Perpetual motion machine examination rules, please.

[AgingYoung]

As far as I'm concerned this thread has served it's purpose. I've developed a good sense for Mr. Rand's idea of what he'd expect as proof and there's no doubt in my mind that if proof exists he'll award the 'Randi'.

I think it's admirable for Mr. Randi to offer this prize. I consider it a humanitarian thing to do; well beyond what the average person does. If anyone has any comments they'd expect me to read they'll have to send them to AGeneYoung@yahoo.com .

Although I've said it twice I'll say it again for the slow learners...

If this build doesn't work I'll say as much and I'll say it on this thread

.

A. Gene Young

I've tried this idea several different ways without success however I’m still not ready to explain what I've seen. The reason I refuse to do that is there might be some remnant of that idea in what I'm presently looking at. I plan to start a thread with a little more explanation. I need to collect my thoughts about it first.

One last point and I'm done. If there seems to be something here that you're not interested in by all means ignore it. You don't need to tell me you're going to ignore it; just do it. If you think you can explain to me how I should be doing things.... well first pee up a wet rope. Let me know how that goes.

Gene

 

[Brian Jackson]

Brian,

I said 'as you put it...' then quoted you. Of course they were your comments. I still disagree with you.

Hi Gene. I was talking about the way the quote box on the follow-up post looked in my browser.

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'd be honored, though I may not have the credentials required. I really hope you can do it, and wish you nothing but success. For an endeavor such as this, my personal plan, should it miraculously work, is to contact/meet with Eric Krieg and work with him in finding an obscure energy source that could disprove the machine. I doubt I could trust my own eyes or separate my emotions enough to be objective. If it truly IS a PMM, it'll stand up to scrutiny and testing. Only then would I consider where to go from there. But for me anyway, it all hinges on having something tangible and testable. He couldn't really "test" a schematic or a pretty rendering, so I'd just be wasting his time.

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

"Secretive" in the sense that nothing would be hidden from view, and would let any such device be disassembled for the tester(s) to determine what makes the thing work. It would be self-defeating to only disclose part of the design for fear of divulging the "big secret." The story of Bessler's Wheel is interesting in that regard... Supposedly he built a big drum-like wheel that was demonstrated for a lengthy period of time, but covered the ends of the drum so nobody could see how it worked. This obviously makes it impossible to test, so whether he truly had a PMM or not will never be known. Methinks not, but it does ring of a little Joe Newman Syndrome.

All the best,
Brian

 

[Brian Jackson]

...Almost forgot the last part of your question, Gene. Sorry. The reason I don't spend time detailing and posting my ideas is because, to me, that's no fun and I don't feel like it. I'd rather play and have fun with it while learning something in the process. It'd be like documenting every position during sex... kinda zaps the fun out of it. However, if I ever do find that elusive G-spot, I might be compelled to jot that down!

 

[petre]

I would just like to let everyone know that I, too, have not yet built a perpetual motion machine.

 

[Gr8wight]

I would just like to let everyone know that I, too, have not yet built a perpetual motion machine.

That's too bad, Petre. But, by all means, please check in with us again in three weeks to tell us again that you still have not built a perpetual motion machine...again.

See, Gene, other people understand my comments, yet you seem to continue to misread them. Let me spell it out for you. Every time you post here, telling us that you have made no headway in your quest to prove three hundred years of scientific understanding useless, every single person reading rolls their eyes, and thinks, "tell us something we don't know." You say you have been involved in this endeavour for three years. You could be involved in it for another thirty, and this thread would consist of 700 bi-monthly posts from you saying, "still no progress, but I have high hopes." And we would all have tired eye-balls. When you have news, let us know. In the meantime, every post you make on this forum is simply you spending time avoiding working on your project because you obviously have no idea where to go next. Instead of boring us to tears with your constant reports of failure to move forward with your project, your time procrastinating would be far better spent vacuuming your cat. Because if you are going to do it figuratively...

 

[Brian Jackson]

I would just like to let everyone know that I, too, have not yet built a perpetual motion machine.

Don't fret... there's support groups for this.

Bob: "I'm Bob, and I haven't built a PMM."
Group: "Hi, Bob. Welcome."
Bob: "It all started with gravity and pendulums, you know, just a recreational thing. But soon I was spending money for motors, batteries... machine shops knew me by name. Pretty soon I was on the streets scoring magnets... I just KNEW I could get it to work if only..."
Group: "Keep comin' back, Bob."

 

[AgingYoung]

I would just like to let everyone know that I, too, have not yet built a perpetual motion machine.

I could offer a little advice. The first step would be to actually try and make one. But how can you get to that first step? You might try looking at all the reasons that you believe the idea is impossible and see if there's a way around that reason.

I'll give you a hint. When mass moves on a wheel at the beginning of its moving it creates a force in the opposite direction or a counter torque that has a tendency to nullify any benefit you are going to get from the displacement of that weight. Is there any way to nullify a counter-torque? I have two ideas of how to do that.

Now if your 'belief' that perpetual motion is impossible is based on some vague understandings of ‘three hundred years of scientific understanding’ but you really don’t know specifically why, I’d highly recommend you don't even attempt a try. Just my humble opinion.

Gene

 

[drkitten]

I'll give you a hint. When mass moves on a wheel at the beginning of its moving it creates a force in the opposite direction or a counter torque that has a tendency to nullify any benefit you are going to get from the displacement of that weight. Is there any way to nullify a counter-torque?

Yes, of course. Several. But they all involve either energy input or create a counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-torque that will itself require nullification. On that path lies madness.

 

[AgingYoung]

"Secretive" in the sense that nothing would be hidden from view, and would let any such device be disassembled for the tester(s) to determine what makes the thing work. It would be self-defeating to only disclose part of the design for fear of divulging the "big secret." The story of Bessler's Wheel is interesting in that regard... Supposedly he built a big drum-like wheel that was demonstrated for a lengthy period of time, but covered the ends of the drum so nobody could see how it worked. This obviously makes it impossible to test, so whether he truly had a PMM or not will never be known. Methinks not, but it does ring of a little Joe Newman Syndrome.

All the best,
Brian

Again I disagree with you, Brian. You probably know that if anyone would have bought the Bessler wheel they could have examined it in detail. I do understand the 'secretive' nature of pmm. Most people consider it an impossibility without even an inkling as to what they're talking about. If you asked them the factors of momentum they would have to phone a friend or do a 50/50. I see that as 'intelligence by association'. They imagine that if they repeat what smarter people think it will appear that they too have some idea. When I hear a general appeal to authority I'm inclined to think they don't have a clue.

If anyone is interested in the Bessler wheel they can get details at http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum You do need to mind your p's and q's there. Recently they seriously harrassed someone that posted too much. I wonder about the character of those cranks. The administration didn't make a peep when (at least twice) someone posted a link to a site where people could get the key to wm2d and basically steal the intellectual rights to that software but there was quite a rage about this guy who 'posts too much.'

Some time ago a poster made some slanderous comments about James Randi and the administrator didn't say a word. If you visit that collection of fascists consider yourself forewarned.

Gene

 

[bjb]

I could offer a little advice. The first step would be to actually try and make one.

I disagree. The first step is to understand everything you can about physics, mechanical engineering, thermodynamics, etc. You also should understand the long history of perpetual motion machines over the centuries, including the failed efforts of Leonardo DaVinci. Once you have gained enough background knowlege, you'll understand why PMM's are impossible and always will be. The laws of thermodynamics describe the real world to a high degree of accuracy so they are unlikely to be overthrown any time soon. Perhaps then you can turn your attention to real energy producing devices, such as wind machines, solar energy, small hydroelectric generators, etc. There is such a thing as technology that produces energy forever without having to pay for a fuel source that produces greenhouse gasses. Even if a PMM existed, I don't see how it is an improvement over these existing energy producing devices.

By the way, I should add that I am an electrical engineer with a great deal of experience in electrical power generation and distribution systems, mainly for space power applications. If we thought a PMM was posible, you'd better believe we would be interested.

 

[Brian Jackson]

Gene,

Though most agree PMMs are impossible (myself included), yet disagree on the "best method" faint: ) of building/pursuing one, in the end it's educational and kinda fun. There's the long route and the shorter one. As bjb astutely pointed out in the above post, and I'm paraphrasing: Understanding what's been tried and proven before is a great time-saver. (I've got a joke trying to gel in my head... something about re-inventing the over-balanced wheel. [insert groans here]).

I also believe bjb is right on the money in his statement:

The laws of thermodynamics describe the real world to a high degree of accuracy

He also says:

Even if a PMM existed, I don't see how it is an improvement over these existing energy producing devices.

I completely agree. Speaking for myself only, I share the opinion that if indeed such a "loophole" in Newtonian physics exists, the gap would be so minute that there would be no significant energy yield. However, any over-unity at all, no matter how small, would be an Earth-shaking event; proving that such a loophole exists at all.

See, that's what makes this a "fun" hobby for me. It's like playing Tennis against a brick wall; No matter how I slice the ball, the wall doesn't care... it just gets returned equally and opposite. Pretty soon I learn where the ball's gonna go. Have I invented a new game? No. But I've learned a little more about tennis.

 

[Topspy]

Well, I'm no expert in the area of challenge rules and such but it seems to me that you should go ahead and build it, regardless of the rules. Why?

If you're convinced that it works your expenses should be easily covered by the million bucks you're going to win. Even if you don't win, a PM machine, if it works, is going to make you rich beyond anyone's wildest imagination.

So, are you convinced your device will work?

If yes: Build it regardless of expense.

If no: Why do you want to attempt the challenge, just to try it out?

This line of reasoning, continually posted here, has always bothered me. Let's say I have invented a PM machine and tested it and it works. I post a description of it here or elsewhere or show it off on TV. Now everyone knows how it works, and can duplicate it with ease (unless very complex with a incomplete description.) How is this going to make me insanely rich? From talk shows? Invent the delayed windshield wipers or the laser (look it up) and see how rich you get. Something more fundemental would be worse. I'm not a believer in PM machines - I love to follow the efforts and cheer on those who challenge known science without regard to ridicule - but saying 'why ask questions? Just release it to the public and you will be rich" rings false........

 

[Topspy]

Gene,

Though most agree PMMs are impossible (myself included), yet disagree on the "best method" faint: ) of building/pursuing one, in the end it's educational and kinda fun. There's the long route and the shorter one. As bjb astutely pointed out in the above post, and I'm paraphrasing: Understanding what's been tried and proven before is a great time-saver. (I've got a joke trying to gel in my head... something about re-inventing the over-balanced wheel. [insert groans here]).

I also believe bjb is right on the money in his statement:

He also says:

I completely agree. Speaking for myself only, I share the opinion that if indeed such a "loophole" in Newtonian physics exists, the gap would be so minute that there would be no significant energy yield. However, any over-unity at all, no matter how small, would be an Earth-shaking event; proving that such a loophole exists at all.

See, that's what makes this a "fun" hobby for me. It's like playing Tennis against a brick wall; No matter how I slice the ball, the wall doesn't care... it just gets returned equally and opposite. Pretty soon I learn where the ball's gonna go. Have I invented a new game? No. But I've learned a little more about tennis.

And this line of reasoning is bizzare to me. Even a .001% overunity device would be huge... The more you use, the more you get, LOL.

 

[Unnamed]

Aunt Linda,

 

[GzuzKryzt]

blah

I know a good derail when I see one.

 

[Kaarjuus]

Let's say I have invented a PM machine and tested it and it works. I post a description of it here or elsewhere or show it off on TV. Now everyone knows how it works, and can duplicate it with ease (unless very complex with a incomplete description.) How is this going to make me insanely rich?

Ever heard of a thing called.. patents?

Secondly, I believe JREF will accept a working perpetual motion machine as suitable for winning the JREF challenge.

 

[Topspy]

Ever heard of a thing called.. patents?

Secondly, I believe JREF will accept a working perpetual motion machine as suitable for winning the JREF challenge.

First, I thought you couldn't patent PM machines. Second check the record for what happend to the patent holders of the laser and delayed windshield wipers. Then tell me that a patent on a device that has widespread immediate usefulness will actually be protected.

 

[Kaarjuus]

First, I thought you couldn't patent PM machines.

Are you kidding? You can patent anything these days.

Second check the record for what happend to the patent holders of the laser and delayed windshield wipers.

What happened to the patent holders of the laser? From what I understand, several people were working on lasers simultaneously and it was a race condition on who had the first rights. The principle of lasers had been known for decades, so there was a lot of grey area, and Gould was unlucky.

So this does not apply for a patent that comes out of nowhere and shows a truly working perpetual motion machine.

What about the delayed windshield wipers?

 

[Gr8wight]

First, I thought you couldn't patent PM machines. Second check the record for what happend to the patent holders of the laser and delayed windshield wipers. Then tell me that a patent on a device that has widespread immediate usefulness will actually be protected.

You can't patent "alleged" PMM machines. If you actually have one that works, you better believe you can patent it.

 

[Gr8wight]

I could offer a little advice. The first step would be to actually try and make one.

Is it possible one could takes one's own advice from time to time? I'm only laughing because that is exactly what everyone here has been saying to you for month's, Gene. Build it already.