Perpetual motion machine examination rules, please.

[nathan]

The jaggies are likely intentionally drawn by the CAD software to simply indicate that the line is *not perfectly* parallel (or perpendicular) as it has been rotated off zero. Let's move on. I'd like to get beyond the simulation so this thing can get built! That's where the rubber meets the road.

oh good grief! Have you any idea of the complexities involved in automatically detecting this situation and then introducing local distortions like this? How does the renderer know that a very small offset is not simply rounding error? Do you have any idea how rendering engines work?

Please cite the source for your belief that 'likely intentionally drawn ... to indicate ...'.

 

[rwguinn]

Hi, professional physicist de-lurking here. There's something I don't understand, and pardon me if this has already come up. Newton's Laws inherently include energy conservation. Every force (mechanical, chemical, electromagnetic ...) can be calculated as F = -dE/dx: the force in any direction is equal to the rate of change of stored potential energy with respect to displacements in that direction. If you have a system with a lever sticking out of it, and the system's energy goes up by 50 joules when you displace the lever through 2 meters, then the lever will resist that displacement with a force of 25 N. If there isn't a conserved energy which changes, there won't be a force. For example, the gravitational force F = -mg can be derived from the gravitational potential energy, E = mgz +C (where z is the height, g is the acceleration due to gravity (taken to be positive)), so Fz = -dE/dz = -mg.

Ditto for kinetic energy: if you exert a net force on an object, and maintain that force F while the object changes position by dx, you change the object's kinetic energy by dE = F dx. Notice that, to actually apply that force, you had to decrease the potential energy in some other system---and that the KE increase exactly equals the PE decrease. If there wasn't a change in PE, then there wasn't a force. If there wasn't a force, then there wasn't an increase in KE.

This is true even for frictional forces: the force exerted by a brake pad is equal to the increase in thermal energy of the pad and rotor. The only difference is the irreversibility; you can increase thermal energy as much as you like, but you can't freely turn it back into kinetic or potential energy.

So, AgingYoung, you've got a simulation package with Newton's Laws built in, laws which do nothing but conserve energy, since they never exert any forces at all unless they have a potential energy store to sap. If you think that some aspect of your simulated system is picking up energy---well, I presume you must think that there's a subsystem, linkage, or doohickey for which F is not equal to -dE/dx.

Is this true? If so, what makes you think F=-dE/dx would break down in your system? What makes you think Working Model includes this breakdown in their underlying physics code, rather than actually calculating the conserved potential energy for each of your components, and calculating energy-conserving forces from there, thereby guaranteeing that the full system will conserve energy?

It seems to me that your task---twisting a Newton's Law simulation and hoping a non-Newton's Law result pops out---is rather like playing with a calculator and trying to find two odd numbers whose product is even. Sure, you may find some round-off error or approximation that gives the appearance of success, but why bother?

What he said! YES! Exactly!

 

[AgingYoung]

Ben,

I could take the time to explain a few things but frankly I think you'd be immensely more satisfied with a physical manifestation of my ideas. I might consider selling them short for maybe $750K. Nah.

I will say that what I'm looking at is a radical departure from anything I've ever considered. Well, back on my head.

Gene

ps: rwguinn, I put you in charge of paying attention! I'm feeling really let down here.

 

[AgingYoung]

Shouldn't you be at work, Nathan? Don't they monitor your internet activity there?

Gene

 

[Freethinker]

Hi, professional physicist de-lurking here.

Hi Ben, welcome to the forum. You are confusing the issue with facts

Gene seems to be falling for the same lure as all of the other over-balanced wheel designers through the ages. It is perfectly understandable, and someday he will come to the realization that it can't be done. He's a reasonable person based on my reading of his posts. It will be interesting to discuss it with him after he realizes it can't be done (or does it ). From the recent posts, it seems he's realized the overbalanced wheel isn't self-sustaining so he's in the process of designing a mechanism to make it so (which of course would be a PMM itself).

Gene, right now you seem to be falling into the mechanical equivalent of a trap that many new electrical designers do with SPICE in thinking the simulator is better than it is. It can only represent the programmer's understanding of reality, so even if there is an unknown way for nature to do what you want, the simulator won't know about it.

 

[AgingYoung]

Freethinker,

I know a little bit about imaginary currents but I've forgotten quite a bit too. This is a fine point and I'm aware of it...

• It can only represent the programmer's understanding of reality, so even if there is an unknown way for nature to do what you want, the simulator won't know about it.

I also fully understand the skepticism. Now in a perfect world I could trust anyone with these ideas and people would respect that and give me credit for them. This isn't a perfect world. Plato mentioned that knowledge trumps belief and I think he had it right. Your beliefs can change but you need a lobotomy to change what you know. Right now I believe I'm looking at one of the most significant things I've ever considered. When I know it will be different.

If I'm wrong I probably will start a thread and discuss what I was thinking. For the most part the Randi forum is a pretty cool place with some rather sharp people.

Gene

 

[Thing]

Hi, professional physicist de-lurking here. There's something I don't understand, and pardon me if this has already come up. Newton's Laws inherently include energy conservation.

Welcome Ben. He has indeed been told this before (back here for example) and hasn't taken any notice yet, but who knows, this time might be the charm.

Gene, your simulations can't help. If you want a computer program that simulates a wheel that never stops turning you've already got one, courtesy of Russingram, here. It doesn't obey Newton's laws but neither, you say, will your device. Simulations can't help you...

[DEEP VOICE]
[REVERB]
There is no way out.
[/REVERB]
[/DEEP VOICE]

 

[Freethinker]

If I'm wrong I probably will start a thread and discuss what I was thinking. For the most part the Randi forum is a pretty cool place with some rather sharp people.

Gene

I look forward to it. You will have learned something either way.

 

[nathan]

Shouldn't you be at work, Nathan? Don't they monitor your internet activity there?

Here we have an attempt to change the subject.

 

[ben m]

Ben,

I could take the time to explain a few things but frankly I think you'd be immensely more satisfied with a physical manifestation of my ideas.

Oh, not at all---rather than wait for a "physical manifestation", which may take a while, I'd much prefer explanations sooner. Anyway, explanations and models are not mutually exclusive. So: I'm still not clear on how you're approaching the perpetual motion issue to begin with. Would you mind answering a few questions?

a) Do you think that Newton's equations-of-motion do not, in fact, conserve energy? If so, can you show an example calculation?
b) Do you think that WorkingModel2D does something other than numerically solve Newton's equations-of-motion? If so, what?
c) Do you think that Newton's equations-of-motion are (in the non-relativistic world) incorrect in practice? If so, what makes you think so?

d) For your special system, have you ever attempted to write a complete equation for system's internal potential energy, as a function of the coordinates? (i.e. "E = 2.5 x cos(angle1) + 3.4 x height6 + 0.001 x distance3^2 + ...")
e) For your special system, have you solved Newton's Laws of Motion (F=ma) by hand, added up every force and energy you could think of, and concluded that energy was not conserved?
f) For your special system, have you looked at it by eye, mentally added up all of the forces and energies you could think of, and intuited that energy was not conserved?

 

[69dodge]

For gravity to not be a conservative force, I thought we'd have to prove that the r^2 in the denominator of the gravitational force equation is not actually r^2, but r^2.000000000001 or something like that.

No, it doesn't matter what the dependence on distance is. As long as gravity pulls things directly towards each other and as long as its strength depends only on the distance between the things, it's conservative.

 

[roger]

roger,

• No condescension was intented. I never once called you a name, explicitly or implicitly.

I said condescension, not ad hominem.

Gene

I understand. The not name calling was a follow on sentence, not a explanation of why there was no condescension. I suppose I should have thrown a furthermore in there.

Now, can we discuss the issue of how a simulation that assumes conservation of gravity, among other Newton laws, is supposed to produce non Newtonian results?

 

[Grounded]

oh good grief! Have you any idea of the complexities involved in automatically detecting this situation and then introducing local distortions like this? How does the renderer know that a very small offset is not simply rounding error? Do you have any idea how rendering engines work?

Please cite the source for your belief that 'likely intentionally drawn ... to indicate ...'.

Geesh. The renderer wouldn't "know" and wouldn't have to. How old are you?

I am both a computer and electrical engineer (by education and by profession). I've modelled, built, coded, wired, designed, and (yes) rendered 25 years of my life away. I've run into many who like to over-complicate their worlds to seem more important. Engineers: seldom appreciated and often blamed. Drove me to drink.

I'm hoping we'll discover something not seen before here. It *is* possible. Not likely, but possible.

 

[roger]

I'm hoping we'll discover something not seen before here. It *is* possible. Not likely, but possible.

How? How is a computer simulation based on Newtonian physics going to generate non-Newtonian results (other than through rounding errors and such)? Results that are, furthermore, consistent with reality?

