for a distance of 64ft fallen. This makes a distance of 64ft-16ft=48ft further. After the third second, the speed is 96fps. This makes: 96fps *3s/2 = 144ft or a further 80 feet. Need I go on?

Note: Chapter 1 of my High School Text book (Tipler, Paul "Physics" 2nd Ed; 1982 Worth Publishers) is entitled "Introduction". This is the text I use for teaching physics at high schools around NZ. (Though I note that Paul used it for 1st year Physics at Oakland.)

In general: try to to get too shirty when correcting someone's mistakes. We are all entitled to them... try to think how you would like someone to point out your errors to you...

 

[Ririon]

I would be pleased to see better physics in this thread. I think if folk are going to get emotional, condescending or just plain rude when correcting someone, they should at least get the correction right.

...

At the end of the first second, the speed is 32fps, for a distance of 16ft. After two seconds the speed is 64fps, for a distance of 64ft fallen. This makes a distance of 64ft-16ft=48ft further. After the third second, the speed is 96fps. This makes: 96fps *3s/2 = 144ft or a further 80 feet. Need I go on?

...

No. (And that's 145' at 3 s, btw... Not 144' )

 

[IXP]

I would be pleased to see better physics in this thread. I think if folk are going to get emotional, condescending or just plain rude when correcting someone, they should at least get the correction right.

And you, my friend, would benefit from reading a post before you attack it as being incorrect. What I stated was exactly the same thing as your "correction": that at the end of one second the body will have moved 16 ft, and be moving at 32 ft/sec. I have no idea why you would say this is incorrect and then repeat it. Please explain.

IXP

 

[AgingYoung]

Please go back and read your high school physics book, starting at chapter 1.

High school physics was a little while ago yet as I recall the first term we were looking at the force of friction and a few other things. It was quite a ways after the first chapter that we covered the acceleration of gravity as I remember but as I said it was quite a while ago. The real point is that you're making a point that was already covered. Also considering that I waited 3 seconds that mass should really have been cooking but it only moved an inch. Simon elaborated on acceleration and also the idea of drag. Beginning skydivers reach a terminal velocity of about 120 mph but experienced ones can hit close to 200 mph by minimizing drag (piking).

I good point that Simon made is that anyone can make a mistake. It's one of the characteristics of being human. You are human aren't you?

Gene

 

[Simon Bridge]

IXP said: "will fall approximately 16 feet in the first second, and will then be travelling at a velocity of approximately 32 feet per second"

IXP claims to have said: "at the end of one second the body will have moved 16 ft, and be moving at 32 ft/sec"

OK - you meant readers to take this to mean that the instantanious speed will be 32ft/sec ... not that it would continue it's motion at a constant speed.

Can you see that either interpretation is possible? (When you said "travelling" in the first instance - it looked like you were saying that the long-term motion was at a speed of 32ft/sec. This would be consistent with the normal use of travelling to indicate a journey.) I susect we are victims of the imprecise nature of idiomatic English.

Of course - 32ft/sec is a "speed" (which is a scalar) not a "velocity" (which is a vector). This is forgiven since the direction is pretty obvious

Which is the point really - I'd be happier of the physics was better. To express the physics of a falling body better you would have said that the distance fallen was 16ft and it would have reached a speed of 32ft/sec. Pointing out that it continues to accelerate would have been worth bonus marks.

Normally I wouldn't have been so critical. It's just that I was struck by the arrogance of the remark, and I wanted to beat a little humility and compassion into you. Did it work?

[post edit] Some may notice that I did not give similar treatment to AgingYoung's initial mistakes - perhaps this is hypocritical? The difference, say I, is that AgingYoung does not claim to know any better and is not (at least overtly) arrogant. We know what he means, and while I have been known to nitpick on occasion I don't like to totally put off the paranormal folk. They tend to be skittish and need to be handled more gently than a scientific skeptic.[/post edit]

And Ririon said:"No. (And that's 145' at 3 s, btw... Not 144' )"

Interesting - perhaps you can spot the mistake in the following analysis:
... the displacement is the area under the v-t graph, which is a triangle in this example (falling from rest at t=0, no air resistance). So the equation for the distance travelled will be half-the-base times the-height ...

the base = time elapsed = 3 seconds
the height = final speed = 3 times 32ft/s = 96ft/s
the area = distance fallen = 0.5x3sx(3x32ft/s)=144ft

via octave:

simon@infrared:~$ octave
GNU Octave, version 2.1.71 (i486-pc-linux-gnu).
Additional information about Octave is available at http://www.octave.org.

octave:1> 0.5*3*(32*3)
ans = 144
octave:2> exit

... how did you get 145? What did I miss?

 

[rwguinn]

the base = time elapsed = 3 seconds
the height = final speed = 3 times 32ft/s = 96ft/s
the area = distance fallen = 0.5x3sx(3x32ft/s)=144ft

via octave:

simon@infrared:~$ octave
GNU Octave, version 2.1.71 (i486-pc-linux-gnu).
Additional information about Octave is available at http://www.octave.org.

octave:1> 0.5*3*(32*3)
ans = 144
octave:2> exit

... how did you get 145? What did I miss?

it's 32.2 ft/sec for 3 seconds=144.9 ft traveled..
I snipped the nit-picks from your post. In american english, moving and traveling are synonyms.

 

[vcrepair]

Acceleration formulas

Here are some basic formulas for finding velocity and distance an object falls at constant acceleration.

Metric units are 9.81 meters/second/second acceleration with earth gravity

1 Newton of force accelerates 1 KG of mass at 1 meter/sec^2

1 Newton of force * 1 meter distance = 1 Newton-meter or Joule or Watt-second. (NOTE: "-" is a hyphen, not subtraction

**************
kinetic energy of a moving mass is 1/2 * m * v^2
joules, m is mass in kg and v is velocity in meters/sec.

Momentum is a *vector*, with basic SI units of kg-m/sec.

Rotational momentum is p = J x w, where J is the
moment of inertia (same as used for calculating rotational
kinetic energy).

KE of rotationally moving objects
equation KE = 0.5 x J x w^2, where J = moment of
inertia (rotational analog of mass, related to the
object's mass and its distribution around the axis of
rotation), an w = rotational speed, radians/second.

Acceleration is the change in velocity/time
Earth gravity acceleration is about 32 feet/sec^2
or 9.81 meters/sec^2. That means that velocity
of something falling without wind resistance or other
force, will increase 32 feet per second, every second
or 9.81 meters/second, every second. Stopping or
deceleration is calculated the same.

v is velocity, d/t, meters/second or feet/second
d is distance
a is acceleration, change in velocity/time, m/s^2
t is time in seconds

v= at, t = v/a, a=v/t, d = 1/2at^2, t= 2d/v,
t = (2d/a)^0.5 {sqrt}, d = 1/2v^2/a,
a = 1/2v^2/d, v = (2ad)^0.5 {sqrt}
d = vt for constant velocity


Using same units such as A = 32 feet per second^2,
in two seconds the distance traveled would be
1/2 * 32 feet/sec^2 * 2 sec^2 = 64 feet or
1/2 * 9.8 m/s^2 * 2 sec^2 = 19.6 meters

 

[Simon Bridge]

it's 32.2 ft/sec for 3 seconds=144.9 ft traveled..
I snipped the nit-picks from your post. In american english, moving and traveling are synonyms.

OK - If we're nitpicking then. I was using the figures given me by IXP
OTOH: I was also demonstrating the point I was trying to make about arrogant comments. Confronted by a contradiction, I posted my derivation and asked for a correction rather than just say "Hey: you're wrong! Nyah nyah nyah!"

And got to learn something as a result.

Had I made a more confrontational responce, you'd probably be less forthcoming (or at least less polite about it.)

Interestingly I see some books about here quote the acceleration of gravity as 33ft/s/s ... I would usually use SI units and quote it at 9.8m/s/s though I have personally measured this to 9.8368+/-0.00007m/s/s via careful measurements of a pendulum.

Fun isn't it?

 

[Ririon]

OK - If we're nitpicking then. I was using the figures given me by IXP
...
Fun isn't it?

Yeah, just nit-picking the nit-picker...

And the pendulum experiment is fun, too.

g varies slightly with location. For us SI people it is around 9.8 m/s². IIRC, the "standard" value (probably some kind of world average) used is 9.80665 m/s². What that is in imperial feet and american seconds, biblical cubits and elbonian hourglasses, you'll just have to figure out for yourselves.

 

[IXP]

IXP said: "will fall approximately 16 feet in the first second, and will then be travelling at a velocity of approximately 32 feet per second"
...
OK - you meant readers to take this to mean that the instantanious speed will be 32ft/sec ... not that it would continue it's motion at a constant speed.

Of course I meant readers to think that I was referring to the instantaneous speed.

The primary definition of "then" (try dictionary.com for instance). is "at that time". The defintion of "thereafter' is "from a specific time onward".

You misintpreted "then" to mean "thereafter". Don't criticise my physics when your English is at fault.

IXP

 

[pmurray]

Of course, the easiest way to do this might be to just describe exactly what it is that I've got here. So, essentially what it is is a big (6'X6'X2' standing up) box that has a small hole in its side from which a shaft protrudes to which a fan is attached. I know, a little garbled. But its a box with a fan sticking out of it and the fan turns. And... it requires no fuel... obviously.

How do you intent to demonstrate that you don't simply have a few car batteries in the box? A stack of batteries gould keep that fan going for an awfully long time, so to prove that your machine was "perpetual", the JREF would have to have it under surveilance for longer than any possible fuel source in the box could drive it.

I mean, to take the sillyest case, let's pretend there was a "Mr Fusion" fuel cell in the box, which converts water into power via nuclear fusion, and that the box was full of water. It could keep your fan going for centuries.

Without being able to examne the device to ensure that there's no fuel being consumed, that's how long the JREF would have to surveil it for. It's just not feasible.

 

[Simon Bridge]

Of course I meant readers to think that I was referring to the instantaneous speed.

The primary definition of "then" (try dictionary.com for instance). is "at that time". The defintion of "thereafter' is "from a specific time onward".

You misintpreted "then" to mean "thereafter". Don't criticise my physics when your English is at fault.

IXP

OK from www.dictionary.com

then Audio pronunciation of "then" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thn)
adv.

1. At that time: I was still in school then. Come at noon; I'll be ready then.
2. Next in time, space, or order; immediately afterward: watched the late movie and then went to bed.
3. In addition; moreover; besides: It costs $20, and then there's the sales tax to pay.
4. Used after but to qualify or balance a preceding statement: The star was nervous, but then who isn't on the first night of a new play.
5. In that case; accordingly: If traffic is heavy, then allow extra time.
6. As a consequence; therefore: The case, then, is closed.

Of course, I used the complete Oxford English dictionary, which puts example 2 first. (At least the one on my shelf behind me does.)

The "at that time" is exemplified by past tense statements. None of the examples refer to a moment in time, which would be implied by "at that instant" or "instantanious".

Your meaning, as you wrote it, best fits #2: "next in time" ... the object falls 16 feet and then (next in time) travels at 32 fps.

Both interpretations have their troubles, so I look to the rest of the statement for context. This helps seperate the meanings. This is important as I guessed you were speaking informally and with some emotion. Of course, I could have just used a dictionary and then opted for the most common usage - but note: my dictionary agrees with me.

To my (English) mind, when you also described the motion as "travel", there was the implication of a journey - ongoing motion. Also from dictionary.com:

trav·el Audio pronunciation of "travel" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trvl)
v. trav·eled, or trav·elled trav·el·ing, or trav·el·ling trav·els or trav·els
v. intr.

1. To go from one place to another, as on a trip; journey.
2. To go from place to place as a salesperson or agent.
3. To be transmitted, as light or sound; move or pass.
4. To advance or proceed.
5. To go about in the company of a particular group; associate: travels in wealthy circles.
6. To move along a course, as in a groove.
7. To admit of being transported without loss of quality; Some wines travel poorly.
8. Informal. To move swiftly.
9. Basketball. To walk or run illegally while holding the ball.

See what I mean? There is a definate sence of continued motion in most of these uses.

However, I am assured by other Yanks that the word "travel" is synonymous with "move" for informal speach. For the sake of peace, I am prepared to accept that we are being divided by a common language here However, consider the following:

I got in my car, headed out onto the highway, and traveled at 50kmph.

Would you expect folk to consider "then" to mean "at that time" or "after 'I headed out'"? Would you expect folk to consider that I had an instantanious speed of 50kmph (and that I was still accelerating) or that I traveled at a constant 50kmph (or perhaps an average 50kmph - with minor variations)? How do you think most people would understand that statement?

In fact - lets ask them: Most People? How would you understand that statement? Don't be shy - we can learn something about the international understanding of English here and maybe help improve communication on this board and in our lives. Anyone?

Meanwhile: a word about dictionaries ...
Dictionaries come in two main flavours, there are the definitive ones and the descriptive ones.

Most older dictionaries were difinitive. They "defined" words... and thus acted as authorities to tell you how to "correctly" use the word. The original Websters Dictionary was like this. The whole point was to teach English to immegrants to the USA.

However, this use of dictionaries has become unfashionable from about the mid 20th century ce. Modern dictionaries are descriptive: the describe how the word is used. The Cambridge Modern English Dictionary is an example of this.

www.dictionary.com is like this also - they do not provide "definitions" of words. Instead they give examples of the usage of words.

This sort of thing makes sence. The main reason you want to look up a word is not to find out how it is supposed to be used, but to get an idea of how a writer has used it. The listed usage is usually in the order that some sort of research suggests is most common usage when the dictionary goes to print.

So - www.dictionary.com says the following:

gay Audio pronunciation of "gay" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g)
adj. gay·er, gay·est

1. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
2. Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry.
3. Bright or lively, especially in color: a gay, sunny room.
4. Given to social pleasures.
5. Dissolute; licentious.


n.

1. A person whose sexual orientation is to persons of the same sex.
2. A man whose sexual orientation is to men: an alliance of gays and lesbians.

... see what I mean. The number one usage is not the original usage nor the only usage. It would be the most likely usage in a modern work, given no additional information. To be sure of our meaning, we must look to the rest of the sentance for a guide, then make use of the examples to provide a reference. This is called "context".

Happy Hacking.
Simon

 

[Simon Bridge]

A note on dictionary.com:

For skeptics, when they want others to treat a source as reliable, it is important to test the source.

I figured I'd test dictionary.com on some common definitions I knew from other sources. For eg ...

Auck·land Audio pronunciation of "Auckland" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ôklnd)

The largest city of New Zealand, on an isthmus of northwest North Island. It is a major port and an industrial center. Population: 316,900.


[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Auckland

n : the largest city and principal port of New Zealand [syn: Auckland]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

This is my home town ... the population of Auckalnd City (according to the 2001 census) is 1,158,891. (This is the number of people prepared to admit they live in Auckland City on the census day - I understand the number of people actually living in the city is around 1.4 million, though many of these will be seasonal, transient, tourists/visitors, overstayers, rich folk with more than one house...) ref:http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/Articles/census-2001.htm

Looking up "Cambridge" - it lists the one in Canada first, then the one in England, then the one in USA.

This is interesting to me bacause I think of Cambridge as being in England and know the USA on in relation to MIT. I've never heard of the Canadian one.

Looking up MIT, and it lists three stockmarket tems first, followed by the Massechussets Institute of Technology. (Hmmm... I'm having spelling problems and I'm looking at a dictionary.) But which do you think is the most common usage.

It would appear that www.dictionary.com may not be reliable in some facts, and cannot be considered a reliable guage of commonest usage.

I'll stick by the Oxford hardcopy thanks. Even if it does say a hacker is a kind of criminal

 

[AgingYoung]

A while ago I thought that with as many different meanings that words have it's a wonder we don't misunderstand each other more often. There are 11(base two) types of people in the world.

1. Those that want to know what's going on
2. Those that want to create confusion
3. And finally those that want to create confusion so they can tell everyone else what's going on.

I'm not going to talk about that later group because you know who you are.

It's been maybe two years since I decided to violate The Law. It has been discouraging at times. It might have been 6 months ago when the ideas of precisely how such a thing could be accomplished began to form for me. Yet even with those ideas I still couldn't figure out how in the world I could model them. The mechanisms that I've talked about in this thread almost came close to incorporating the ideas I imagined yet not quite. Last night as I was putting my insane notions aside to get some sleep I had an other idea. I thought if I could combine two of these mechanisms would that be a solution? To my total amazement while trying to accomplish something different I noticed the precise thing I've been looking for.

I might be premature (not having modeled the mechanism to test it) yet I think it has remarkable promise. If I'm right in my speculation then Newton's third law of motion (for every action...) is too simplistic to describe what's happening here. As a consequence of that The Law is in for a revision similar to the one it went thru after the Manhattan Project.

As always, we'll see.

Gene