• 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.

Working Model of Perpetual Motion

AgingYoung

Muse
AgingYoung
Joined
Dec 5, 2005
Messages
973
I have a couple of reasons for starting this thread. One is to ask for suggestions for a protocol for a perpetual motion machine (pmm). Another is to state unequivocally that I don't have a physical model of a pmm. I've been accused of saying I did so I'd like to clear that matter up. In another thread I said 'if what I was working on didn't work I would say as much' and I'd like to repeat what I said there. I couldn't model the idea that I attempted. I tried numerous ways without success.

Still another reason for starting this thread is to challenge people's imagination. I know most doubt a pmm is possible but I'm asking you to suspend your disbelief and imagine that hp 'what if?' It took me some time to come to the idea of entering the Randi if I could model pm. I'm persuaded it would be a great thing for me and the foundation. The publicity of the announcement of pm would be explosive. Presently Randi isn't in a position to handle what it would do to his foundation. If you've enjoyed coming to this forum but have never supported it you might seriously consider doing that. I have a couple of monthly expenses that I plan on eliminating and when I do I'm going to become a regular contributor. That's just what I plan on doing but by all means do what you want. You might consider a hand written thank you note.

To the point of the explosive nature of the announcement of a pmm; it would be like several super bowl commercials. I use skype and at times there are 7-8 million users on their servers. I just checked the stats and currently there are
  • Currently Active Users: 194 (53 members and 141 guests)
on this forum.

It's only an ‘if‘ and also as you might imagine a huge if but if Randi were testing a pmm their servers would flatten under the traffic they would get.

The working model of pm I'm looking at is only a simulation. Several people in another thread mentioned a number of ways you could simulate pm. Nathan pointed out...
  • IIRC you'll need at least 2nd order equations. Regardless of which, my question is whether f is integrable analytically and whether your CAD package does that? Or does it perform a numerical approximation?
I agree that approximations of reality could give a picture of pm. One reason I don't see that in the graph is the change of direction. The rotation is cw then changes to ccw and keeps climbing at quite a rate. I put the times and angles on the graph but iirc it's spinning around 1300 rpm.

One thing I don't think was mentioned when talking about sims were residual velocities. You can make models with parts that have velocities. When you run the simulation they immediately start to move. The sim I graphed had no latent velocities.

Another reason a sim can give the appearance of pm is lack of friction. I was analyzing a small portion of the motion and didn't have frictions set. For the same reason that the pm indicated was a change in direction I don't think lack of friction gave me these results. In any event this is just one of two ideas I'm trying to combine in a model. The graph is way beyond the span of time I was analyzing.

6897454fc278a0fa9.jpg


In summary ...
  • What would be a protocol for a pmm
  • If the Randi foundation were testing a pmm the change for it would be explosive and I honestly don't think they're in a position to handle it.

Thank you for your time.


Gene
 
Last edited:
AgingYoung said:
I have a couple of reasons for starting this thread. One is to ask for suggestions for a protocol for a perpetual motion machine (pmm). <snip>
Click to expand...
First, you have to make a claim. Then, and only then, can a testing protocol be developed.

So what is your claim?

AgingYoung said:
Another is to state unequivocally that I don't have a physical model of a pmm. <snip>
Click to expand...
Lemme see if I understand: You started this thread to announce (in part) that you "don't have a physical model of a pmm"??

Thank you for that information. In the spirit of your post, I would like to announce that I do not have a "universal divining rod"(TM) that can find any pmm. Sad, isn't it?
 
Hi Gene,


the easiest version for a pmm protocol would of course be to build a working one, right?

You might consider worrying about the consequences until successful completion of a pmm. (Dr. Oppenheimer probably did the same, didn't he?)

I applaud your enthusiam in principle and I admire you persistence. In principle. Because there's a good chance you are on a wild goose chase.
 
One aspect of PMM that people often seem to overlook is the concept of work. A permanently spinning wheel is not a machine until it actually does some useful work (e.g., moves a load, heats some water etc.).

And it's not a perpetual motion machine until it can do that over and over again.
 
I, too, would like to announce that I, unequivocally, without a doubt, no question, do not have my own working PMM. When I do, believe me, I'll post the news here in this forum first. Until I do, please understand that I will not be posting on any progress and wasting your time. Back to the drawing board!
 
Good, please don't because I don't think the JREF servers can handle the traffic once your announcement does come out.

Contribute now, please.
 
SezMe said:
Thank you for that information. In the spirit of your post, I would like to announce that I do not have a "universal divining rod"(TM) that can find any pmm. Sad, isn't it?
Click to expand...

I do. *Shakes Stick* Nope, none in this universe.
 
Thank you Big Al. Work has a technical definition but as far as I know useful is subjective. If a wheel would turn and move enough air to blow out a candle it would be work but I don't know if you would call it useful. Thanks for your time.

Gene
 
Thanks for the input, Dumb all over. I do kind of resent your accusation of me having any control over what you do with your time. If I had any control you'd be mowing my lawn, spit shining my boots and you would definitely have to shave that stupid mustache.

Again, thanks for the input.

Gene
 
I'm sorry to say that your simulation is broken.

Computer simulations, Especially those that model collisions and constraint modeling, like working model does, can be prone to injecting energy into the system if not constructed carefully. Normally this is not a problem as most models will include damping effects that will pull this energy out of the system.

Look for Integrator Error in the working model instructions on how to help reduce these errors. If you still have a problem I'd contact Design Simulations Technologies with a bug report.

:)
 
Thank you, Orangutan.

wm2d has a means to vary the step as you probably know. A small step gives you improved accuracy and a large one gives you a quicker model.

I was fascinated that this model rotated but it was only a fascination. It isn't so much a model of a machine but a test of a principle. I was looking at other variables in it and how they would react in the first couple of seconds. I do think that it would be practically impossible to make a model of this sim that would behave like the sim. I can't disagree with your conclusion but as I said I was interested in how it would act in the first couple of seconds.

Besides goofing off worse than a union employee one of the things I'm trying to do is develop a mathematical description of this principle. I've made a little progress. It is a definite principle.

Again thanks for your time.

Gene
 
AgingYoung said:
In summary ...
  • What would be a protocol for a pmm
  • If the Randi foundation were testing a pmm the change for it would be explosive and I honestly don't think they're in a position to handle it.
Thank you for your time.


Gene
Click to expand...

I think it's been explained to you before that the protocol for testing would be negotiated between the applicant and the JREF once you send in the notarized application. So, once you get around to applying, you would have a major say in what the protocol would be.

So, perhaps we should be asking you what YOU think the protocol should be like. In fact...What would you propose?

As for your second point, how do you know whether James Randi and the JREF can handle this kind of announcement or not? From your post, it seems you have the impression that the JREF's only option in contacting the outside world is the website. If such an announcement (successful perpetual motion) were to be made, you can bet that it would be through mainstream media channels, and you can be assured that Randi knows his way around that.

Besides, the whole point is moot if you haven't got a working machine. So far, in the last thread and this one (and why is a new thread necessary, anyway?), you've mainly been reporting on your lack of success. Counting your chickens before they hatch, and all.

Once again, you shouldn't worry about the testing protocol, and your subsequent fame and fortune, until you've got something to be tested, and computer simulations don't cut it. Let us know when you've actually got a working device, and you and the JREF can proceed from there.

R
 
Orangutan,

If there were energies injected into this model would you expect the reverse of direction. If you look at the graph it is spinning in the negative direction (clockwise) then spins ccw. Wouldn't you expect that energy would force it to continue spinning cw?

Gene
 
Thanks for your response, Raja.

Could you kindly give me a link where this happened...

I think it's been explained to you before that the protocol for testing would be negotiated between the applicant and the JREF once you send in the notarized application. So, once you get around to applying, you would have a major say in what the protocol would be.
Click to expand...

What I'm interested in is the opinion of the forum members. I fully understand that the actual protocol isn't their decision.

Again, thank you for your time.

Gene
 
Dear Forum Moderators,

AgingYoung has stated, unequivocally, that he does not have a working model of a perpetual motion machine and, therefore, has no claim to make for the Million Dollar Challenge. Yet, he continues to post within the Million Dollar Challenge section of the forum to discuss the science behind his idea. Would it not be more appropriate for this thread to be moved to the Science and Technology section? There, AgingYoung can discuss his topic all he wants and not take up space devoted to those who have an actual claim for the million. Please advise.

DAO
 
I would like to announce that I actually do have a working perpetual motion machine and I will... wait... never mind, it's stopped.
 
I don't object to that Dumb all over yet I'm not discussing the science as much as trying to get an idea of what members think a pmm would be.

The only reason I explained I don't have a pmm is because I was accused of making that claim.

Gene
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom