• 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.

In between looking at the different things I'm looking at I have every intention of having some real fun with this. Levity is good medicine.

Gene
 
Below is a screen shot from wm2d indicating the kinetic energy of a self sustaining pendulum that I recently designed. At times the energy approaches 200 joules yet there are valleys in the graph; I think it might be 100 joules on the average. I ran the simulation for 600 seconds. You have to click on the image to see a larger version.

Gene

 
AgingYoung said:
Below is a screen shot from wm2d indicating the kinetic energy of a self sustaining pendulum that I recently designed. At times the energy approaches 200 joules yet there are valleys in the graph; I think it might be 100 joules on the average. I ran the simulation for 600 seconds. You have to click on the image to see a larger version.

Gene

[qimg]http://thumb17.webshots.com/t/44/45/9/72/56/2310972560093730477NNqlbD_th.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...
The operative word here being designed. Come back when you can apply the word built.

Thank you, please drive through.
 
AgingYoung said:
Below is a graph of the angular momentum.

[qimg]http://thumb17.webshots.com/t/38/39/1/4/12/2161104120093730477VscFPg_th.jpg[/qimg]
Gene
Click to expand...
Below is an equally as convincing chart of astrological machination.

images
 
Psiload,

If you don't mind me asking do you have an engineering background ....mathematics and/or physics? Are you familiar with cad programs? ...possible problems there might be in the graphs I've posted?

Gene

edit: I guess what I'm trying to see is if you have a qualified opinion.
 
I think what Psiload is trying to say is that the difference between theory and practice in practice is greater than the difference between theory and practice in theory.
 
AgingYoung said:
Psiload,

If you don't mind me asking do you have an engineering background ....mathematics and/or physics? Are you familiar with cad programs? ...possible problems there might be in the graphs I've posted?
Click to expand...

I do and I am, though I'm not familiar with the program you're using. But if such a program is working properly it won't simulate a perpetual motion machine unless you specify frictionless joints, bearings, etc. which are impossible to make in reality. If you succeed in making it do so it'll only prove that the program isn't as good as it should be. Simulators work by solving equations derived from the laws of physics. You're trying to break those laws; a simulation based on them isn't the way to do that.

Your KE plot isn't the whole story, the fact that it goes up and down just means it's being exchanged for some other form of energy, probably gravitational potential energy. A design for a PM machine would have to show a time history of total energy that stays constant (with friction present) or increases (without friction). And if I'd designed the program I'd have made it so that it would be impossible to do so.
 
AgingYoung said:
Below is a graph of the angular momentum.

[qimg]http://thumb17.webshots.com/t/38/39/1/4/12/2161104120093730477VscFPg_th.jpg[/qimg]
Gene
Click to expand...
I can't see either of the graphs. Clicking on them does nothing. You may want to give a link to the full page rather than the thumbnail.

I also have engineering and simulation experience, and I could not put it better than Thing did above.

Maybe (and that's a very strong maybe) a real experiment could unveil new sources of energy. But I'm afraid a simulation cannot give you more than the underlying mathematical model allows for.
 
AgingYoung said:
Psiload,

If you don't mind me asking do you have an engineering background ....mathematics and/or physics? Are you familiar with cad programs? ...possible problems there might be in the graphs I've posted?

Gene

edit: I guess what I'm trying to see is if you have a qualified opinion.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with the graphs you're posting... they sure are purty.

But if you're operating under the notion that they somehow demonstrate the possibility of squeezing bood out of a turnip, then I'm sorry to inform you that you're urinating into the wind. No advanced degree is required to recognize this most obvious fact.

It doesn't matter how many letters you've got after your name, or how many framed degrees you've got haning on your 'I love me' wall, and it makes no difference how advanced and fancy a computer program you're using to churn out sexy looking charts and graphs, if your notions aren't rooted in reality then it's all just an exercise if futility.

And as far as exercises in futility go... there are few more strenuous and hopeless as perpetual motion.
 
Psiload,
I somewhat agree with this .....
  • It doesn't matter how many letters you've got after your name,
but it seems as if you disdain any sort of education. You seem to have a good appeal to authority but not too much understanding about what your talking about. Thanks for your opinion though.

Gene
 
Last edited:
Thing,
  • Your KE plot isn't the whole story, the fact that it goes up and down just means it's being exchanged for some other form of energy, probably gravitational potential energy. A design for a PM machine would have to show a time history of total energy that stays constant (with friction present) or increases (without friction).

I agree that energy should increase but the fascinating thing I found about the KE plot is that it oscillates above zero; it doesn't alternate thru it. I used the default friction for pins which might be no friction.

When I was looking at the model (a four meter disc with 35 kilo's on it) there were times at the peaks where you could feel the power it was cranking into it. Also the cycle of oscillation was around zero to 180 degrees.

I'll look at the pin frictions. I've just started looking at wm2d and there are a lot of things I'm unfamiliar with. I have noticed that as I'm using it I think certain things would be a nice feature and as I use it they 'magically' show up. I guess the designers thought the same thing.

I was checking the accuracy the other day and it seems it calculates to 1/1000 of a degree of rotation.

Gene
 
Thank you Unnamed. When I was looking at the strength of the model I down loaded a bitmap to jpeg converter and opened up an account to post the graphs. I was kind of in a hurry. Thanks for your opinion.

Gene
 
Well, they might have been some pretty pictures but I modified the model in an effort to get it to rotate and could never get it back to where it was. :) Then finally wm2d either crashed or xp crashed it so the model is gone. I've tried to replicate it but the best I can do is a simple pendulum. I should do better documentation.

Gene
 
Since you seem somewhat fond of "qualifications" I'll just say I have a degree in math and work as an engineer.

AgingYoung said:
Thing,

I agree that energy should increase but the fascinating thing I found about the KE plot is that it oscillates above zero; it doesn't alternate thru it. I used the default friction for pins which might be no friction.
Click to expand...

KE = 1/2 * m * v^2

Now unless you have negative mass (whatever that means) or speed with an imaginary component (whatever that means) KE is expected to be positive. I suppose I could do a formal proof that shows the product of three positive real numbers is positive but it just seems kind of obvious.

Also, your graphs show a common artifact called "aliasing." This is what you are seeing that you interpret as odd or special. The graphs looked to me like a free swinging frictionless pendulum with a period less than the width of two pixels. According to the Nyquist theorem, you cannot accurately discretize the motion with that graph. If you keep everything the same, but make the time scale ten times wider (so that 600s is 1500 pixels wide instead of about 150) you'd probably see exactly what we would expect to see: a harmonic exchange of kinetic to potential energy and back again.

Of course, all this is just a theoretical question since the program, most inconveniently, crashed and took the model with it. Never the less, it all looked well within the realm of typical simulation to me.
 
Wavicle,

  • Since you seem somewhat fond of "qualifications" I'll just say I have a degree in math and work as an engineer.

Not so much that I'm fond of qualifications, that's not really the point. Now I hope you're not saying you're a degreed engineer just to make a point. I think at times people are simply repeating something they've heard without much understanding of what they're saying '.....dermodynamics, dude, don't ya get it??'

  • Now unless you have negative mass ...

or wm2d sends you a power bill. I thought about what I posted after I posted it. What I found significant about that model was the way 35 kilos would accelerate then decelerate. It would pick the weight off the bottom and move it slightly vertically. It wasn't a normal pendulum.

  • Of course, all this is just a theoretical question since the program, most inconveniently, crashed and took the model with it.

I had modified the model before wm2d crashed to the extent that I couldn't get it back to where it was.



I need to get in the habit of documenting what I'm doing. Since then wm2d has crashed several times. I only have a demo version of the program. I can't save models.

Gene
 
Wavicle,

  • Also, your graphs show a common artifact called "aliasing."
It might appear to be aliasing because of the compression of the data. What you call two pixels is a cycle. That pattern you notice between the cycles isn't the composite of different forces or frequencies; it's a difference in the slope of the cycles.

Gene
 
'I am here', there are not many fools on this board. Your description is one of those typical absurd claims that have been used to scam people thousands of times. Give up, go somewhere else. You won't find takers here.

BTW, while physics precludes the creation of energy, there are sources of energy on the planet that can be harnessed that come as close to perpetual motion as one can without violating laws of physics. A clock was built with a mechanism that wound the spring forward regardless of whether the barometric pressure went up or down. Running on barometric pressure changes, the clock has a constant limitless supply of energy. A working model was successfully made.

Looking for a link to Cox's clock I found this interesting site, overunity.com "The international free energy research forum". It looks well worth a perusal especially in today's climate. (Oooh, a pun, and by coincidence I watched Syriana last night...woooo ;) )

Generators that use the tides are in use. They do not have the issue of intermittent energy that solar and wind generators have, nor the problem of drought which affects turbines in dams. All of these sources, Sun, rain, wind and the tides are fairly limitless sources of energy. Efficiency, transporting the energy to distant locations and supply in the first three cases are only short term issues since there is no reason to think those issues won't eventually be solved.
 
AgingYoung said:
Wavicle,
  • Since you seem somewhat fond of "qualifications" I'll just say I have a degree in math and work as an engineer.
Not so much that I'm fond of qualifications, that's not really the point. Now I hope you're not saying you're a degreed engineer just to make a point. I think at times people are simply repeating something they've heard without much understanding of what they're saying '.....dermodynamics, dude, don't ya get it??'
  • Now unless you have negative mass ...
or wm2d sends you a power bill. I thought about what I posted after I posted it. What I found significant about that model was the way 35 kilos would accelerate then decelerate. It would pick the weight off the bottom and move it slightly vertically. It wasn't a normal pendulum.
  • Of course, all this is just a theoretical question since the program, most inconveniently, crashed and took the model with it.
I had modified the model before wm2d crashed to the extent that I couldn't get it back to where it was.

http://community.webshots.com/photo/2321931940093730477yeInxhhttp://thumb17.webshots.com/t/60/160/9/31/94/2321931940093730477yeInxh_th.jpg

I need to get in the habit of documenting what I'm doing. Since then wm2d has crashed several times. I only have a demo version of the program. I can't save models.

Gene
Click to expand...
You posted not-very-pretty pictures (my 2nd year ET student son does better) with no explanation of the parameters you used, nor what the graph supposedly describes, other than "Kinetic Energy of a pendulum"
Well, gee whiz- I can do the same thing in MathCAD, or even Excel by assuming frictionless. The pendulum accelerates down, decelerates back up, then accelerates down...ad infinitem.
Ain't physics amazing?
Give us the sim. not ugly pictures that cannot be read, with a time scale so small that the tic marks run together.
And, yes, I am a degreed engineer, Mechanical, and am also a registered Professional Engineer. I do simulations for a living--and I can pretty well make any kind of pretty pictures you want.
We are not impressed by pictures. We need evidence.
 
does anybody have a recommendation for a software package that could be used to simple mechanical simulations.

I took a look at wm2d but it looks to be wildly expensive. I did download the demo package but I hesitate to even spend the time to install it if the demo package is so defeatured as to be useless.

I installed cadsm and have been playing with that a bit. It seems a little buggy and I am having a little trouble learning how to use it. It's only $25 bucks if you decide to keep using it after 30 days though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom