The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?  (Read 19103 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?
« Reply #25 on: 15/07/2010 10:24:34 »
About the Diabetes thing, let me not talk much about it as it is not the subject of our discussion. My point was to express the fact that some times some theory might work but not necessarily because it is correct. I however am aware that currently the talk on Diabetes centers around encouraging people to eat whole, unprocessed foods as well as having a physically active lifestyle. Not being a medical practitioner, my statements may not be accurate. I also have heard that these measures are taken more because of statistical evidence rather than research. Let me leave this for the respective experts to confirm. I am sorry if I have wronged anyone in relation to this; it was not my intention.
Now concerning the wheel, let me say that there is no harm in trying out something so long as I am not causing infringement on anyone, intellectually or otherwise. So far my attempts are based on trial- but not with 'error'. I am working as well as reflecting on relevant laws concerning what I am working on and so long as I find the going is within the relevant laws, then I don't see reason to stop. In the end if my wheel does not work, it will still be a good trial.
though I plan to post information about the wheel,I may not be able to explain enough about it on this forum for reasons of space and continuity, but more is on my blog.
I am seeking constructive criticism on the wheel to find out why it should not work. If it violates scientific laws then I will need to know how. For instance I would like prove that my wheel has not attained constant imbalance; if it is balanced or an analysis on forces working on it.I am prepared to expose enough about it. I risk loosing its novelty in the event that it is a runner, but I am prepared for this.
 

Offline Stefanb

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #26 on: 15/07/2010 17:32:58 »
If you want to prove your wheel has not achieved constant imbalance, then note that friction will slowly reduce its momentum until it rests (perfectly balanced) at the lowest point of its swing.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #27 on: 15/07/2010 21:46:02 »
"About the Diabetes thing, let me not talk much about it as it is not the subject of our discussion."
OK.

The wheel still won't work.
You keep saying that it won't do any harm for you to try.
It will.
It lends credibility to the "anti science" movement.
It wastes time that you might use doing something useful.
It may lead others to waste their time.

 

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 #28 on: 16/07/2010 13:25:33 »
Quote
If you want to prove your wheel has not achieved constant imbalance, then note that friction will slowly reduce its momentum until it rests (perfectly balanced) at the lowest point of its swing.
This statement applies to mechanisms that utilize swinging action, or that would need to be started in some ways. In such mechanisms, the motion achieved is as a result of the initial force applied so that the force has to be applied again and again so as to maintain the motion and to keep overcoming the friction and other forces.
Now my principle does not operate in this way. I am thinking of how to post a video shot of  my experiment. A picture speaks a thousand words.
To give an explanation, the principle utilizes some force (flotation/gravitational). Now the force created on the wheel by this principle is enough to fulfill the following three key requirements: to drive the wheel, overcome all resistances; friction and other,and still maintain enough power that will be tapped for economic use.
The force which moves the wheel is not applied by push or any other input.Once the wheel is completely assembled, it is expected to initiate its own rotation. Force will have to be applied to prevent it from rotating so long as it is partially immersed in water.This means that the friction and other forces are already overcomed from the start. Also, the force available at any time for rotation is enough to run it. The wheel has imbalance at all times of rotation though the force of imbalance varies as it rotates, but the minimum force at any one time fulfills all the above three key requirements.
« Last Edit: 16/07/2010 13:37:12 by justathought »
 

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 #29 on: 16/07/2010 14:20:05 »
Quote
It lends credibility to the "anti science" movement.

This is one "movement" I will try to keep away from or be an inspiration to. Back here at home we have a saying: 'You don't cut down the tree which supports you'. The mental picture is a person sitting on a branch and then using a saw to cut down the same branch at the base where it joins the main trunk.
I respect science and am far from 'attacking' it. All along, man has benefited from science.
My efforts will come to an abrupt end once I build a complete wheel and it fails to work. So I think the faster I do this the earlier we would conclude on the matter.
If the wheel fails, science will have won, I would have learnt.
In the event that  my wheel works, science will still have won. A new area of scientific study might have opened up. So far I am using science to do my work, the calculations, analysis and experiments are all scientific.
I tend to think this work may benefit all of us. Why would I bring this wheel onto this forum if it is not scientific? Even though I have worked on the wheel, I tend to think I need more expert input from others. If somebody proves that the mechanism cannot work, then that's the end of the story, we 'shake hands' go our different ways. Just in case it works (however unlikely this seems)we all benefit. We join hands, work together for the benefit of all. So in a way the prize at the end is greater than the shame.
 

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 #30 on: 23/08/2010 14:01:01 »
After much deliberation, I have decided to put my principles out for scrutiny. All comments are welcome. More so, those directly on the principles used in the wheel's mechanisms. I will appreciate it so much if someone would point out the mistakes in the principles and give a sound analytical argument. The details of the wheel can be downloaded through the links given below:

http://www.filesonic.com/file/17520449/FREE WHEEL ANALYSIS 2.docx [nofollow]
http://www.filesonic.com/file/17515797/FREEWHEEL PARTS (IMAGES) DEISCRIPTION.docx [nofollow]
http://www.filesonic.com/file/17516177/Fulcrum S.GIF [nofollow]
http://www.filesonic.com/file/17520411/fw drawings.pdf [nofollow]
http://www.filesonic.com/file/17516201/Image001.GIF [nofollow]
http://www.filesonic.com/file/17516243/Image012.GIF [nofollow]
http://www.filesonic.com/file/17516287/Image013.GIF [nofollow]
http://www.filesonic.com/file/17516757/Image018.GIF [nofollow]
http://www.filesonic.com/file/17516799/Image019.GIF [nofollow]
http://www.filesonic.com/file/17516843/Image020.GIF [nofollow]
http://www.filesonic.com/file/17516923/Video000.3gp [nofollow]
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #31 on: 23/08/2010 19:37:11 »
"I will appreciate it so much if someone would point out the mistakes in the principles"
One mistake is that you have forgotten about the law of conservation of energy.

Incidentally, I couldn't actually see the files but that really doesn't matter in this case.
 

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 #32 on: 28/08/2010 13:33:18 »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #33 on: 29/08/2010 10:53:21 »
Most of those files just link to a whole lot of junk advertising.
Surely you can come up with just one simple picture and post it here on this site.
 

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 #34 on: 07/09/2010 07:48:32 »
Bored Chemist and all, hope you will excuse me for taking long to reply.Due to some personal activities I am unable to participate more frequently.This may go on for some time, but I will try as much as possible to keep up with the going.
About the links I gave, I have found this to be convenient. Any other way simply is not working well. However, anyone who has been able to download the documents and pictures successfully may post them on the forum.

Regards
« Last Edit: 07/09/2010 07:56:56 by justathought »
 

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 #35 on: 07/09/2010 08:00:08 »
OOops!

I didn't know the uploading was successful. Anyway here are more pictures.
« Last Edit: 07/09/2010 08:02:41 by justathought »
 

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 #36 on: 07/09/2010 08:06:25 »
Some more
 

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 #37 on: 07/09/2010 08:14:47 »
Just to point out, diagrams 18 and 19 show the two positions by which the wheel balances. This reveals the reality about the pedal and imbalance forces I have described in the analysis.
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #38 on: 07/09/2010 12:06:04 »
It's a very nice art installation you have there, Justa'

I'm glad to see you've discovered the device's balancing point... Having done the work to build your machine, now you can see in person how the system will find the lowest energy state - and stop.  There is no 'free' energy here, I'm afraid.
 

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 #39 on: 07/09/2010 18:20:29 »
Quote

I'm glad to see you've discovered the device's balancing point...

No,The machine is supposed to be immersed in water so as to loose its balance. The machine I have posted aims to show the principle by which permanent imbalance can be achieved. More is explained in the analysis. I was posting it immediately after the pictures but was interrupted by a power black-out; the very thing I am fighting.
so, below is the analysis which aims to prove imbalance created by the use of the principle.To avoid complexity of the explanation, I have not included the calculations to determine the energy. The energy equivalents are only estimates based upon the imbalance. The conventional formulas for calculating Kinetic energy are not applicable here directly due to the numerous movements of different parts of the machine. I have a way to simplify the machine into a rigid equivalent 'imaginary 'structure for the purpose of getting it's kinetic energy, unless someone suggests another way. I will share this some other time.Note that the diagrams in the analysis could not be displayed and one may need to check them out from the downloads, until I formulates some for this forum.




ANALYSIS OF THE MAIN FORCES
ACTING ON THE WHEEL (FREE WHEEL)

This study is aimed at revealing the main forces acting on the free wheel which eventually cause motion on the Free wheel. Practically due to the fact that the wheel partly moves in water, the total resultant forces are many including water resistance, friction as well as up thrust. This study however does not focus on them. It is expected that the wheel design seeks to reduce these forces as much as possible. This study focuses on the main forces which are responsible for both the clockwise and anti-clockwise moments on the wheel which are:-
A)   Imbalance force
B)   Pedal force


A)   IMBALANCE FORCE

         Figures fw. 1 and fw. 3 show the movement of the weights as seen from the side of the wheel as it rotates. The drawings show 16 different weight positions as a single weight moves in one complete revolution of the wheel.
The lever (r) is joined to the big arm (R) through a joint (S) so that as the wheel rotates, (r) revolves about the joint (S) at the same angular velocity but in a plane which is 90° to the wheel’s plane of rotation. This means that as the wheel rotates in the anti – clockwise direction the weight in position 1 moves in a direction 90° to the paper i.e. either ‘out’ of the paper or ‘into’ the paper.
The perpendicular distance of r (perpendicular distance of weight from (s)) will be r cos θ where θ is the angle of rotation from the weight position 1. If the wheel had 16 weights each mounted on a lever(r) and positioned as shown in the diagram fw.3, then if it is made to rotate, each weight assumes the position of the fore-running weight and thus the weights will always be positioned as shown despite the rotation.
The arrangement has achieved two important things:-
a)   The weights descending are positioned further from fulcrum (f) and the weights ascending are positioned closer to fulcrum (f) and thereby creating imbalance.
b)   Unlike most perpetual motion wheels suggested, the number of weights distributed on the left hand side and on the right hand side of the point of rotation are equal in number and thus the imbalance is still maintained by this arrangement (side view arrangement).

This arrangement however, comes with a price which as we will see later balances out the wheel and this price is the pedal force.

B)   THE PEDALING (Pedal) FORCE
The introduction of a second plane of rotation on the wheel results in some side-ways weight displacement which can be seen by a front view of the wheel. This causes the ‘pedal’ force. This force result from the mass of the weights acting at 900 from the wheels plane of rotation as the weight revolves about fulcrum (s).

As seen from figures fw2 and fw4, the pedal force will be at a maximum at weight positions 5 and 13 and reduce to zero at positions 1 and 9.

If the laws of conservation of energy are to be retained then the wheel should be balanced. The ONLY possible explanation is that the imbalance reveled on figure fw3 and fw1 (side view) is cancelled by the pedaling force shown in figures fw2 and fw4. 
NB. All of the pedaling force is contributing to the clockwise moment.

Taking each plane as a balance lever machine the weights act in pairs i.e. weight on position 1 acts with weight on position 9. Consequently weight 2 acts with weight 10, and weight 5 with weight 13 etc. In this case it will be discovered that the weights on the horizontal i.e. positions 16  through 2 and 8 through 10 have more imbalance force in them then pedal force.
NB. Compare figure fw1 and fw2 or fw3 and fw4 to see this.

However, weights 12 through 14 and 4 through 6 have more of the pedal force then imbalance force. As such, the weights on vertical plane contribute more to pedal force and thus the clockwise moment - but the weights on horizontal plane contribute more to the imbalance force and thus anti – clockwise moment.




Creating force to move the wheel
If weights with equal density to water such as water bottles, are used and the wheels submerged into water at the level show, then the force that will be ‘canceled’ by the submerged weights will be the pedal force (or more of it than the imbalance force) and thus, force will be created to cause motion on the wheel.


COMPLICATION IN CREATING CONSTANT IMBALANCE

In ideal situations and to get as much power as possible from the wheel, then all the weights in positions 12 through 14 and 4 through 6 should be ‘cancelled’ or negated in some way.
Because of the ellipse shape of the path of the weights, achieving this is tricky. To find the best way, we need to look at several outstanding factors of the Free wheel arrangement.
a)   Both the ‘Imbalance’ and ‘Pedal’ forces can be increased by either or both of the following:-
   Increasing the mass of the weight used
   Decreasing the ratio of the length of the lever (r) to the arm (R).
   Increasing the small (gear) radius (please see note below)

N/B. If the difference between r and R is increased then the weights will tend to move closer to their usual circular path (shown by the dotted) line and both the ‘imbalance’ and ‘pedal’ forces will be reduced. However it will be easier to cancel out the pedal force. This is because it will be easier to ‘capture’ the weights inside water through positions 4 and 6. It will also be easier to design a railing to ‘support’ the weight through position 13 to (almost) 15. Refer of fig Fw. 3. Ideally the distance of weight through x should be in water and the distance y not in water.
If r:R is 2 : 5 i.e figures fw.3 and fw.4 then at least we will be able to ‘capture’ distance w in water which is a good achievement. Unfortunately a bit of y is also captured in water(it shouldn’t be) and a portion of x (from position 6 to 7) is not in water (it should be).
Even though so far I have not designed the railing to support the weight from position 14 to 15. This is possible and will contribute some more to the energy to rotate the wheel.
Considering that r: R is 4: 5 (figure fw.1 and fw. 2) there is more ‘pedal’ and ‘imbalance’ force created but  unfortunately much less of distance x is ‘captured’ in water and at the same time all of distance y is in water (again,it shouldn’t be).
The water level may be in either of the two levels shown.




Move experimentation needs to be done to find out the best dimensions of r and R to be used for optimum energy and efficiency.
N/B. The ‘small wheel’ is the gear attached to the (r) and which transmits the ‘pedal’ force to the wheel. It is shown in the technical drawings and prototype pictures.

EXPERIMENTS RESULTS
An experimental prototype with Four weights was made to test the forces acting on the wheel
The ratio of r: R was 1: 2.
The wheels measurements were as follows:
R   =   25cm
r   =   12.5 cm
Mass of weight    = 500g
Small wheel radius    = 4.25cm
The lower weight was removed to cause the effect of negating as when it is immersed in water. The results were as follows:
a)   The wheel attained enough force to rotate when three weights are placed in position 1, 9 and 13 each, and also in positions 2, 10 and 14 each. These two positions are significant as they can be achieved by emerging the wheel in water to negate the lower weight.

However, position 15, 7 and 12 had a balance effect with no motion either clockwise or anticlockwise. This is likely due to the small wheel radius which is quite too small as compared to r thus causing a bigger pedaling force on the weights.
b)   Weights on the vertical plane exhibited clockwise moment e.g. if two weights are mounted in positions 13 and 5 each, they would move in the clockwise direction until they reach positions 3 and 11.

c)   Weights on the horizontal plane exhibited anticlockwise moment as expected. If two weights are placed in positions 16 and 8 each, they would move in the anticlockwise direction until they reach position 3 and 11.

d)   Two weights placed on position 15 and 7 each exhibited a balanced state with no motion in either direction.

e)   A single weight placed in position 5 exhibited clockwise moment and moved at least to position 4 and if r is closer to R, the weight moved beyond 4 and closer to 3.


These experiment results reveal that the principle used to cause imbalance and pedal forces are successful. More can however be done to improve on the working of the wheel.
« Last Edit: 07/09/2010 22:06:40 by peppercorn »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #40 on: 07/09/2010 19:31:58 »
You can spend from now till doomsday analysing the forces.
It stops.
That's kind of hard to square with the idea of a perpetual motion machine.

On the other hand, you might do well to try to follow this guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Tinguely
 

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #41 on: 13/09/2010 16:48:40 »
             
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.

I doubted the theoretical output of about 150W.

Foucault pendulum was known to be interacting with the rotation of Earth and exchanges angular momentum in the process. In theory, a horizontal wheel pivoted at the center if suspended in mid air would spin with a perpetual differential force as a result of Earth's angular momentum (caused by gravity) is stronger towards the equator and lesser towards the pole.   

I noticed the smaller horizontal wheels in your design. IMHO, at best with a wheel at ten times the size you mentioned it could only turn on a few LEDs.

For renewable energy production, there are viable technologies such as wind turbine or PV panel. Are you updated that PV panel has currently achieved an economy payback period of less than ten years? Fifteen years ago it would take about one hundred years. At the irradiance level of 1000w/sqm at 25°C, a 20% efficient monocrystalline silicon PV panel the size of your wheel (3m diameter) could generate a power of π(3/2)^2 x 1000 x 20% = 1,414 watts. Give it five hours of sunlight per day it could still achieve an average power of 295 watt in a twenty-four hours cycle, or about 7 kWh of average energy production per day.

The oil industries would not be worried by your wheel at all even if it could work to produce your expected amount of power you so claimed, and you still have not even got it working at all after fifteen years; why the secrecy? Even if your wheel is well designed and built, I reckon it at most could produce 5 watts of perpetual power; a couples of thermodynamic drinking birds could do better than that.

« Last Edit: 13/09/2010 18:23:48 by Vincent »
 

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #42 on: 13/09/2010 17:07:41 »
Incidentally, you have failed to notice that "the earth with your machine on it" is a closed system and therefore cannot generate energy continuously.

Are you aware of Einstein's frame-dragging effect? What do you think had caused the polar vortex of Jupiter to spin in perpetual motion with its atmosphere on it? This occurs on Earth as well. 

Quote
Your idea really does breach the third law.

Breached the third law? Anyway, this was breached in proven scientific experiments, have you not heard of Bose-Einstein condensate and Dr. Hau's stop light experiment?
« Last Edit: 14/09/2010 20:27:17 by Vincent »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #43 on: 13/09/2010 19:57:58 »
"Are you aware of Einstein's frame-dragging effect? What do you think had caused the polar vortex of Jupiter to spin in perpetual motion with its atmosphere on it? "

Only if you use the unorthodox definition of perpetual which means it will eventually stop.

"Anyway, this was breached in proven scientific experiments, have you not heard of Bose-Einstein condensate and Dr. Hau's stop light experiment?"
I'm probably going to regret this but OK; enlighten me.
How does a B-E condensate break the 3rd law?

(There are, btw, zero instances of the word "law" or "thermodynamics" on the page cited. There is one instance of the word "third" which refers to the fact that the gloop is 3 times longer than its thickness)
 

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #44 on: 15/09/2010 12:49:36 »
"Are you aware of Einstein's frame-dragging effect? What do you think had caused the polar vortex of Jupiter to spin in perpetual motion with its atmosphere on it? "

Only if you use the unorthodox definition of perpetual which means it will eventually stop.

The dictionary definitions for the word "perpetual" also refers to motion that lasts for an indefinitely long time; not necessary forever. Where did you get your so-called orthodox definition that the word "perpetual" would absolutely mean forever?

It is obvious that you have not read the first post of this thread by justathought for his definition of his PMM. He clearly stated that his machine was designed to harness energy from an external source; his PMM involves an external energy input. Wheather he could harness it or not is another issue.

The device of justathought is not a PMM of the first kind. Geezer illustrated a PMM of the second kind that has existed and worked, while RD suggested a PMM of the third kind that are known to work when its circumstances are met. The orbital motion of Earth moving around the Sun as suggested by justathought could be categorized as a PMM of the third kind created by nature.

By inisiting that justathought's PMM is of the first kind you are making a strawman argument here.

Quote
"Anyway, this was breached in proven scientific experiments, have you not heard of Bose-Einstein condensate and Dr. Hau's stop light experiment?"
I'm probably going to regret this but OK; enlighten me.
How does a B-E condensate break the 3rd law?

It's not like its a well kept secret. Just google for it and it is all over the places. Professor Hau's experiment could stop light with her Bose-Einstein condensate of sodium atom that was cooled to within a billionth of a degree of minus 459.7 degrees F.; an impossible feat according to the third law of thermodynamics.


Quote
(There are, btw, zero instances of the word "law" or "thermodynamics" on the page cited. There is one instance of the word "third" which refers to the fact that the gloop is 3 times longer than its thickness)

Yeah right, so who posted the below in this thread?

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.

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.

Then, once again it's a closed system and cannot do work without breaching the laws of thermodynamics.

One mistake is that you have forgotten about the law of conservation of energy.

Btw, you still have not explained how justathought's PMM does breach the third law.



 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #45 on: 15/09/2010 20:23:15 »
Fanfare and flashing lights as B C admits to a mistake.

Oops! Typo; it's the first law he breaches, not the third.
Mea maxima culpa.

In fairness, if you had something that breached the 1st law I think you could use it to make something that would breach the 3rd law.
It hardly matters for two reasons.
Firstly because breaching any of the laws is impossible.
More importantly still (take a deep breath and think hard about this)
his machine stopped.

Now to get back to the matter in hand.

Re the definition of perpetual.
This is the first on line dictionary entry I found
"continuing or enduring forever; everlasting."
from here.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perpetual
There are plenty of others.

Of course, a "perpetual" motion machine that just goes for a long time isn't anything special. One that works forever would be.


You may remember that it stopped. So, not very perpetual was it?

Now let's look at the first part of the original post.
"I have been researching and working on perpetual motion for the last 15 years. Despite a common notion that perpetual motion is not possible,..."

There are two sorts of PPM those that can work, but do nothing useful- the cliche example is the electron in orbit round a proton (not a strictly accurate picture- but it proves the point); and the impossible sort which provide energy continuously without needing some energy source.

Now it's quite clear that the OP is talking about the impossible sort of PPM because he says it's the sort everyone says is impossible.

OK so, you say "It is obvious that you have not read the first post of this thread by justathought for his definition of his PMM. He clearly stated that his machine was designed to harness energy from an external source; his PMM involves an external energy input."

I pointed out that while the earth is external to his machine, you can consider the earth and his machine as a single composite entity.
In that case the composite system would, if his magic worked, be a PPM of the impossible kind.

That's not a strawman, its reductio ad absurdum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Are you sure it's not you who failed to read this?

Incidentally, since the Earth/Sun system loses energy as gravity waves, it's not perpetual either.

Anyway, back at the question you seem to have forgotten to answer.

Why do you think the 3rd law is a broken by the BE condensate and, more interestingly, why wasn't this touted all over the press?

The 3rd law says getting to absolute zero is forbidden. Getting jolly cold is still permitted; these people did that. Is that what you have got mixed up about?

And finally
(just in case anyone is still reading this)
"Yeah right, so who posted the below in this thread?"

I did; you can tell- it has my name against it.
So what?
I take it you don't understand what "cited" means
It means the page you referred to.
This one
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/01.24/01-stoplight.html
that is the page you cited; you can tell because it doesn't mention "laws" or "thermodynamics" but it does  use the word "third" - just once and referring to the fact that the gloop is 3 times longer than its thickness.


Incidentally, why on earth are you seeking to defend the "perpetual" motion machine that stops?

 

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 #46 on: 16/09/2010 20:35:50 »
Guys, Excuse me for being on and off the forum. It is unavoidable for now.

I would like to acknowledge the sentiments about my wheels power. I agree, the power is much smaller than many available alternative energy systems.This is just but a starting point. My attempts to post the mathematical analysis failed several times for some reasons that I don't understand. I will however try posting them here.
Quote
Even if your wheel is well designed and built, I reckon it at most could produce 5 watts of perpetual power; a couples of thermodynamic drinking birds could do better than that.

I really doubt if this is true about my wheel. Theoretically, there is good sign that it could produce more. For now however, My aim is to create the motion then work on the power to improve it.The first aeroplane could barely ferry a person across a football pitch, but it was a starting point.

I would like to clarify that the wheel shown in the pictures is not the final wheel design I have, but an experimental prototype to demonstrate the principles used in achieving PM. For the wheel to work, it has to have more than eight beams. For novelty reasons, I will not post the final design which also has an added feature to improve its power for practical motion.
it is therefore not correct for B C to say that it stops. The mathematical analysis proves that there would be continuous motion.
 

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 #47 on: 16/09/2010 20:43:21 »
I have also added a link to my 1999 video showing the wheels, movement and a better visual demonstration of the movements of the wheel's different parts.
The design is quite crude here but puts things very clear.

http://depositfiles.com/files/zx7uiesrr [nofollow]
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #48 on: 17/09/2010 06:54:24 »
I'm not waiting 108 minutes for it to download.
Anyway
If it has not been running continuously then you seem to have rather missed the point about my assertion that  it stops; I'm quite correct to say so.
However you dress it up, it stops.
End of story
 

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #49 on: 18/09/2010 10:32:18 »
Fanfare and flashing lights as B C admits to a mistake.

This is exaggeration. Besides, the editing tool of this Internet forum has no capability for displaying words with flashing light and it offers very limited distinct color. Red was merely a convenient color used for highlighting the keywords of opponent’s arguments that were in doubt or not clear for clarification purposes.

Oops! Typo; it's the first law he breaches, not the third.
Mea maxima culpa.

Point noted.

In fairness, if you had something that breached the 1st law I think you could use it to make something that would breach the 3rd law.
It hardly matters for two reasons.

It matters; specifically this is a fallacy of composition.

Firstly because breaching any of the laws is impossible.

This is a converse fallacy in a sweeping generalization. It is a fact that breaching of scientific laws had occurred time and again in the past; you are passing an assumption as a fact here. The science of thermodynamics although is a rigorous theory that had achieved scientific consensus, the assumption for energy in its mathematical treatment is still an uncertainty and the postulation of heat as its first principle was based on extrapolated hypothesis.

Quote
“It is important to realize that in physics today,
we have no knowledge what energy is.”
- Richard Feynman

More importantly still (take a deep breath and think hard about this)
his machine stopped.

In the past before Levitron was proven to work, although people trying to build such similar gadgets had been unsuccessful, it does not conclude the mechanism for Levitron is impossible. 

Now to get back to the matter in hand.

Re the definition of perpetual.
This is the first on line dictionary entry I found
"continuing or enduring forever; everlasting."
from here.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perpetual
There are plenty of others.

You selectively leave out its other definitions; you are denying the antecedent that leads to fallacies for your arguments pertaining to the terminology defined by justathoght in his thread.

Of course, a "perpetual" motion machine that just goes for a long time isn't anything special. One that works forever would be.

You may remember that it stopped. So, not very perpetual was it?

This is a moot argument that is off the point. The generalization for the standard classification for perpetual motion in the thermodynamics context refers to self-powered perpetual motion; these types of PMM are impossible in the science of thermodynamics. And even then, it cited there are rare exceptions particularly for the PMM of the third kind. Such PMM are known to work and was used in the Gravity Probe-B project in a precision measuring instrument.

Your argument implies the one that just goes for a long time would not be significant is merely your opinion in a circular reasoning to assert your proposition.


Now let's look at the first part of the original post.
"I have been researching and working on perpetual motion for the last 15 years. Despite a common notion that perpetual motion is not possible,..."

In the first post where justathought elaborate on his PMM, there were fifteen instances where he used the word “perpetual motion” to explain what he meant for his PMM, what you did was snipping a part of a paragraph from his first post to assert your straw man argument.

There are two sorts of PPM those that can work, but do nothing useful- the cliche example is the electron in orbit round a proton (not a strictly accurate picture- but it proves the point); and the impossible sort which provide energy continuously without needing some energy source.

Two sorts of PPM? I take this as typo mistakes; two? sorts? PPM? Specifically there are three types of PMM in the standard classification; the word sort implies the assortment in any type of PMM is not appropriate for describing the standard classification for PMM. I believe you meant PMM as the acronym used by justathought and I saw you typing it correctly elsewhere in your post.

Now it's quite clear that the OP is talking about the impossible sort of PPM because he says it's the sort everyone says is impossible.

Nah. It was absolute clear that justathought is talking about a not self-powered PMM. His analysis is flawed in many aspects, but that’s another issue.

OK so, you say "It is obvious that you have not read the first post of this thread by justathought for his definition of his PMM. He clearly stated that his machine was designed to harness energy from an external source; his PMM involves an external energy input."

I pointed out that while the earth is external to his machine, you can consider the earth and his machine as a single composite entity.
In that case the composite system would, if his magic worked, be a PPM of the impossible kind.

That's not a strawman, its reductio ad absurdum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Are you sure it's not you who failed to read this?

Your argument forwarded here is a fallacy of composition within another fallacy of misplaced concreteness, its ignoratio elenchi.

Your straw man argument is undeniable; you altered his posit with what you insist he was positing that was known to be fallacious.


Incidentally, since the Earth/Sun system loses energy as gravity waves, it's not perpetual either.

See the other dictionary definitions for the word perpetual. Again this is denying the antecedent in linguistic fallacy.

You statement
”There are two sorts of PPM those that can work, but do nothing useful- the cliche example is the electron in orbit round a proton” contradicts with what you had mentioned above for the Earth/Sun system.

Anyway, back at the question you seem to have forgotten to answer.

Why do you think the 3rd law is a broken by the BE condensate and,

In that sentence (as quoted below) I did not state BEC violates the 3rd law of thermodynamics.  When you asked the question for the first time, I take it that you have not understood the sentence in that post, you obviously did not know that the sodium atom used by Professor Hau was a BEC; in my subsequent reply I therefore relates it for you.

Quote
“Anyway, this was breached in proven scientific experiments, have you not heard of Bose-Einstein condensate and Dr. Hau's stop light experiment?”

more interestingly, why wasn't this touted all over the press?

As if there was big value to motivate the press in doing so.

After Galileo had proven that Venus revolves around the Sun and not the Earth with the heliocentric model, Copernicus’ publication for this remained as “the book no people read”. This is merely my take based on similar incidents in the past; I leave it to you to wonder on this for your interest aroused. The mainstream of this field simply isolate BEC as a novelty state of matter that was unusual, it’s classified it under a contemporary physics theory not within the context for the science of thermodynamics; the theory could therefore be maintained as consistence with the inconsistencies in its logical paradox and who cares?

Other than BEC, the states of matter in superfluidity (including liquid BEC) and superconductivity were isolated as well, so technically these unusual states of matter are not relevant to those laws of thermodynamics that are supposed to be universal; these laws are still pragmatic for normal matter. Like Newton’s laws of motion, they are still good for its quantitative predictions by close approximation when dealing with motion of object at speed insignificant of c.


The 3rd law says getting to absolute zero is forbidden. Getting jolly cold is still permitted; these people did that. Is that what you have got mixed up about?

You are twisting the third law of thermodynamics with your own context; this is moving the goalposts.

And finally

(just in case anyone is still reading this)
"Yeah right, so who posted the below in this thread?"

I did; you can tell- it has my name against it.
So what?
I take it you don't understand what "cited" means
It means the page you referred to.
This one
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/01.24/01-stoplight.html
that is the page you cited; you can tell because it doesn't mention "laws" or "thermodynamics" but it does  use the word "third" - just once and referring to the fact that the gloop is 3 times longer than its thickness.

I search your word “gloop” in the page I cited as well as this thread and nothing showed up. Then I recalled you used the word “third” once in your post in this thread, searched and confirmed that. I then further search the word for “law” and “thermodynamics” and these showed up in many instances in this thread. The ambiguity of page cited that was not specified at then and those mismatches baffled me, I therefore raise the issue for you to clarify. Just clarify it would suffice; there is no need to kick a fuss.

Incidentally, why on earth are you seeking to defend the "perpetual" motion machine that stops?

I am glad you have asked this question; this brings the bandwidth back for the scope of discussions for the topic posted in this thread.

Honestly I do not buy those arguments and the claims by justathought, there were lots of flaw everywhere and many concepts were based on false or wrong facts. Such as attempting to draw gravity energy mechanically by dunking his wheel into water shows he does not understand the third law of motion.

Nevertheless, a well-designed orthogonal spinning wheel that is based on sound foundation that is known for its basis might kick off such a PMM. Although it would not be useful at all as a source of energy for pragmatic applications and therefore can fare no economic value for widespread use, it could add as a novelty gadget that could also experimentally prove the Lense-Thirring effect immutably.

This guy with his thingy was not entirely nonsensical like how you had potrayed him. 
   


Btw,
Quote
Fanfare and flashing lights as B C admits to a mistake.

I was not aware you had admitted on any mistake in your last post like you are now mentioning. Honestly, I thought anyone who could admit his mistake is a noble act and I would not deliberately belittle anyone in such a position; instead it would command my respect. If I do unintentionally made you feel offended on this commendable act, please accept my sincere apology.   
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Can this perpetual motion concept fail to work?
« Reply #49 on: 18/09/2010 10:32:18 »

 

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