• 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.

Ah yes, and one should take such advice to heart. So don't fookin respond again. And to those still annoyed (the ignore filter is your friend), I do apologize, as in the wee hours of the morn, (dark night of the soul for you woos), I did forget that most annoying property of posting in a thread making it pop to the top.

Now having wasted even more of your life, at least throw me a bone here. Is there any way to make that stop?

Cheers.
 
Esteemed "short-tempered, crusty old skeptic", http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...08#post1836608 sometimes it seems helpful to let a thread die. Especially when it went nowhere. Twice.
Click to expand...

What were your expectations? Thru this thread and others the matter of Randi's integrity was settled for me. I think this thread went there. The idea that perpetual motion could be an illusion and hence the need to fully disclose the device became clear to me in this thread. It couldn't be ....

Of course, the easiest way to do this might be to just describe exactly what it is that I've got here. ...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. .... And yes, mine will stop, like a car engine, when it breaks.
Click to expand...

... a black box as I am here. started this thread with.


The idea of perpetual motion has been considered by a lot of people over a very long time; from da vinci to newton and before both and since. If you were expecting for someone to come to a thread on the internet and explain how they've managed to do this you need to expect in one hand and blow your nose in the other ....see which one fills up the fastest. You're off your rocker.

I am curious if the Randi is still open to anyone that could provide proof that gravity isn't a conservative force; that weights can travel along one path for the first half of a cycle then along a different path during the 2nd half of the cycle and produce more energy coming down than is required for them to return to the top.

I know there's an email address to send questions to. I sent an email asking if two people could sign one application. The reason for my question is that I intend to share the award of the contract with the person that suggested I look at perpetual motion if I can 'accidently' get 'lucky' enough to find a solution that has evaded some of the greatest minds that ever lived. :)

Could a moderator answer those two questions or suggest a third way for me to ask them?

Gene
 
Last edited:
AgingYoung said:
I know there's an email address to send questions to. I sent an email asking if two people could sign one application. The reason for my question is that I intend to share the award of the contract with the person that suggested I look at perpetual motion if I can 'accidently' get 'lucky' enough to find a solution that has evaded some of the greatest minds that ever lived. :)
Gene
Click to expand...

It may be a moot point, depending on how the new "pro-active" JREF is going to operate (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64917), but I'd suggest an easier angle would be for you to sign an agreement with this second party independent of anything else, then apply as sole applicant. The JREF is unconcerned what you do with any money you win, and likely would rather avoid any unnecessary complications.
 
Thank you Petre.

I've considered a separate contract with my friend. The entire point centers around the tax issue.

I've read a little of the thread about the proactive nature of the Randi challenge. That was the point of the question 'I am curious if the Randi is still open to anyone that could provide proof that gravity isn't a conservative force...?'

I understand the idea of challenging high profile people and companies making extraordinary claims. Although I'm on about the 5th build of this idea I still haven't accomplished a working model of a proof that gravity isn't a conservative force. When (if) I do I'll bring the model to the table but also I'll bring quite a bit of publicity.

Again, thank you for your time.

Gene
 
Hi all... Interesting thread (briefly, here and there).
I don't "believe" in PM (yes, the dreaded "belief" word!), yet am building a PM device currently if for no other reason than to learn why it won't work. I agree with an earlier poster that the process can be fun, especially as a form of logic puzzle to find where the error in reasoning or education is.

I've had this simple idea for years and only recently started building it... no fancy low-friction bearings... I figure any PMD that's soley dependent on such things has an inherent flaw... but that's just me. I'm also not into conspiracy theories and the typical lip service I read on so many sites. If the thing works it'll stand on its own merit. If it doesn't then hopefully I've learned something in the process without wasting money or other people's time.

The one common theme I've noticed among many PM'ers is paranoia and secrecy... I don't subscribe to that because it sucks all the fun out of experimenting. Look at the subject we're dealing with here... When we start taking ourselves too seriously, or investing emotion in our ideas without an actual, testable working model, we quickly become deluded by ego.

It's a fun concept to daydream about, and educational to discover where we've made false assumptions (or even simple math errors). But before attrcting investors, or envisioning giving interviews on CNN or accepting the Nobel Prize, shouldn't we pony up the goods first?

Cheers,
Brian Jackson
 
Howdy Brian,

The one common theme I've noticed among many PM'ers is paranoia and secrecy... I don't subscribe to that...
Click to expand...

What a novel idea. Why don't you post your design here and I'll give you my opinion. There are some pretty sharp folks here that might enjoy looking at it also.

cheers,
Gene
 
AgingYoung said:
If you were expecting for someone to come to a thread on the internet and explain how they've managed to do this you need to expect in one hand and blow your nose in the other ....see which one fills up the fastest. You're off your rocker.
Click to expand...

Coming from a guy who came to a thread on the internet and explained how they managed to create a perpetual motion machine, this is just too rich.
 
Coming from a guy who came to a thread on the internet and explained how they managed to create a perpetual motion machine, this is just too rich.
Click to expand...

Could you post a link where I claimed to have made a perpetual motion machine? I think you're making that up.

Gene
 
It was looking rather good. That's neither a working model as you initially alledged nor is it a claim I have working design. If most of this thread is about my claims you should be able to produce one link of them.

In the link you posted I claimed to have a promising idea. That's a far cry from what you alledge. Thanks for the explanation. It seems you are a little disorganized in supporting your delusions of any claim I've made. lol.

Gene
 
Last edited:
karjacker,

I read a little thru the thread looking for some claim I might have made. Sort of trying to do your leg work for you. I now recall who you are. I more or less ignored you when you made this nasty antagonistic and presumptious comment...

Would be true if he was truly pushing the boundaries of science. But he is not. He's trying to make a computer simulation of a person lifting himself up by his own hair and when it succeeds, due to the limitations of the digital approximation, claims that he has discovered something real. He hasn't, he is pushing no boundaries, he is wandering around in the Middle Ages.
Click to expand...
That was some blarney you added in the middle of a discussion about the idiosyncracies of cad programs. Boy were you irrelevent.

With all due respect (and in my humble opinion not much is due) I'm going to have to ignore you. I hope you don't mind and have a good life.

Gene
 
Ripley Twenty-Nine said:
The JREF is not accepting applications mainly because the Challenge Coordinator left the JREF recently. Because James Randi is ill, he is not able to choose a new Challenge Coordinator.

Rest assured, it will all happen soon. In the meantime, the million is still safe and sound and waiting to be claimed.
Click to expand...

I'm glad that million dollars is safe and sound. I have my eye on it. There are a lot of ideas in the process of developing a machine that exhibits perpetual motion.

As Brian Jackson put it...
It's a fun concept to daydream about, and educational to discover where we've made false assumptions (or even simple math errors). But before attrcting investors, or envisioning giving interviews on CNN or accepting the Nobel Prize, shouldn't we pony up the goods first?
Click to expand...

I disagree. Several of the things you mention require a little forethought. Take for instances your idea of 'envisioning giving interviews on cnn'. The point of a news agency recording what's happening isn't a matter of ego; it's simply a matter of creating a permanent record of the events.

One of the steps (besides the obvious one of building something that works) would be to decide on the protocol. I would like to ask
  • What law of physics would a perpetual motion machine (pmm) or gravity wheel violate and ....
  • What would be an acceptable protocol?

I have to say that so far I can't 'pony up the goods' but I'm still trying. I'm on break.

Gene
 
AgingYoung said:
I'm glad that million dollars is safe and sound. I have my eye on it. There are a lot of ideas in the process of developing a machine that exhibits perpetual motion.

As Brian Jackson put it...


I disagree. Several of the things you mention require a little forethought. Take for instances your idea of 'envisioning giving interviews on cnn'. The point of a news agency recording what's happening isn't a matter of ego; it's simply a matter of creating a permanent record of the events.

One of the steps (besides the obvious one of building something that works) would be to decide on the protocol. I would like to ask
  • What law of physics would a perpetual motion machine (pmm) or gravity wheel violate and ....
  • What would be an acceptable protocol?

I have to say that so far I can't 'pony up the goods' but I'm still trying. I'm on break.

Gene
Click to expand...

These ongoing updates are completely unnecessary, Gene. Just check back in when you have a working prototype.
 
Funny, the way the Quote boxes work on replies, it looks like Gene's commens were mine.:eye-poppi

I still believe, if such a breakthrough were made, we prove it to ourselves first with a working model before announcing it to the world. But that's just me.
 
Hello Gr8wight,

As usual you're very confused. It's not an update. A way you might look at it is one of the many steps I see in an ongoing process that I have been managing for the last three years (about). I do appreciate your input but honestly I've seldom seen you add anything that was worthwhile. For instance presently your attempt to try and manage what I do is what is totally unnecessary from my prespective. I hope you enjoy this response. For you this is a very rare moment.

Gene
 
Last edited:
Brian,

I said 'as you put it...' then quoted you. Of course they were your comments. I still disagree with you. I'm in the process of starting a thread. I need to do a little work before starting it and I'm in the middle of that now. I wouldn't mind your input if you care to.

I still have that nagging question for you. If you say you aren't the sort that is secretive about what you're doing why don't you post your ideas?

Gene
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom