Naked Science Forum
General Science => General Science => Topic started by: Don_1 on 09/09/2008 11:02:44
-
Is perpetual motion a physical impossibility?
-
Yes - everything has to be paid for!
-
Is perpetual motion a physical impossibility?
No due to impossibilities are the limitation of the imagination, and the freedom of the mind is the release of our limitations. That is the reason we have progressed as far as we have. So never say never. [8D]
-
Is perpetual motion a physical impossibility?
No due to impossibilities are the limitation of the imagination, and the freedom of the mind is the release of our limitations. That is the reason we have progressed as far as we have. So never say never. [8D]
PM is completely impossible. Period. Imagination has nothing to do with it.
-
It's definitely possible, provided there is a perpetual energy source...
...but I guess that's not really what you mean.
-
It's definitely possible, provided there is a perpetual energy source...
...but I guess that's not really what you mean.
Indeed.
PM deals with a closed system. With a perpetual energy source, the system is not closed, and so falls outside the scope of PM.
-
PM is completely impossible. Period. Imagination has nothing to do with it.
dentstudent
That is the same argument for flight in the past. Thus the limitation.
This is how it can be done. "Force reaction manipulation" Gravity is a force and it has reactions to everything. You have to ask and also pay attention on how it reacts to each and everything in nature and you may see how it can be manipulated. Just that simple in words, but not so in understanding. This is due to disbelief because of our teachings. This is not to knock our teachings for without our teachings we would still be walking. But we should never use our teachings as absolutes, for then it tends to be treated as a religion.
-
PM is completely impossible. Period. Imagination has nothing to do with it.
dentstudent
That is the same argument for flight in the past. Thus the limitation.
Not really - flight didn't require the re-writing of all laws of physics and maths known to man.
-
Not really - flight didn't require the re-writing of all laws of physics and maths known to man.
No, but there was a newer understanding of our physical laws, and of course due to other discoveries Quantum theory came into existence to correct the problems with laws of physics as well. Our understanding of the laws of physics is the first to change, yet may not truly change the laws at all. Perpetual motion may turn out to be just another change in our understanding.
-
Ah, yes, quantum theory. It's always a big help.
I know nothing of QT, so I'm not going to comment on it. I'm sure that there are others who are well-capable of commenting on this though...
There are various immutable laws such as the first and second laws of thermodynamics which are always violated in apparent PM machines. It is not possible to create energy from nothing, and it is not possible to transfer energy from one source to another in a closed system without loss.
How do you propose to use gravity in your PM machine?
-
How do you propose to use gravity in your PM machine?
A simple collection of natural effects, using leverage control of natural movement. Thus will not break the laws of physics, but will add a new understanding. When you add the laws of leverage to a repeating movement. You only have to overcome the laws of balance. The term of law in the the physical world, is only an understanding of what we know to be true at the time.
Here is someone to consider when talking about the laws of physics.
__________________________________________________________________
“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.”
Quote By Max Planck father of Quantum physics 1858 - 1947
-
You "only" have to overcome the laws of balance, then?
We'll be millionaires by Christmas!
Which natural effects, what levers and what natural movement? And which understanding? And whose?
And when?
-
You "only" have to overcome the laws of balance, then?
We'll be millionaires by Christmas!
Which natural effects, what levers and what natural movement? And which understanding? And whose?
And when?
All you have to do is keep it unbalanced, and to tell you how now, would be showing before I and those I work with are ready. As for quick rich thoughts, they are a distraction to the goal and are to be avoided. Once done the real work begins and is not a time to sit on your laurels. [;)]
-
To 'keep it unbalanced' would need the continual input of energy in some form. That's not perpetual motion, it's a normal 'machine'.
There is no process which transfers energy and which does not use energy up.
The nearest things to perpetual motion is superconductivity and planetary orbits around long dead stars where there is no trace of residual atmosphere in the system. You can't get energy out of either of those without slowing them down.
Put your money where your mouth is and build one.
Better still, send the money to charity; at least it will do some good that way.
There is no point in being a heroic figure in the face of an unbending Science Establishment. Just learn about the problem in depth and you will see that it is a proverbial bummer.
-
sophiecentaur
A clever arrangement of weights and levers that react to the spin to keep off balance. Each reaction inside the wheel falls with in the boundaries of known physics. But inside the wheel they become repetitive by there position, which keeps the the wheel from balancing out. From this description, how can you claim it to be breaking any laws of physics?
I do put my money where my mouth is, and I don't ask for money from others either. I am with an honest belief of possibilities only and I like it as a hobby.
You said an unbending Science Establishment. All I can say is that is sad, for only an open mind can progress.
-
You can believe what you like but can you deliver?
No one else ever has.
There are some very well established and fundamental laws which you would have to 'disprove' if your system were really to work.
Just one small detail - you have something spinning? Is there no friction on the bearings? The motor industry would like some of those.
Your description contains so little detail that it is impossible to point out the flaws - apart from the friction.
Greater minds than your have tried and failed - before the great minds who followed came to the conclusion involving the fundamental reasons why it can't work.
Send us a picture of it working.
All I can say is that is sad, for only an open mind can progress
Then you must open yours to the knowledge of others.
-
Does any of what he said make sense?
Its bananas.
PS.
And there are open minds out there, and they do progress. Your oblivious to the huge scientific progression in the last 100 years and the fact that rate of progression is growing. I read somewhere in that we could use crazy dimensional mirrors to get almost perpetual energy but that is just a "what if?" scenario from what I could tell. In fact it was in new scientist. So it was probably bs.
-
Greetings Flyberius
Sorry but it was sophiecentaur who said (unbending Science Establishment) which can be translated to closed minded. and that is how I took it.
This is my question for anybody who can answer it.
If you have devices that react to all physical laws as expected, and they are added together and they have a reaction of perpetuation these actions by there positioning of rotation. How can this overall device be breaking any physical laws?
And this I will post again and as often as I may have to.
___________________________________________________________
“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.”
Quote By Max Planck father of Quantum physics 1858 - 1947
-
My 'unbending establishment' phrase was meant to be ironic! I don't think it is but I was replying to a sentiment which implied that someone might feel they were battling against one.
If you have devices that react to all physical laws as expected, and they are added together and they have a reaction of perpetuation these actions by there positioning of rotation. How can this overall device be breaking any physical laws?
I can guarantee that, if you look at the device in detail (scrupulous detail - not just advertiser's blurb) you will find the flaw. There will be no conflict with the Physical Laws and it just won't work as the guy claims it will.
I get the impression that you are not the inventor of this system, ABH, so, despite having a romantic leaning towards the notion, you don't really know how it is supposed to work.
I can appreciate how attractive it may sound but, like death and taxes, entropy is always with us and increasing all the time.
I should be very surprised if I, or another contributor, couldn't spot the flaw if the details were published. I doubt 'they' would risk publishing details but the reason they would give would be 'commercial' not the real 'smoke and mirrors' and 'we want your money' reason. They are lying.
With luck, they will take me to court and we can all hear the evidence.
-
sophiecentaur
My 'unbending establishment' phrase was meant to be ironic! I don't think it is but I was replying to a sentiment which implied that someone might feel they were battling against one.
That is a fair description.
But you are wrong, I am the inventor, but I also have joint projects with others as well. All and all it looks like 3 possible runners 2 are solely mine and the other belongs to our group which will remain unnamed. The only reason I am on the net is I am recovering from namoneya and I can't finish my armour work which has to be done before I can finish my wheels. My living come first. But my confidence is high for all my test that I do before building I am getting a 20% to 25% gain in positive overbalance. After building 30+ wheels and designing around 400 wheels. I have a very good idea what to expect. I have had 3 near runners and one nearly took off my thumb nail while I was trying to adjust the stand. It was tapping the side of it as it was spinning about 60rpm at the time. It had only a slight slowing which was hard to detect by eye. But that one was still a non runner.
-
But you are wrong, I am the inventor
My apologies.
So it must be the romance that attracts you.
May I ask what bearings your wheels will be rotating on? Where will the energy come from to overcome the friction?
'Hard to detect by eye' is infinitely (I mean that literally) far from 'perpetual'.
You must appreciate that every wheel in your machine that is turning must be working against friction - transferring Energy. This energy has to come from somewhere. This can only be in the form of Kinetic Energy of the movement in the device. Where else?
-
When people try for perpetual motion, All to often they try to make these little devices using ounces instead of pounds, Even if they have a good idea the friction of the bearing or simple poor construction sometimes makes it where they won't even get a reaction and they give up. Good construction is important, as well as good bearings. The use of magnetic bearings and vacuum chambers are not necessary, they are extreme.
