Working Model of Perpetual Motion

By that other definition of 'free', I can pick up some sticks off the ground, burn them, and create 'free energy'.
Click to expand...
Anyone can use the sun at any time they want and have been doing so for some time. You might be able to pick up sticks off the ground if you own the ground. If you pick them up off 'my' ground I might shoot you.

The reason a water wheel isn't a pmm is that the system isn't closed. I think that's the same case for a gravity wheel.

Gene
 
I forgot to ask Gene an engineering question:

What is the advantage of a perpetual motion machine vs. a water wheel, wind power, solar array, etc.? These techonologies already exist and are being used to perform real work, so when assuming perpetual motion machines can be developed, why would I want one? Frm my point of view, I don't even need a PM machine if I already have a propeller or water wheel to drive my electrical generator.
 
....note to self:
  • bjb forgot to ask me a question.

Did anyone notice that bjb's question isn't so much an engineering one as it is philosophical? I think I might ask them about that .....maybe.

....note to self:
  • ….maybe ask bjb how that question relates to engineering


Gene
 
I suppose it was a mistake to discuss engineering concepts with a non-engineer. No matter, I will rephrase the question and answer it myself:

1. Suppose my manager wants me to build generate 20kW worth of electricity to run a customer's small business building.

2. It turns out I found a 20kW generator in storage. Now all I have to do is figure out a way to turn the generator and my manager will be happy.

3. I go online and find a wind generator propeller for a few thousand dollars. The next day, Gene shows up at my company trying to sell a PM machine that has 20kW of shaft output power. My manager asks me if it is worth spending money on the PM machine or if we should just go for the propeller.

4. Now I have to weigh the pros and cons of the two technologies. As far as my manager is concerned, the main issue is cost. I don't know how big or expensive the 20kW PM machine is going to be but I can make some guesses. If Gene's machine gives maybe 1% more energy that it takes in, then the machine will be 'taking in' 2,000 kW of power while it puts out 20kW. Because of the slighty over-unity efficiency of 101%, Gene needs to build a machine 100 times larger than actual power requirement. His machine will have the capability to run 101 buildings, but 100 buildings worth of power is used just to run the darn thing!

5. From a cost point of view, it is clear that the machine is going to be rather expensive to buy. Maybe not everyone appreciates what a 2 million watt generator looks like so here's a picture of one:

http://www.servepath.com/dct/05_generator.htm

At this point, the propeller option is looking pretty good.

6. The next day, my manager comes by my desk and asks for my reccomendation. It is going to be very difficult to convince my manager to buy something that is almost as big as the building it needs to power.

My point is that unless the over-unity efficiency of the PM machine is significantly above unity (which it can't be, it won't even be equal to 1), a practical PM machine is going to be huge, monsterous device. It will also be expensive to build, 100x more expensive than a convential machine of equivalent output. If the efficiency of the machine is greater than 101%, say 110%, then the cost will drop roughly by a factor of 10, but if it is lower, like 100.1%, then the costs go up by another factor of 10. Clearly, Gene needs to build something that puts out far more than 1% of the input power.

Another enemy of the PM machine (and other alternative energy sources) is something called the break-even time. If I pay more for the PM machine but it costs less to operate than an alternative, eventually, the lower operating costs will make up for the higher initial cost. Alternative energy sources like solar arrays also have break-even times compared to commercial utility power, and the time is something like 5 years or so. Now suppose the PM machine costs only 10x as much as another 20kW generator. This puts the break-even point of the PM machine 50 years in the future as compared to commercial electricity. This is going to be very difficult to justify from a business point of view.

PM machines, just like all energy sources, need to be competetive with existing technology, otherwise, no one will use it. No one will buy a patent for one, either, unless a cost-benefit analysis shows that the technology will be profitable. A PM machine might be practical if its efficiency approached ~ 200% or so, but until then, it will be very difficult to convince an engineer that the machines are practical.
 
I suppose it was a mistake to discuss engineering concepts with a non-engineer. No matter, I will rephrase the question and answer it myself...
Click to expand...

lol. My background is instrumentation and process control. I see that you've managed to answer your question. Good show. Now you have an answer.

Here's another answer. The idea that gravity isn't a conservative force would fundamentally change physics. Who knows what that would mean or where it would lead. Now you have two answers. I'm sure you like yours better.

Gene
 
Gene,

Hello again. First, I truly admire your perseverance, assuming you're making progress with your machine. I mean that honestly and not in any sarcastic way. I've built several PMMs purely for educational reasons. I had grandiose ideas in my younger years before realizing I was re-inventing the (gravity) wheel, forgive the pun.

I examined your design via some graphics you did a while back. My first impression is that it would be an EXPENSIVE proposition to prove. My suggestion is to narrow your principal down to its simplest terms and prove something easy. If you could overcome even the simplest of pre-existing theories, that would be a huge stepping-stone to building something bigger.

Regardless of the scale, the principal remains. This begs the question: Can you demonstrate a model? Can you demonstrate the crux of your idea?

I'm inclined to think not, as most "inventors" offer lip-service rather than content. I would like to see more. Show me something tangible and I'll take you seriously. Until then, it resembles more lip service. Please prove me wrong.

Respectfully,
Brian Jackson
 
Last edited:
Dear Gene,

You seem sincere, so I beg your forgiveness for my flippancy in advance. I really have nothing of value to add to this thread, not even this frivolously poor attempt at humour.

I have a simulated pmm! Here it is:

Code: 
10 GOTO 10

What's that you say? It doesn't do any work? How about this one:

Code: 
10 PRINT "IT WORK YES!"
20 GOTO 10
 
logical muse said:
Dear Gene,

You seem sincere, so I beg your forgiveness for my flippancy in advance. I really have nothing of value to add to this thread, not even this frivolously poor attempt at humour.

I have a simulated pmm! Here it is:

Code: 
10 GOTO 10

What's that you say? It doesn't do any work? How about this one:

Code: 
10 PRINT "IT WORK YES!"
20 GOTO 10
Click to expand...

Nominated!
 
Hello Brian,

I've seldom explained any idea I've had about perpetual motion. When you mentioned....
  • I examined your design via some graphics you did a while back.
you got me curious.

People like Newman amaze me. He has been taking people's money for quite some time. In my opinion he is the sort with an obligation to produce something. I think Newman is like Keely. They take advantage of people. I never heard of Newman before this thread. I have heard of Keely.

I haven't shared many of my thoughts on perpetual motion nor have I considered the ideas that others have. When I first started looking at the idea I was experimenting with rolling balls. I somehow managed to replicate the da Vinci curves without ever having seen his idea.

You made the point...
  • Understanding what's been tried and proven before is a great time-saver.
I can't disagree with that. I have looked at people's ideas that are current but only to compare them to what I thought. I agree with your assessment...
  • My suggestion is to narrow your principal down to its simplest terms
I think I've done that. This idea is from wiki...
A conservative force is a force whose work is path-independent. In other words, in moving an object from point A to point B, the total work done is independent of the path that the object took.
Click to expand...
I've modeled 2 of the 3 ideas I think might prove this isn't true wrt gravity with wm2d. I understand the limitations of a simulation and I might add with the help of people on this forum. Reality has a resolution much higher than the average simulation could come close to not to mention rounded calculations used to produce the next set of calculations induce error into models. I've used wm2d over a very limited range with models of those ideas and don't think lack of resolution or rounding are an issue. The third idea can't be simulated.

I know I need to make a model. I think right now I'm just enjoying the ideas. I have boxes of models that I was sure would work but as you well know they didn't. In all of those ideas I see 3 distinct progressions or major changes. I'm pretty much at the end of what I can imagine. I've put most things on hold and life has been piling up. I know I need to move on. I've been roped into visiting relatives for Thanksgiving and recently we had two major problems I had to deal with. Sometime after I get my office back in order I'll begin to build.

Gene
 
I less than three logic said:
It has done so quite a bit if I recall correctly. I’ll have to look for a source, but, off the top of my head, I want to say that a day is something like 4 times longer than when the moon was first formed. Going from about 6 hours to about 24 over the last few billion years.
Click to expand...

So maybe a "day" in early Genesis, at 6 hours, is what allowed men like Methusala to live many hundreds of years.
 
Originally Posted by Iamme
Well...the U.S. Patent office does not believe that is possible, and you can't get a patent based on this belief. That is what Joe Newman has fought for over 25 years.

Response by Gene:
I'm sure you can't get a patent on a belief. A working model of a gravity wheel would be different.

I looked at the different Newman links. At first I was very impressed with the ford demonstration. Then I thought that you really can't tell much about a battery just by looking at the voltage. You need to test them under load. Also Newman took quite a pause before he took the voltage reading. And finally you can get a meter to give you any sort of reading you'd like with a shunt around the probes or a 'spurious' voltage inline with them. I think his claims are dubious.

I'm going to review a description of his theory by Tom Napier.


Quote of part of article found by Gene:
The early models of the Newman Energy Machine consist of a rotating magnet placed near or inside an air-cored solenoid. A commutator attached to the magnet shaft switches the current from the battery through the windings of the solenoid.
The principle of the motor is that the interaction of the field generated by the current flowing through the coil and the field of the permanent magnet causes the rotating part to make almost a half turn. By reversing the direction of the current flow at the end of the first half turn one can cause the rotor to make a second half turn. The current is then switched back to its original direction for the third half turn, and so on.

Response by Gene:
It doesn't make much sense right now.

Gene
Click to expand...

The whole deal, such as the claims by Newman, the interest by physicists, the denial by the U.S. Patent Office which has supposedly kept Joe from ever going forward with mass producing his devices...If you are interested in this, maybe you could write him and see if you can get in on any mailing lists or anything, to learn more about this. I was receiving my litrerature from his press release agent Evan R. Soule', at thaqt time, back in the 80's.
 
bjb said:
I forgot to ask Gene an engineering question:

What is the advantage of a perpetual motion machine vs. a water wheel, wind power, solar array, etc.? These techonologies already exist and are being used to perform real work, so when assuming perpetual motion machines can be developed, why would I want one? Frm my point of view, I don't even need a PM machine if I already have a propeller or water wheel to drive my electrical generator.
Click to expand...

But with such devices already in existance where it is explained that either the sun, rain or wind is powering the device...you won't get kids jaws to drop, bringing utter silience in the room, like you would if you placed a useless wheel on the ground and it rolled across the floor, and they disected it every way they could and found no battery, no magnets...no nothing. And I too would be agast, just like one of the kids...even if the device did absolutely nothing (no "work"), but just moved. :)
 
AgingYoung said:
People like Newman amaze me. He has been taking people's money for quite some time. In my opinion he is the sort with an obligation to produce something.
Click to expand...

I could have left out your last line, but decided it should stay since you did not go on to say that you thought he was a charlatan. When I saw him on the Tonight Show that night, I had totally convinced myself that this man was not into trying to scam anyone. I was under the total opinion that this guy thought he discovered something that even Einstein couldn't... and this was a giant ego-boost for him, and nothing more. Naturally, he, like anyone else, who has made modern marvels, would enjoy billions in royalties...but this is not what I think initially motivated him.

I have been the same way as him, in many ways. Money has never meant nothing to me. But I would really get off on being the one to come up with some real major discovery. I'm not talking inventions where you just come up with a better mousetrap, either. I mean something world-changing. And if it ain't some contraption, it could even be finding a proof that God really exists.
 
AgingYoung said:
I've modeled 2 of the 3 ideas I think might prove this isn't true wrt gravity with wm2d. I understand the limitations of a simulation and I might add with the help of people on this forum. Reality has a resolution much higher than the average simulation could come close to not to mention rounded calculations used to produce the next set of calculations induce error into models. I've used wm2d over a very limited range with models of those ideas and don't think lack of resolution or rounding are an issue. The third idea can't be simulated.
Click to expand...

I think you don't understand the limits of a simulation. You can't possibly get a simulation to show you that gravity is non conservative, because the simulation is built on the assumption that gravity is conservative. Even if it calculates gravity as a force (as opposed to calculating it from a conservative potential), the math says gravity will still be conservative.

The only thing the simulation can show you is rounding errors and constraint failures. I can produce some extremely amusing situations in Interactive Physics where energy isn't conserved (for example), but that's just the simulation trying and failing to satisfy all the constraints.
 
Iamme said:
But with such devices already in existance where it is explained that either the sun, rain or wind is powering the device...you won't get kids jaws to drop, bringing utter silience in the room, like you would if you placed a useless wheel on the ground and it rolled across the floor, and they disected it every way they could and found no battery, no magnets...no nothing. And I too would be agast, just like one of the kids...even if the device did absolutely nothing (no "work"), but just moved. :)
Click to expand...

Well put. Simply moving would be "work," would it not? It's the idea of a repetitive cycle (like a wheel) that makes an idea easy to prove. For example an apparatus able to escape its magnetic influence. It's a simple matter to suggest curving the track such that its endpoints meet. Logic dictates you'd have an energy surplus with each cycle. To date nothing meeting that criteria exists.

Even as I write I'm contributing to the lip-service PM generates by the hopeful. As a member of our needy planet I'd like nothing more than free energy. I, myself, play with the notion occationally. But it serves only as a base-line to discern flaws in my reasoning or math. To fortify an idea with some credence or credibility involves more than just criticizing a few fundamental (yet never disproven) laws, which PM proponents are fond of doing with some tenacity.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom