The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?  (Read 19141 times)

Offline justathought

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
  • We can achieve a greener planet
    • View Profile
    • Free Energy From Gravity
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« on: 26/06/2010 16:20:17 »
I have been researching and working on perpetual motion for the last 15 years. Despite a common notion that perpetual motion is not possible, I tend to think such a notion has been misplace. I have conducted experiments and demonstrations to prove that it is possible to come up with a perpetual motion device. However, I have observed certain key things which are a hindrance to our quest for one I find it important to talk about this as a background to my suggestion.

For a start, there is so much fire in the subject that we have lost direction of the argument. This has come about as a result of the numerous attempts by enthusiasts through history to create motion by scientifically wrong methods. Many have tried to create systems which turn out to be attempts at creating energy from nothing, and this is not possible. Their noble attempts have created concepts about perpetual motion which are misleading and as a result the term perpetual motion has been taken to mean a 'a machine which creates energy'. In effect the argument about perpetual motion has in a way made in reference to these attempts rather than the term perpetual motion itself.If we approach the subject with a free mind, putting aside the previous attempts, I find no logical explanation to disapprove perpetual motion even though I already disapprove these attempted designs.We can use known science to achieve it.
Our predecessors in this quest began well by trying to make the well-known overbalanced wheel mechanism. However, many could not figure out how to make the wheel imbalanced as the mechanisms they created always resulted in other features which balanced the wheel in accordance to thermodynamic laws. Now, they stopped there and upto date most attempts are of similar nature. This concept is what the proponents of the argument against perpetual motion relate to. In reality however, it is the method which is wrong and not the subject. A Perpetual motion device should be taken as an indipendent 'value' from the method used to attain it. It is not correct to say it is not possible just because so far we have wrong methods.
There is evidence of perpetual motion in the physical universe. The planets do orbit around the sun perpetually. This is scientifically sound and can be explained. But even when no man could explain it the phenomenon existed.It is wrong to limit reality to what we already know. If the wright brothers did this, we would not be having planes today. So what we need to do is to search for it and we will get it.


Obviously inventors in the past were trying to convert gravitational energy into kinetic energy when they came up with their designs. Their designs ended up not doing so because they lacked a definite mechanism to harness the gravitational power.
The suggestion I give offers a workable and tested way.
I will first outline the steps taken and then gradually describe each step one by one in coming posts.
There are three main steps:

1. Creating a balanced wheel with weights mounted on it whereby the wheel's balance is actually attained by the help of the weights on the lower side of the wheel. In other words, when these weights are negated in some way, then the wheel losses balance. In such a case the force created to rotate the wheel will be equivalent to the force of the negated weights. In this way there would be a definite and measurable source for the energy to drive the wheel and this energy is gravity!

2. The above mechanism should be in such a way that even when the wheel rotates, it does not loose the above feature. In this way when imbalance is created by negating the weights on the lower side of the wheel, then rotation does not affect the imbalance and therefore the imbalance is retained perpetually.

3. Use weights with equal density to water( or slightly more) and then partially immerse the wheel in water fr a specific depth in order to negate the effect of the weights on the lower side of the wheel and thus destabilizing the wheel perpetually.

I believe if the above are implemented successfully then we have our perpetual motion wheel.


 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8132
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #1 on: 26/06/2010 17:21:54 »
I find no logical explanation to disapprove perpetual motion

Friction, air resistance, electrical resistance (if you're trying a "frictionless" magnetic bearing). 
« Last Edit: 26/06/2010 17:23:26 by RD »
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #2 on: 26/06/2010 17:37:00 »
In answer to you question: Yes, a device of this kind will fail to work.
I always think it's good when people ask questions of the world around them, but in this case you are starting from completely the wrong premise.

Sorry to hear you've put 15 years into something that can not work. I'm afraid, you can't draw power from gravity indefinitely for the simple reason that gravity is no more than geometry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhaskara_II#Engineering
"The earliest reference to a perpetual motion machine date back to 1150, when Bhāskara II described a [overbalanced] wheel that he claimed would run forever."


If you machine works I'll give you my house....
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #3 on: 26/06/2010 17:46:29 »
« Last Edit: 26/06/2010 17:50:09 by Geezer »
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #4 on: 26/06/2010 17:52:46 »
"In this way there would be a definite and measurable source for the energy to drive the wheel and this energy is gravity!"

I'll think I'll keep them for now! p.s. I only rent  >:(       :D
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3822
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #5 on: 26/06/2010 18:12:18 »
I Georgian times perpetual motion machines were displayed to a gullible public for a small charge, they normally operated via a magnetic coupling to a wheel in an adjoining room turned by a serf.
 

Offline justathought

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
  • We can achieve a greener planet
    • View Profile
    • Free Energy From Gravity
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #6 on: 26/06/2010 19:37:52 »
               
Quote
If you machine works I'll give you my house....

  Yeepeee! House already? What a good start.  ;D

The concept surely works-at least on paper. The tests and experiments done also are very positive. My detailed mathematical analysis and experiments done, also counter checked by someone I trust, not only reveal the success but also gives an indication of the speed of rotation as well as the power expected from the wheel. A wheel of about 3 meters in diameter is expected to have a theoretical output of about 150W and rotate at about 27 rpm.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #7 on: 26/06/2010 20:00:36 »
My detailed mathematical analysis and experiments done, also counter checked by someone I trust,

Perhaps you should ask your friend if he's ever heard of the First Law of thermodynamics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
 

Offline justathought

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
  • We can achieve a greener planet
    • View Profile
    • Free Energy From Gravity
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #8 on: 26/06/2010 20:51:15 »
Quote
Friction, air resistance, electrical resistance (if you're trying a "frictionless" magnetic bearing). 

The concept takes care of all this. the notable thing in the concept is that there willl be sufficient energy to run the machine itself, counter all the friction and other negative forces, as well as offer enough to be tapped. It is expected to move with considerable force and won't need to be pushed so as to start.


Quote
  Sorry to hear you've put 15 years into something that can not work. I'm afraid, you can't draw power from gravity indefinitely for the simple reason that gravity is no more than geometry.

Gravity is regarded as one of the four fundamental forces in the universe. Though it is the weakest of the four, the gravitational force experienced by objects towards the earth is a formidable force and a source of energy.

Quote
Perhaps you should ask your friend if he's ever heard of the First Law of thermodynamics.

My friend is an experienced lecturer in Mechanical Engineering in one of the local colleges. Myself am trained in Electrical/Electronics Engineering. So we both are well familiar with the laws of physics.
The concept I will share does not contradict these laws.





 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #9 on: 26/06/2010 21:54:28 »
Quote
Perhaps you should ask your friend if he's ever heard of the First Law of thermodynamics.

My friend is an experienced lecturer in Mechanical Engineering in one of the local colleges. Myself am trained in Electrical/Electronics Engineering. So we both are well familiar with the laws of physics.
The concept I will share does not contradict these laws.



OK. The math should be interesting. Can we see it?
« Last Edit: 27/06/2010 06:43:59 by Geezer »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #10 on: 27/06/2010 09:46:33 »

 
The concept I will share does not contradict these laws.



Yes, it does.
It drives a coach and horses through the first law of thermodynamics.
If you and your friend don't realise that, then you simply have not understood the first law.
 

Offline justathought

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
  • We can achieve a greener planet
    • View Profile
    • Free Energy From Gravity
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #11 on: 27/06/2010 10:03:02 »
Quote
OK. The math should be interesting. Can we see it?

I was not expecting this.

Well, I've had this concept and wheel design (and had it patented) for the last eleven years or so. To date it has been the most tricky thing to deal with in my life. In the process of trying to gain help for development, I have spilled so much about it but I have managed to keep the vital information and final analysis.
There are three things about this invention: The concept and first design which explains the principles used to create perpetual motion, the real wheel design which if built is expected to work and the detailed mathematical analysis of the real wheel. The concept is very clear and most people I have shared it have no problem understanding that if implemented it works. Implementing this concept is another tricky thing and there are secrets which I keep to myself on how to make the real wheel work using the principles I have outlined. It is these secrets and the analytical formulas which I have derived in line with the laws of physics; specifically to analyze the wheel, that I have shared to one person whom I trust so as to ascertain that I am on the correct path. I may not share them openly.
Even though the wheel design is not a very complex thing, its analysis is very complex and it is what has kept those who have wind of the invention unable to go forward with it. With these formulas so long as one is using the concept to design a wheel, one can perform analysis in a simpler way.
The formulas center around finding the moment of inertia of the wheel; both when partially immersed in water and when not immersed in water, finding the effect in the moment of inertia when immersing the wheel at different depths in water, and finding the Kinetic energy. The rotational speed was estimated from an experimental prototype made using the concept some time ago. The prototype was made using simple equipment and was designed to achieve partial rotation. When not immersed in water, it was completely balanced but when immersed in water, it lost its balance and rotated for about 45 degrees.When removed from water, it rotates back to its original position. This prototype is available for demonstration purposes.What is required to build a complete wheel is high level equipment and high precision in making the parts. The speed of rotation was observed to be 30 rpm. Further more, using my formulas the demonstrated imbalance by the prototype was confirmed.

For me to share details of my analysis means first of all I introduce each formula and how it has been derived to the satisfaction of the reader, present my real wheel design and then use the formulas to analyze the wheel. Then what will I  be left with?

Maybe what I may do if need be is to submit the formulas and design for assessment by an independent mutually agreed party under an NDA, for the interest of an organization with whom we have entered into partnership. But this requires more discussion.

I will share as much as I can about the concept which I feel safe to expose because even if I don't, the information is now in many hands and may find its way into public forum.

Quote


 
The concept I will share does not contradict these laws.



Yes, it does.
It drives a coach and horses through the first law of thermodynamics.
If you and your friend don't realise that, then you simply have not understood the first law.


Well, let me go through this and I will post a reply
 

Offline justathought

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
  • We can achieve a greener planet
    • View Profile
    • Free Energy From Gravity
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #12 on: 27/06/2010 12:07:04 »
Quote
Yes, it does.
It drives a coach and horses through the first law of thermodynamics.
If you and your friend don't realise that, then you simply have not understood the first law.

I understand this concern. When I first made the breakthrough I got confused because at first it seemed as though the system creates energy. It took me some time to actually understand  what my created system deed and later I realized that in deed the principle can only NOT work if the first law of thermodynamics is WRONG. So long as this law is TRUE, then it has to WORK. At that time the law of thermodynamics was to me more a common sense issue than something I had studied. In fact at that time I had not studied much about it. To be sincere I had not even done enough analysis on my machine at the time of patenting.

Let me begin by stating that the way I understand it, the first law of thermodynamics seeks to express the fact that the energy in any closed system is constant and energy has to be injected into the system so as to get the same energy out of the system.
Before I explain how my wheel fulfills this, I think it is important that one has to really actively forget about the perpetual motion machines made in the past so as to understand the concept. There is weight in what I am about to say and I hope it is received well.
At the time when I first conceived the idea about my wheel, I had no idea about perpetual motion machines and the attempts made through history. I believe in a way this was helpful to me as every thought I had, I had no reference to make.When I enrolled in college I did not study mechanics deeply. The first time I heard of the term 'perpetual motion' was when I had a meeting with one of the professors in a local university about a year after patenting my invention and even then I did not concentrate on it well and did not bother much about it. To me what I had was simply a wheel which can rotate by the use of gravitational force.I knew it would be a revolutionary thing but I did not know about the ripples it would create in science. Sometimes being ignorant is advantageous because I think I would have stopped a long time ago if I really knew what I was doing, as this would have made me think I am on the wrong path.
I so much believe the history of perpetual motion machines is the greatest hindrance to its success. I had to study about perpetual motion devices so as to understand the background of the invention internationally and this I did less than two years ago.
Previous perpetual motion machines attempted to create energy within a closed system.Quite dumb :D My wheel does not do this. In my wheel, work is injected in to the system. What I did was find a way of injecting work perpetually from gravitational pull. With the awareness and knowledge I have right now I doubt if I would have gone through what I did then. There is a very thin line between this concept  and the well known perpetual motion wheels.My wheel is a PMM because it rotates perpetually but not because it creates energy within a closed system.

The historical attempts to make the overbalanced wheel was correct but people stopped there and got stuck.My first design turned out to be a kind of overbalanced wheel. Even though common sense told me it should not work, It took me three years to really analyze it and understand in detail why(or how) it did not work. Within the next year I got the breakthrough.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #13 on: 27/06/2010 12:51:35 »
How much more time and effort are you prepared to waste on this before you accept that gravity is a conservative field and therefore cannot be a source of energy?

This
"What I did was find a way of injecting work perpetually from gravitational pull."
simply isn't possible.
There's nothing more to discuss.


Incidentally, you have failed to notice that "the earth with your machine on it" is a closed system and therefore cannot generate energy continuously.
Your idea really does breach the third law.
« Last Edit: 27/06/2010 12:53:25 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline justathought

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
  • We can achieve a greener planet
    • View Profile
    • Free Energy From Gravity
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #14 on: 27/06/2010 14:05:53 »

I think I will elaborate on the concept. As I said, the design to make a fully functional wheel is on paper. But the design to create partial motion has been done in practice and the motion has been created using the concept which I am sharing.

The first thing is to make what I refer to as an unstable but balanced wheel. This is a wheel which is balanced but its balance can easily be upset. In creating this I sort to separate the two moments of the wheel(clockwise and anti-clockwise)along the vertical and horizontal planes as opposed to the traditional right and left sides of the wheel.



Usually on a beam balance, the clockwise moment caused downward force on the right hand side of the fulcrum and the anti-clockwise moment causes downward force on the left side of the fulcrum. I therefore joined up two beam balances at 90 degrees so as to come up with a cross like structure. Then using a system of levers with weights mounted at the end of the levers, I created a system whereby weights on the vertical beam caused the clockwise moment while those on the horizontal beam caused the anti-clockwise moment. Such a wheel is balanced, but is unstable. When one or both of the weights mounted on the vertical beam is reduced, then only the clockwise moment is reduced and thus the balance is upset.
 Now for weights I used those with equal density to water so that when the weight is in water, it appears weightless to the wheel. In this way the anti-clockwise moment becomes more and the wheel will rotate in the anti-clockwise direction.The fact that water comes in causing force on the weights opposing the gravitational pull makes the system open.
This is quite equivalent to someone pushing a wheel. That person injects force into the wheel and this force can be tapped. This work by the water is what translates into the driving force of the wheel. I would like anyone to think about this critically with a free mind.I think it is true.
 I have demonstrated this practically and it works. If it is not true then why did the structure rotate by itself?
This is the basic principle used to make the wheel.









 

Offline justathought

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
  • We can achieve a greener planet
    • View Profile
    • Free Energy From Gravity
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #15 on: 29/06/2010 14:45:38 »
Quote
How much more time and effort are you prepared to waste on this before you accept that gravity is a conservative field and therefore cannot be a source of energy?

This
"What I did was find a way of injecting work perpetually from gravitational pull."
simply isn't possible.

I have been thinking about this. I think I was wrong to state that 'what I did was find a way of injecting work perpetually from gravitational pull'. I now accept, this is not possible.
Maybe my focus all these years has been to create a perpetual motion machine and not so much about the source of the energy. it seems I have not achieved perpetual motion but I have achieved continuous movement as long as water is present. I realize that my analysis on the wheel has been based on the gravitational pull and imbalance experienced on the wheel in which case I managed to achieve a state of constant imbalance with the help of still water. this has had led me to think that the energy is from gravity. I realize that the measurement of the gravitational pull here becomes only a measure of energy and not a source of the energy itself. Somebody tell me if I am saying something or I am just making noise.
The analysis and tests done on the prototype indicate that this has been achieved. However, I realize that the cause of the imbalance is the energy source which in this case is the flotation given by the water. In this case, I will have to change all of my documents and writings as I have been claiming it is a gravitationally driven wheel.

It means therefore that mine is not a perpetual motion wheel because it will stop running when the water evaporates or goes below the required threshold.
Could it be then that the discovery is about a means of harnessing power from still water or flotation? Because I think flotation is a force and is the force driving my wheel.The flotation here though results into a net zero force on the weight on which it acts upon( because the weight has the same density as the water) but not a net upward thrust on the weight as in the case where a ship is made to float.

In answer to Bored Chemist's question, I am interested in the search because all along I have not been necessarily looking to tap energy from gravity but to create motion on a wheel without the use of fuel or electricity. It just happened that I have fumbled into the gravitational arguments time and again of which I am seeking answers and not trying to prove a point. I would like to understand the phenomenon I have seen in my experiments. Thanks though (Bored Chemist) because your input has got me thinking and in a way put me on the correct path.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #16 on: 29/06/2010 19:43:49 »
The Earth with your machine on it is still a closed system.
It is still impossible to extract work continuously from a closed system
Your idea still does not, and can not, work.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #17 on: 30/06/2010 08:04:54 »

It means therefore that mine is not a perpetual motion wheel because it will stop running when the water evaporates or goes below the required threshold.


There you go!

As long as you understand that it is highly unlikely that your machine is not doing work without some source of energy, you should be in good shape. If you can make a machine that can harness the available ambient energy and convert it into useful work, it's a great machine.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #18 on: 30/06/2010 19:48:08 »
As far as I can tell the water isn't doing anything so you could just put a lid over it to stop it evaporating.
Then, once again it's a closed system and cannot do work without breaching the laws of thermodynamics.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #19 on: 30/06/2010 23:19:44 »
Justathought: Can you put a video of your working prototype on Youtube?
 

Offline justathought

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
  • We can achieve a greener planet
    • View Profile
    • Free Energy From Gravity
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #20 on: 03/07/2010 12:07:32 »
I am sorry for late replies. I have been away for some days. Though I had drafted a reply to some of the questions two days ago before I left but for some technical reasons I could not post them. Let me go through some of the queries now.

Quote
The Earth with your machine on it is still a closed system.
It is still impossible to extract work continuously from a closed system
Your idea still does not, and can not, work.
I am yet to understand this well. How is the earth and my machine on, a closed system? Does the same apply to a hydro-power plant or even a fuel-driven electrical generator?
If the above two are not closed systems, then I don't see why my machine is.
I am hoping to make a completely operational prototype and hopefully, this may give us answers or maybe questions-I don't know.

Quote
As long as you understand that it is highly unlikely that your machine is not doing work without some source of energy, you should be in good shape. If you can make a machine that can harness the available ambient energy and convert it into useful work, it's a great machine.

I agree. I would also re-affirm that all along I have been working on the machine with the knowledge that it is getting its energy from some source. Only that I was not sure from where. The conception was in a 'cart before horse' manner because I envisioned a continuously imbalanced wheel. The imbalance meant there was some energy provided in line with thermodynamics. Let me explain  this : If you place two equal weights on the opposite sides of a beam balance and at equal distance from the pivot, the beam balance is balanced. If you however, apply force so as to move one weight further from the pivot, then you will create imbalance and consequently motion and Kinetic energy. This motion and kinetic energy should be equal to the energy used to shift the weight less the other energy losses such as friction. This has been the basis of my working because at every step of my design, I analyzed to see that there is an ideological balance to satisfy thermodynamics laws.And that there is a logical explanation as to the presence of the force which moves the weights. This is how I could tell that my first design would not work. I later, sought to get energy for moving the weights and I found out how to use water to help move the weights. So principally, the energy to move the machine is actually the flotation. Even though I have not built a fully functional prototype, my conviction so far is that there has not been enough reason based on analysis to show that it does not work. My sharing of this concept is aimed at putting it into scrutiny by different people to really get the truth about the concept.However I try only to expose what to me is safe to help the argument without exposing too much for obvious reasons. And I think answers to 'how' the concept has failed rather than 'why' it has failed are the more appropriate ones for anyone who has a contrary opinion.

Quote
Justathought: Can you put a video of your working prototype on Youtube?

I have been thinking about this for quite some time, but I think it is not yet time for this. The gains of putting it on internet are less than the harm of exposure. The prototype I have currently achieves motion for only about 45 degrees of rotation. I will be honest and say that even though there is motion, the force of rotation during testing was smaller than I had expected. I had downplayed the effect of friction on some joints whereby I should have used bearings and water resistance and was not keen to reduce it in the design. I should have streamlined the parts which move through water and also the weights themselves.
The machine rotated as explained when partially dipped in water. Contrary to what I had stated in an earlier post, It did not rotate back when removed from the water, but remained unmoved and balanced. When making that earlier post, I had confused the results with some earlier test results I had conducted on the machine out of water.Sorry for that.

The force achieved however logically shows that if completely made the machine would rotate continuously in one direction, not requiring push so as to start. If I manage to make a completely functional one, I will post it; obviously, after making the necessary protection arrangements.



 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #21 on: 03/07/2010 17:08:33 »
"
Quote
The Earth with your machine on it is still a closed system.
It is still impossible to extract work continuously from a closed system
Your idea still does not, and can not, work.
I am yet to understand this well. How is the earth and my machine on, a closed system? Does the same apply to a hydro-power plant or even a fuel-driven electrical generator?
If the above two are not closed systems, then I don't see why my machine is. "

Hydro power isn't perpetual motion, it's powered by the sun. Eventually, the sun will run out of hydrogen and stop working so the hydro power plant will stop.
A fuel driven generator will run out of fuel, it will then stop.
It's not perpetual motion.
Your machine doesn't use anything up (like fuel or hydrogen) so it would carry on forever.
That makes it a perpetual motion machine and, therefore impossible.

You really need to realise that you are wasting your time.
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3822
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #22 on: 03/07/2010 19:12:19 »
It depends how you define perpetual motion, perpetual motion certainly exists in systems that are not exporting any energy such as the electron cloud around an atomic nucleus.
When one talks of perpetual motion machines it assumed that one can continuously extract power from them, this of course not possible and although some designs may appear to defy this rule it is normally because they are in fact low efficiency heat engines such as the nodding duck.
Your wheel dunking weights in water probably falls into this class.
 

Offline justathought

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
  • We can achieve a greener planet
    • View Profile
    • Free Energy From Gravity
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #23 on: 05/07/2010 11:47:29 »
Quote
Your wheel dunking weights in water probably falls into this class.

Probably. I don't rule this out. I guess only when I finish making a fully functional one will anything about it be confirmed.

Quote
Eventually, the sun will run out of hydrogen and stop working so the hydro power plant will stop.

This may be true or not because it is based on an axiom, just in the same way as the thermodynamics laws and many other scientific laws that we adhere to.
Axioms are not proven beyond doubt with 'hard evidence' and may not be proven, but are believed to be true, mainly because they offer crucial answers and work when applied in science. I however think it is not correct to refer to them as infallible. Even if an axiom is correct lack of its complete understanding opens up loop holes in its application. Basing argument on axiom is a good guideline but should not be a limiting factor.Rather in reality something may operate due to some factors outside the axiom applied so long as the factors are not contradictory to the axiom itself.
While I don't wish to challenge axioms that for long have been working for us, I on the other hand, tend to take a law as infallible and therefore unchallengeable if there is hard evidence supporting it. Many times, what works is not always correct or true. Something may work due to what I call a 'true lie theory'.
A 'True lie theory' to me is one which is working without being necessarily correct but when applied, it enforces some parallel unknown or known law which is the one that works. For instance, For many years ago, Diabetes [ High blood sugar(glucose)] had been perceived to be caused by the intake of sugary(sucrose) foods and as such, people were advised by medical practitioners to reduce intake of sweet and sugary foods. In later years, It was discovered that Diabetes is not precisely caused by high sugar intake but rather by not having enough fiber content in our foods and not taking whole unprocessed foods.
The earlier perception partially worked because in the effort of avoiding sugary foods, most people actually avoided processed and low fiber content foods ( most of the sugary foods fall into this category) and so it worked but was not entirely true.
The interpretation that one cannot gain useful energy from a physically rotating object without the input of fuel or electricity has been held for long but is this a correct interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics? If my concept applied on earth is a closed system and limited to operate as long as the earth and sun exists then is it not worthwhile?
We also may not be able to understand every phenomenon observed in the universe. For instance we cannot perceive in our minds or explain whether the universe has an edge or not? Using science there is no answer to this, but the universe is a reality. In a way it seems our minds are limited to a certain extent of understanding something which most scientists including Isaac Newton, came to realize. However, there is still more to be understood and discovered and we should seek to get them for our own benefit as mankind.

 While appreciating the great work done by scientists through history and for the laws that have been of such huge benefit to us, I don't think we can entirely prove that everything they said was 100% correct even though they work. Some laws may be operating in the 'true lie theory'( I don't know if there is another term for this -it stands to be corrected). The only way a law can be regarded as infallible is if it has a substantive prove of which this may not be possible for some.
Right now, because they work, then we should use them as they are the best of what we have. We should not however resist change or modification on them.The world is changing and new discoveries are being made. There may be forces in existence which are yet to be discovered. Sometime later we might discover some new laws or even build on existing laws. What is working right now may eventually be found out to be not true or being partially true.

This is the reason why I look for substantive evidence against a concept. My concept has to be analyzed in line with currently known axiom. However the statement that it is not possible to source energy by a system which runs not on known fuel, wind, solar or active energy input is in itself not an axiom but is based upon an axiom. The interpretation of the related axiom resulting in the statement may be in error. The axiom is that energy can not be created in a closed system. In that case the question should be if my concept seeks to do this of which I think it does not. My concept if proven by a working model, may have succeeded in taping energy from flotation or whatever we may find out. My experiments so far are positive, but until I have a fully functional wheel, I cannot claim 100% that it works. I however, seek substantive argument on the concept and not on the law it tends to break because if it works, it may be found that there is no law being broken and that there is source of its energy. I don't consider this a waste of time. How much time and money has been spent in research on finding possible solutions to our problems? What is spent on this project is relatively very little and I think it is worth it.
I will share more on the concept to allow for more scrutiny.

 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #24 on: 05/07/2010 20:00:02 »
So, you are saying that running out of fuel won't stop the sun?
OK ignoring the fact that this is a science website and that's gogwash, you have then decided that the sun is a perpetual motion machine.
But, since perpetual motion machines don't exist, it must be awfully dark where you are.


"While I don't wish to challenge axioms that for long have been working for us, I on the other hand, tend to take a law as infallible and therefore unchallengeable if there is hard evidence supporting it."
OK, the conservation of energy is very robustly demonstrated to be true in absolutely every system in which it has been tested.
You therefore accept that the conservation of energy is true.
So, why are you wasting time on a perpetual motion machine which you already know cannot, and will not, work?

"It was discovered that Diabetes is not precisely caused by high sugar intake but rather by not having enough fiber content in our foods and not taking whole unprocessed foods."
Would you like to explain that bollocks to my vegetarian yet diabetic friend?
Do you not understand that diabetes was a known condition before there was much processed food. Do you know that it occurs in non-human animals too?

"The interpretation that one cannot gain useful energy from a physically rotating object without the input of fuel or electricity has been held for long but is this a correct interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics? "
Yes, it is.

"What is spent on this project is relatively very little and I think it is worth it."
Possibly, but only as a work of art; because it will never work.


 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #24 on: 05/07/2010 20:00:02 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums