Perpetual motion machine examination rules, please.

[Thing]

There seems to me to be a paradox in Newton's third law that although there are equal reactions produced from actions that at times those reactions are synergistic.

I take it you are using 'synergistic' in the sense of the first definition at dictionary.com, that is "The interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects." If at any time the actions and reactions are synergistic in this sense then they won't be equal. Newton's law says that they are. That would mean that your sentence quoted above says, in effect: "There seems to me to be a paradox in Newton's third law that it isn't always obeyed".

If you have a repeatable demonstration that this happens to any appreciable degree at non-relativistic speeds and non-quantum sizes then you are about to become the most famous scientist in the world bar none; Stephen Hawking and Ed Witten will be mere footnotes compared with you. If, on the other hand, you have a chain of reasoning that leads you to believe this without having seen it work then there is almost certainly a mistake in that chain of reasoning. Several people here could help you to identify it if you'd let us know what the reasoning is.

Good luck with your model, but I don't expect it to work.






Oh yes, about the perpetual motion deal, there is no way out.

 

[AgingYoung]

Thing,

That would mean that your sentence quoted above says, in effect: "There seems to me to be a paradox in Newton's third law that it isn't always obeyed".

Yes, the action of an initial action/reaction will be caused by synergism of the reaction and the rotation should perpetuate.

you are about to become the most famous scientist in the world bar none

I am not trying to hog all the glory. I am pointing out to some that they might consider the matter again. Also I did name this compound of elements after you (ThaNg²³²).

Good luck with your model, but I don't expect it to work.

I knew that.

If, on the other hand, you have a chain of reasoning that leads you to believe this without having seen it work then there is almost certainly a mistake in that chain of reasoning. Several people here could help you to identify it if you'd let us know what the reasoning is.

I'm not at that point in the process yet but I know there are some very sharp people on this forum. I'd consider you one of them.

Gene

 

[Thing]

Yes, the action of an initial action/reaction will be caused by synergism of the reaction and the rotation should perpetuate.

This is by no means clear, but your use of the word 'initial' prompts me to quote from 'On throwing a ball', Chapter 6 of 'The Stars in Their Courses' by Isaac Asimov.

[Newton's 3rd law] is usually called the 'Law of Action and Reaction' and if ever there was an unfortunate name, that's it. It gives an utterly false impression that has confused innumerable people.

The phrase 'Action and Reaction' makes it sound as though A acts on B and then B reacts on A. It is as though A is taking the initiative and B only strikes back in a kind of self-defense after it has been attacked - charge and countercharge, thrust and riposte, gambit and return.

This has led men into time-wasting blind alleys. They have reasoned: After A acts on B, it must take a finite (though possibly very small) time for B to react on A; and if I can only make the system do something after A acts on B but before B acts on A then I can break the law of conservation of momentum or do something equally world-shaking.

The trouble is that there is no action and reaction with two bodies acting independently. The Third Law should be called 'The Law of Interaction' for both bodies act together.

Does this influence your reasoning at all?

 

[illuminatedwax]

At this point in the process I'm not sure I can model that synergistic reaction. Although I don't know it will work right now I'm persuaded enough to attempt a model. I've never said, 'I know this will work.'
Gene

I'm very sorry; let me rephrase that to "the reasons you THINK this will work."

There seems to me to be a paradox in Newton's third law that although there are equal reactions produced from actions that at times those reactions are synergistic. I will know a little more once I finish the model. At the present all I see is that gravity might not be a conservative force. I'm not at the point in the process of that proof to offer much of an explanation.

So basically we can assume:
B) This synergy is not consistent with Newton's Laws of Motion
correct?

I have some more questions, if you would be kind enough to answer them. It would also help things along if, when you answer questions, you answer the question as stated (for example if I give you a set of answers, one of which must be true, then please pick one), then go into your explanation. It makes reading your answers much easier.

1) What observation led you to believe that this synergy exists, or is it just a hunch?

2) What observation led you to believe that gravity is not a conservative force, or is it just a hunch?

3) Let's try and clarify what you mean by 'synergistic': Suppose we have a force applied to an object; let's call that force F = (N, v) where N is the magnitude of force and v is the direction. Newton's third law says that there is an equal and opposite force -F = (N', v'). Are you saying:
A) N != N'
B) v is not opposite to v'
C) both A) and B)
D) neither A) nor B)
E) You have no idea

If the answer is D), please tell us how this is synergistic. If the answer is E), please tell us why you are so confident.

Also to let you know, when you build this, some nonconservative forces will be at work: friction and air resistance. I'm not aware of a nonconservative force that gains you energy. (Also if you respond, please don't just respond to this last paragraph!)

 

[AgingYoung]

Thing,

Asimov is arguably one of the greatest minds of the 20th century. I think his genius was the ability to take complex ideas and put them in terms that a lot of people could understand and appreciate. His quote is a different way of saying what most people are reasonably certain of.

I've modeled part of this idea with wm2d and I can see that it's synergistic. I'm not convinced that what I'm seeing is a product of any deficiency with wm2d. I've crunched the numbers with excel to first come to the idea. I'm persuaded to the point that I'm attempting to model it. I honestly wish I could share the ideas but I'm not at that point in this process.

Asimov's quote doesn't change what I think about the ideas I have. Thanks for sharing them.

Gene

 

[AgingYoung]

illuminatedwax,

I would need a retainer before I gave you editorial preview of my ideas. Maybe we could work out something if you're interested.

Gene

 

[illuminatedwax]

illuminatedwax,

I would need a retainer before I gave you editorial preview of my ideas. Maybe we could work out something if you're interested.

Gene

That's very frustrating. What good does it do to tell us why you think your machine will work (synergy) but then refuse to tell us what that word means? You might as well have said "I am confident because I saw that certain components are highly floobajoob when spinning!" for all it imparts to this discussion. We aren't interested in your clues or mysteries, we're interested to know if you can build it or not. If your answer is "just trust me," then it's probably my fault for stirring up this thread in the first place, I guess.

In a nutshell, you are saying:

1) I have a brilliant idea for a perpetual motion machine, or at the very least a machine that will revolutionize the physics world (henceforth known as 'the machine')
2) I saw some (mystery word) effects in a simulation that approximates Netwonian physics
3) I refuse to tell you what (mystery word) actually means
4) I refuse to give you any more information about the machine
5) But I'm building the machine, trust me; it'll work.

Please, correct me if any of these assumptions are wrong.

Also, Gene, will you share your ideas with us if your model fails so we can help you figure out why it did so? Will you even tell us if it does fail?

 

[AgingYoung]

illuminatedwax,

In a nutshell I'm saying that I'm not getting paid enough to correct your assumptions. When I'm finished with the model and if it doesn't work (as most suspect) I'll say as much.

Gene

 

[AgingYoung]

Premise of Synergistic Reaction: There can exist reactions that are greater then their cause both in magnitude and duration.

To prove this premise I'm looking at one of the classic understandings of why a gravity powered wheel is impossible. Right now it seems that understanding is wrong. The crux of the matter is in how it's attempted.

I'm not talking to many people. Most people have to defer their thinking to others that have considered this idea, posting large chunks of information saying, 'see? won't work.' A very few know from memory in quite some detail all the reasons why it's impossible. I'm mostly speaking to those people. In fairness I'm suggesting you reconsider what you know. I know it's not too smart of me to be fair. I really think that most who actually have a comprehensive understanding of physics won't take me seriously. Even though I consider it fair to mention what I think about what I think I see, I don't think that anyone will take the time to reconsider. I can eat my cake (by being fair) and have it also. You'll never be able to say you were sitting there minding your own business and one day right out of left field, wham!

Concerning what I see, I've looked at spread sheets and models with wm2d. It's entirely possible that my methods are fallacious. I've considered power (the rate of work) with spread sheets and have modeled what I consider to be a synergistic reaction over 180° of rotation with wm2d. I've actually modeled a part of this and it seems to confirm what wm2d indicates. I'm in the process of simplifying the mechanism.


Holy molly; the woo has now left left-field and is totally out of the ball park! Come see this Martha.

Gene

 

[Thing]

you are about to become the most famous scientist in the world bar none

I am not trying to hog all the glory. I am pointing out to some that they might consider the matter again.

There's no halfway here. If you can do what you're suggesting you will be the defining figure in physics in the 21st Century. If you just think it ought to be possible because you don't see why not you get nothing.

In the mean time can I suggest that your use of the word 'synergistic' isn't helping your cause, it's the sort of word people introduce into a conversation when they want to sound as if they know more than they do. Either Newton's 3rd law is obeyed or it isn't. If it isn't obeyed in wm2d then wm2d is broken. If it isn't obeyed in real life you've hit the jackpot. But it is.

 

[ben m]

To prove this premise I'm looking at one of the classic understandings of why a gravity powered wheel is impossible. Right now it seems that understanding is wrong. The crux of the matter is in how it's attempted.

AgingYoung, the understanding of "why a gravity powered wheel is impossible" is not some contorted tangle of physics logic. Do you have access to a university library? Have you looked at the conservation-of-energy chapters in an actual physics textbook? If you think that there's a flaw in the proof that gravity is conservative, perhaps you should look at the proof and try to locate the mathematical error. It doesn't rely on any dogmatic assumptions: if Newton's Laws are true, and gravity is a central force, then it has to be a conservative force. Try "University Physics", by Young and Freedman. The proof is in Chapters 6 and 7.

I would point out, also, that mechanical forces are all "linear". That is, if you have three different forces (say F1, F2 and F3) acting on an object, then the object's acceleration will obey (F1+F2+F3) = m a. The object will pick up energy dE = (F1+F2+F3) dx, and the force-exerters will expend energy dE1 = F1 dx, dE2 = F2 dx, and dE3 = F3 dx respectively. Ditto for masses: if you have a force acting on multiple masses, F = (M1+M2+M3) a, and dE = F dx1 + F dx2 + F dx3 and so on. This is, AgingYoung, pretty much the opposite of "synergy"---adding forces together, or delaying and resyncing them, or reordering them, adds nothing whatsoever to their strength or their energetics. When it comes to energy, the whole is exactly equal to the sum of its parts.

-Ben M

 

[illuminatedwax]

I would point out, also, that mechanical forces are all "linear".
-Ben M

I think at this point, Gene is claiming that F < ma in some cases and that the result is a net gain in energy, allowing an unbalanced wheel to continue spinning forever.

The problem is that we can argue against this until we're blue in the face, but the answer will always be "please consider that F=ma is wrong!!" Part of his reasoning was that he saw something in wm2d and he put some numbers in a spreadsheet (which I suspect are self-fulfilling and meaningless). At this point we can do several things:
1) we can point out the flaws in his observation, but not until he gives us details about this miraculous simulation
2) we can point out the flaws in his math, or suggest simple experiments to show that his math doesn't hold up in real life, but not until he tells us exactly what equations are being broken and under what circumstance
3) the opposite of either 1) or 2) in the case that he is correct
4) nothing

It seems to me that we'll never get past the "but what if you're wrong" and the "you just don't get it" stages until Gene decides that no one is going to steal his ideas or some how come after him if he reveals exactly what the hell he is talking about.

My guess is that this might happen when his design fails. Of course there's always the possibility he will either refuse to admit that his ideas are wrong and keep building, or he will become embarrased and leave the thread.

Of course, if it works, please give us all a shoutout when you are on the news!!!

 

[AgingYoung]

Ben,

Thanks for your comments. I'm assuming when you mention dx that you're referring to the time component of the force that is a factor in the change in energy or 'energy that's picked up' (dE).

I still stand by my premise but I have a better understanding of why you disagree with the idea.

A. Gene Young

 

[AgingYoung]

In the mean time can I suggest that your use of the word 'synergistic' isn't helping your cause, it's the sort of word people introduce into a conversation when they want to sound as if they know more than they do. Either Newton's 3rd law is obeyed or it isn't. If it isn't obeyed in wm2d then wm2d is broken. If it isn't obeyed in real life you've hit the jackpot. But it is.

Maybe you could suggest a different word. Earlier I was looking at the actual model of this synergistic force but I just recently added a few constraints to it. I've been looking at it probably way more than necessary but it's interesting to see. It does indeed confirm what I modeled with wm2d.

The model is a structure of drinking straws, straight pins, coffee stirrers and various sizes of marbles and some hot melt glue. It's quite crude. Also it's not nearly as accurate of a model as could be made or what could be done with a cad program. I put it together kind of quickly and without any blue print. It's a rough process to take an idea to the point that you can actually see something.

I still stand by my premise that Newton's thinking needs to be revised as it was when the ideas of relativistic speeds and quantum sizes were considered. I do have a little work ahead of me. When I first posted that premise I called it a law. I got a little ahead of myself. I still see it as a premise that needs proof.

Gene

 

[ben m]

Thanks for your comments. I'm assuming when you mention dx that you're referring to the time component of the force that is a factor in the change in energy or 'energy that's picked up' (dE).

Sorry, to clarify:
dx = change in position in the direction parallel to the force
dE = change in energy
a = acceleration

A force of 3 Newtons (F=3) pushing an object over 0.2 meters (dx = 0.2) will increase its energy by 0.6 Joules (dE = F dx = 0.6), etc.

 

[rwguinn]

I think at this point, Gene is claiming that F < ma in some cases and that the result is a net gain in energy, allowing an unbalanced wheel to continue spinning forever.

The problem is that we can argue against this until we're blue in the face, but the answer will always be "please consider that F=ma is wrong!!" Part of his reasoning was that he saw something in wm2d and he put some numbers in a spreadsheet (which I suspect are self-fulfilling and meaningless). At this point we can do several things:
1) we can point out the flaws in his observation, but not until he gives us details about this miraculous simulation
2) we can point out the flaws in his math, or suggest simple experiments to show that his math doesn't hold up in real life, but not until he tells us exactly what equations are being broken and under what circumstance
3) the opposite of either 1) or 2) in the case that he is correct
4) nothing

It seems to me that we'll never get past the "but what if you're wrong" and the "you just don't get it" stages until Gene decides that no one is going to steal his ideas or some how come after him if he reveals exactly what the hell he is talking about.

My guess is that this might happen when his design fails. Of course there's always the possibility he will either refuse to admit that his ideas are wrong and keep building, or he will become embarrased and leave the thread.

Of course, if it works, please give us all a shoutout when you are on the news!!!

My guess, since he keeps harping on the time parameter, is that he has fallen afoul of the damping trick in dynamics, which defines
X=f(1/(wn^2-wf^2-2zj(wn)(wf))

geewhiz-if damping (z) =0, then response is infinite when wn=wf (wn being the natural circular frequency of the system, and wf being the forcing circular frequency)--and of course, the famous j=squareroot(-1)

 

[AgingYoung]

Ninja,

I'd hardly call asking for clarification once (is this time?) harping. This premise isn't a result of looking at dampening at some extreme. I do appreciate your input though.

Gene

 

[AgingYoung]

Thanks Ben.

Gene

 

[AgingYoung]

illuminatedwax,

I am not my ideas. Also my ideas don't embarrass me.

I offered to sell you options on this idea and I'd like to say that offer is still available. Unfortunately for you (if you're interested) the option has appreciated 266%. The underlying idea has gone from some thoughts in a spreadsheet with a model in wm2d and a crude pop model to the point there now exists a cursory mathematical proof. You should have tried to get to the head of the line in reviewing this idea sooner. There's an MIT professor, a Texas state senator, a local multimillionaire businessman and of course James Randi in the line before you. If you want to buck line you'll have to buy an option.

Gene

 

[rwguinn]

Ninja,

I'd hardly call asking for clarification once (is this time?) harping. This premise isn't a result of looking at dampening at some extreme. I do appreciate your input though.

Gene

Dampening is done with or to a sponge, cloth, or other absorbant material.
Damping is a way of shutting down a reaction or process-physical, chemical, or atomic
sigh...