 

[Grounded]

How? How is a computer simulation based on Newtonian physics going to generate non-Newtonian results (other than through rounding errors and such)? Results that are, furthermore, consistent with reality?

Sorry roger, out of context. I commented earlier to get on with the simulation so we can put it to bed. Let's see the thing built. I honestly don't care about the simulation. Break out the tools and start bolting things together!

 

[roger]

Sorry roger, out of context. I commented earlier to get on with the simulation so we can put it to bed. Let's see the thing built. I honestly don't care about the simulation. Break out the tools and start bolting things together!

Okay.

 

[nathan]

Geesh. The renderer wouldn't "know" and wouldn't have to. How old are you?.

I fail to see how my age has anything to do with how this might be implemented. Please clarify.

ok, so I was using the term renderer loosly. I mean the whole wm2d engine. I am interested in how it could determine how to put in such local distortions -- it seems a very difficult problem. furthermore I am having difficulty understanding why this would be a good UI -- wouldn't a color be a better way of indicating non-alignment? That would not alter the geometry of the rendering.

Can you point me at a system which does this distortion you talk of -- you seem to be claiming to know something about it.

It seems far more likely to me that this is simply a rounding error introduced by using such tiny rotational values.

 

[Simon Bridge]

Below is a screen shot from wm2d indicating the kinetic energy of a self sustaining pendulum that I recently designed.

Try looking at the KE graph for a simple pendulum using the same program and compare. (Bear in mind that a pendulum is motionless at the ends of it's swings, thus KE there must be zero. So any KE graph of a pendulum must hit zero somewhere. Any that do not is wrong - so do a reality check: is your pendulum designed to go back and forth?) You'll also find a look at the PE graph useful.

Apart from this, screenshots don't actually tell us anything without the design parameters and some idea about the CAD software.

Excuse the long absence - my computer blew up!

 

[Powa]

Excuse the long absence - my computer blew up!

I hope you're OK. Was it a Dell?

 

[AgingYoung]

Simon,

Welcome back Carter. I always appreciate your input. As usual you make some very good points. There's a learning curve with using wm2d but I've managed to figure out how to do quite a bit. There still are the obvious questions like if I make a friction point of 2.24 centimeters yet only .02 is displayed was I wasting my time to type in .0224? I don't know.

Nathan made the point of the accumulation of approximations giving the appearance of perpetual motion; I don't think that's the case. I've only just started using this simulator but I recall discussion about it a while ago and it's not unusual for people first using wm2d to model perpetual motion. Accumulative approximations weren't the reason. The culprit was lack of friction. For some reason I was thinking that the default friction was somewhat realistic yet the default is zero. I've since produced some of the most interesting dampened oscillations you've ever seen.

A general question has been asked, 'How can I expect to use a simulator that obeys Newtonian physics (which as you pointed out sometime ago are approximations) to simulate a model that isn't constrained by those same physics. Freethinker pointed out a subtle variation of that question...

• even if there is an unknown way for nature to do what you want, the simulator won't know about it.

One of the uses I make of wm2d is like a huge piece of variable scratch paper that I use to draw geometric constructions. I use it to study motion and forces; obviously Newtonian as well as wm2d can approximate those approximations. So to answer the first question I'm not even trying. I'm not quick to come to a conclusion so the jury is still out on Freethinker's subtle variation of the question.

It's been pointed out that I disagree with Newton but no one today exactly agrees with him. A point that he made that I really agree with is...

• I frame no hypotheses.

I'm mentioning this to you because you said you've read Principia. Newton's laws are stated somewhat differently today. The third law...

• Lex III: Actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactionem: sive corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse æquales et in partes contrarias dirigi.
• .. or All forces occur in pairs, and these two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.

We say ...

• For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction.

As I see it if it's not the same then I call it different. Some might say that example is a distinction without significance. I think there are enough differences between what Newton said and what we say he said, combined with the refined understanding we have of what he actually did say to make a course out of it.

I've mentioned that when I take a very through look at the ideas I'm presently looking at that I'll share them. Sometime ago I wrote a program in basic to answer the question, 'how many possibilities are there to arrange 8 queens on a board such that no queen has a capture?' I knew a guy that was working and writing code in a fourth generation programing language that was in disbelief that I could have written that code in basic. He insisted on seeing how I did it. He really wanted to know. He didn't want to know bad enough to figure it out on his own. I gave him a copy. He was a very smart guy. Right now the most I plan on sharing is that I see something. Could be nothing. Odds are for that.

Welcome back.
Gene