Yes friction is a concern at all times. Just think a 100 lb of shifting weight in a wheel with 20% advantage. This means continuous shifting 10 lbs of falling energy effect. This will be more than enough to overcome any friction you can imagine with excess energy movement. Kinetic energy is your friend in this game. Here is a kinetic overbalance test that I posted on youtube.
Without the overbalance the wheel once spun (even if you spun it hard) you could not get more than 2 minutes run time, but with the overbalance shown as spun would run for close to 6 minutes. This is one of many test that I do preparing for working on a wheel.
You stated
So it must be the romance that attracts you.
I was challenged by my neighbor when he learned that I have never failed in figuring out any mechanical problem. I didn't have to take the challenge but I looked into it for about a week and took the challenge. Besides I built a magnet wheel back in 1974 for a school project. It jerked around for a 1 1/2 days before it tore out the middle.
You must appreciate that every wheel in your machine that is turning must be working against friction - transferring Energy. This energy has to come from somewhere. This can only be in the form of Kinetic Energy of the movement in the device. Where else?
But I never said wheels in it, there are leavers weights ect. But you are correct that every movement is a friction, so you have to overcome it, it is expected.
Now to know if you truly have a runner by eye. It will speed up and depending on the design without a load added it can then start to serge due to overcoming the inner shifting speeds. Not to mention most likely will start on its own.
I hope this answers you questions.
Alan
-
Anything that falls needs to be raised up again, I expect. Where will the extra energy come from after the friction has taken some away?
one and a half days is good for your machine but 'perpetual'?
that includes one and a half weeks, one and a half months, one and a half . . . .
-
sophiecentaur
Anything that falls needs to be raised up again, I expect. Where will the extra energy come from after the friction has taken some away?
Well that is the trick isn't it. [;D]
one and a half days is good for your machine but 'perpetual'?
that includes one and a half weeks, one and a half months, one and a half . . . .
I agree, at least until it breaks down (due to wear and tear),or something or someone stops it.
-
Well that is the trick isn't it
The real world doesn't work with tricks.
Without an energy source it will slow down. No question.
Would you like a small wager - say $500?
-
sophiecentaur
LOL $500? Pounds or US dollars? I will have to check on legalities, as well as the rules on the forum before I agree. I am finding this interesting for I don't even go to casinos.
-
sophiecentaur
I do believe a wager is for gain or loss so it falls into this category. So sorry but I must decline.
Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also forbidden on this forum.
-
I would say yes, perpetual motion is a distinct possibility. Evidence the perpetual life on earth, organic machinery appears to have discovered it’s mechanism.
The perpetual water cycle.
The perpetual Atlantic conveyor system.
The perpetual evolution of the planets.
The perpetual motion of the planets and stars.
The human heart. Everyone an engine and yet the person that has one beating in their chest does not believe in perpetual motion.
One could argue that they will eventually transform into another body or decay into the universe. Which is arguably perpetual stability and therefore does not disprove perpetual motion as a possibility.
-
Andrew. PM has to be a closed system to be truly perpetual. Part of the water cycle is driven by the sun – this is not perpetual – the sun will “die” and also it is not a closed system. The Atlantic conveyor system is driven partly by the sun, so again is not perpetual. I’m not sure what you mean by the perpetual evolution of the planets, but evolution is not a “force” and so I think falls outside the argument. The “perpetual” movement of stars and planets – there are many forces still acting on them and are not part of a closed system. The human heart stops beating when you’re dead. That is not perpetual. It is also supplied by energy for your entire lifetime, and so is not a closed system.
I don’t “believe” in PM in the same way that I don’t “believe” in god (and I hope that that does not reduce this thread to yet another "Is there a god" conversation). There is no evidence at all for the existence of either. If someone produced something that could not be explained by current laws, then of course it would be worthy of a great deal of attention, but “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” (Carl Sagan). We're waiting......
-
I do believe a wager is for gain or loss so it falls into this category. So sorry but I must decline.
Yes of course. A wager is not suited to the context of a Forum like this. But my point was that I WOULD bet any money.
AKF: The definition of Perpetual, in this context, at least, is 'for ever' and with no other contributions.
Three score years and ten, for a heart is far from perpetual. Neither are the other examples you give.
As I said earlier "A long time is not for ever"
All the systems you refer to (plus ABH's) involve energy loss or energy input so they are not perpetual. You know perfectly well that the systems you quote 'use' energy, either from the Sun, by losing Potential Energy or from nuclear reactions.
Introducing diversions from the main point may be fun but it doesn't really advance the argument, does it? (We've been here before).
Why not read about the Perpetual Motion Issue, throughout the ages? I'm sure Google will help.
-
Ah yes sophiecentaur
We now get into the intellectual phase now.
1. Is the machine perpetual? or is the motion perpetual?
2. When something is destroyed, is it truly destroyed or just changed?
Every thing goes through a change, which means change is perpetual. Now the wear and tear of a devices which can cause a change in a motion which can make a device fail. But the original motion design that is guided by the device is perpetual and will remain perpetual until the material changes. So you have to look at it as, if there is no change in the device the motion is and will remain perpetual. Thus once the machine is built, perpetual motion is proved.
-
Have the rules changed for PM over the many years it has been debated? Right from the beginning did the people postulating it state that the machine must be indestructible, in a closed unit and use no power source whatsoever?
Does a perpetual Motion machine have to run to infinity in order to qualify? If so who will be around to measure it? And who stated the rules and when?
A human heart expires, another heart is born, the human engine self perpetuates. Just as a sun grows cold and another sun ignites.
The rules remind me of a boxer, who is never allowed to make contact with his opponent, can’t look at him or converse with him, must not breath on him or even be in the same room as him yet must some how find a way to win the fight.
Take away the rules and let the fight begin.
-
Andrew:
Yes. The definition of "perpetual motion" conventionally considered when asserting that "perpetual motion is not possible" is that it must be a system which continues to move forever without adding energy to the system and which therefore must either (a) have no frictional losses at all or (b) must be generating energy internally from nowhere. Since the question was "Is perpetual motion impossible" it is reasonable to assume that this is the definition under discussion here.
It's worth noting that any perpetual motion machine someone claims to have made (and it happens an awful lot) is almost always also a "free energy machine", from which energy can be extracted to "power whole cities" and so on ad tedium. This is always a class (b) machine since the extraction of energy from the system means that frictionlessness is not enough.
AB Hammer seems to be describing a machine which wears out. Wearing out necessarily implies friction and so fricitonal losses of energy. So (a) doesn't apply. Thus such a machine must generate energy out of nowhere. Requires re-writing all the scientific models as we understand them (no, really, all of them) but hey, this is science and if the model's wrong we refine it until it fits the new data. However... since the evidence for the rest of the consequences of thermodynamics stacks up pretty well I'm not going to go out of my way to find out more about any machine that claims perpetual motion.
-
Precisely, AKF.
The rules make it impossible to make one.
It would be indestructible, of course, it could not wear out - no friction - and would not be damaged by any external influence - no energy input.
The problem is that people try to get around the rules without knowing the are doing so.
Your particular ideas are just not in the 'set' which is 'perpetual motion machines'.
rosy beat me to the post.
-
sophiecentaur
Maybe you should say a God is impossible and you can not build a God. For a God would be perpetual.
Maybe a perpetual motion machine that runs on gravity should be called a force to energy converter. Which may very well be the best description.IMO
Or how about this an over unity friction motor of extrema efficiency.
Of course we can say that all is perpetual for you can not destroy energy, it can only change. So that would make it perpetual as well.
This is probably one reason why, Max Planck father of Quantum physics 1858 - 1947 made this statment.
Quote
“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.”
-
Is anyone's 'god' a machine?
"running on gravity" implies transfer of energy. To use the gravity, something has to fall through a distance.
Work done = force times distance
That's an energy input.
Do you have a tube of negative friction grease, then?
Your other statements don't refer to Perpetually Moving Machines, one of which you are claiming to be constructing. Just stick to the one issue at a time and astound us all with a perpetual machine in the accepted sense of the word.
-
"running on gravity" implies transfer of energy. To use the gravity, something has to fall through a distance.
Work done = force times distance
That's an energy input.
Then you will have to say that gravity is an energy. But we are taught that it is a force. Thus I like the term force to energy converter.
This is the reason that I say it will break no so called laws of physics but a need for a newer understanding.
-
For the record. I will believe in a PM machine when I see one for myself.
-
For the record. I will believe in a PM machine when I see one for myself.
That is a proper attitude for this case, but would the media be close enough for you?
This is what science wants as proof.
perpetual motion
a system wherein the item in question consumes and outputs at least 100% of its energy constantly, sustaining no net loss as a result of the laws of thermodynamics.
From; The Language of Science - Dictionary and Research Guide
__________________________________________
Impossible is more a hallmark of pseudoscience than of true science.
-
Alan, the media would never be proof for me, their track record is somewhat less than perfect. I would have to see it and understand it completely before accepting it. This is my nature; I do not believe anything until completely satisfied there is no other logical explanation. Theories like the Big Bang, God. Black Holes and the like fall into the same un-proven category. But are safer for the propagators.
Who can go out there and prove them one way or another? Most are just unsubstantiated guesswork. Arguing that the maths adds up is no defence either when the parameters the maths are based on are guesswork. Imagine trying to calculate the age of the universe, how arrogant can we become one wonders? Who do we go to ask about such impossible speculations to see if our answers are correct, when more pressing Earthly science requires the attention of the very best that science has to offer.
So for now please accept that while I do not disbelieve, (open minded), like many people in this excellent forum require substantial proof about a PM discovery. The post mentioning the movement of the planet by the way as far as the planet is concerned is a closed system and does move perpetually! So any such machine could do worse than include gravity as a free force.
-
I bought some psychotronic crystals from a man in a pub. He told me if I kept them in my car not only would I get better mpg they would protect me from the dealy waves from mobile phones masts. I got them at a special price of only £200.
-
I bought some psychotronic crystals from a man in a pub. He told me if I kept them in my car not only would I get better mpg they would protect me from the dealy waves from mobile phones masts. I got them at a special price of only £200.
Proper sarcasm, at least I hope it is sarcasm. LOL
Any body pushing free energy, perpetual motion, ect. and asking for donations or backers without solid proof, is normally just another snake oil salesman. This is bad for there are to many claims out there and it makes it harder to get people to look the real thing when it is truly done.
-
ABH
Then you will have to say that gravity is an energy. But we are taught that it is a force. Thus I like the term force to energy converter.
Definition (not really negociable):
Work Done (mehanical energy transferred) = Force multiplied by distance moved by the force, in the direction that the force acts
'Gravity' is too loose a term to use meaningfully.
The Force which is caused by gravity (i.e. weight) is a force and is not energy.
The Gravitational Potential Energy of an object is the energy that was put in to getting the object where it is. This Energy (or Work), is given by mgh, where g is the gravitational field, m is the mass and h is the height to which it has been raised.
(You may or may not have been taught that but the above is what you should have been taught.)
You can 'get energy out' of a falling weight (like in an old clock) but, once the weight has fallen to the bottom, you have to wind it up again. Gravity is no more a source of energy than a spring or a rechargeable battery.
If you are 'using gravity' for your machine, then you must have objects falling down in it. If you say the objects move up again, then they will need to be lifted and this will require the same amount of energy as you got our PLUS something to make up for the frictional losses.
If you are using levers, gears, screws or anything else to reduce the force needed to lift them up again then you will have to move this reduced force FURTHER. The total (integral) of force times distance cannot be less.
All the diagrams you can see from past inventions involve 'hopeful' designs with many falling balls on one side and few raised balls on the other (or some such idea). Add up all the Work and you will never get more out than was put in. The friction, consequently, gives you a total loss.
Work it out yourself for a simple lever and the same applies for any other mechanism.
You mentioned your system going very fast. It should be able to work at snail's pace if it were truly Perpetual.
-
AKF
This is my nature; I do not believe anything until completely satisfied there is no other logical explanation.
That's an amazing statement, in the light of your own theory, posted elsewhere. Occam's razor should apply everywhere, surely.
-
You could have free energy if you only ever went downhill.
I am going downhill rapidly but that is another matter.
-
@sophiecentaur
Fantastic! you are hitting the nail on the head. Understanding what you have to overcome is the first step in solving the puzzle. The next step is understanding how movement reacts inside, lets say a wheel device. Centrifugal effect creates even more dimension to the puzzle. The reset, is what you have noted to be a very big problem and it is. Johan Bessler in the 18 century solved this problem and built 4 different working wheels. They were on display and no one could prove him wrong. They went to great stride, even as far as taxing him on it to get his secret. But they would not pay his price and from the pressure and false accusations against him, he decided keep it to himself. It is a very interesting story and full books on the subject. Most of what you see about him is footnotes and mostly without merit for they are from a nay say point of view.
You mentioned your system going very fast. It should be able to work at snail's pace if it were truly Perpetual.
This statement I have to disagree with. For it can start out slow but it will speed up till frictions, centrifugal force effect, and other factors determine its speed limits. Without these limits it would simply be gravity plus velocity = ? each and every turn.
-
Johan Bessler has the advantage of having lived a long time ago. So we cannot know exactly what he demonstrated. The ancient accounts of his demonstrations cannot be verified or disproved.
The Wikkers account of his work tells us he was in it for money. There's nothing wrong with that, per se, but breaking the wheel up rather than keeping it would suggest that he had something dodgey to hide. And there was a claim that it was, in fact, driven by hand.
Yuri Geller and others have performed similar astounding scams but they have all been uncovered. The gullible will always prefer the romantic interpretation of things rather than the rigorous one. But I should have hoped that things would have improved in 300 years.
I see that you are now suggesting that you can, in fact, get an energy flow OUT of the machine. That is really fantastic. The end to all our worries.
-
but breaking the wheel up rather than keeping it would suggest that he had something dodgey to hide. And there was a claim that it was, in fact, driven by hand.
Bessler got wind of the attempt to expose his secret without being paid by arresting him. You would have destroyed it to keep your secret as well. By the way he was cleared of all charges, and his secret safe. There were some people who have been allowed to see inside his wheel and they where of royal background, under their honor to keep the secret.
I see that you are now suggesting that you can, in fact, get an energy flow OUT of the machine. That is really fantastic. The end to all our worries.
All our worries? I don't think so. When successful it most likely have to be to big except for electrical generation and stationary mechanical work. The Amish would love it.
-
With respect, he chose just the right people to show the workings to. Would you seriously expect the Royals of several hundred years ago to have been capable of spotting the 'flaw'?
Most of the human race, these days are unable to spot 'the flaw' either. That doesn't mean that there isn't one.
As for the necessary scale of a 'useful' version of your machine, what would be the problem with batteries for the small power items?
Just go ahead and make the thing and we unbelievers will all be proved wrong.
I will even offer to come and witness it (as long as you pay my fare if I spot the flaw).
Now there's an offer. And it's not a wager.
-
Just go ahead and make the thing and we unbelievers will all be proved wrong.
I will even offer to come and witness it (as long as you pay my fare if I spot the flaw).
Now there's an offer. And it's not a wager.
Now that sound fair enough. I just have to get over this pneumonia and get my work up to date, so I can build it and then get patent pending status, and I will let you know.
PS wear and tear excluded from flaw for that is a given.
-
'Wear and tear', distinct from 'sacrificial use as an energy source' would be reasonable.
However, wear and tear involves 'change', which involves the transfer of energy - where will that energy come from?
-
ABH
Then you will have to say that gravity is an energy. But we are taught that it is a force. Thus I like the term force to energy converter.
Definition (not really negociable):
Work Done (mehanical energy transferred) = Force multiplied by distance moved by the force, in the direction that the force acts
'Gravity' is too loose a term to use meaningfully.
The Force which is caused by gravity (i.e. weight) is a force and is not energy.
The Gravitational Potential Energy of an object is the energy that was put in to getting the object where it is. This Energy (or Work), is given by mgh, where g is the gravitational field, m is the mass and h is the height to which it has been raised.
(You may or may not have been taught that but the above is what you should have been taught.)
BTW, you haven't responded to the rather important point, repeated above.
If we are to have a 'Scientific' discussion and not just a fantasy chat, we need to get the ground rules sorted out.
-
Sorry sophiecentau but, you will have to wait, until the exposure time. I have to be careful, for I could inadvertently expose the breakthrough, and that would not be fair to those I work with as well. Thus I can not tell you how it is done at this time.
But what we can do is post some designs and talk about what stop each design from working? Or I can post some designs or links that I have posted on other forums to talk how they can or cannot work as well.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=5802.0
The links might be interesting to you as well.
-
What will stop any and all the designs working is the whole of physics.
What's to discuss?
-
Ah yes sophiecentaur
We now get into the intellectual phase now.
1. Is the machine perpetual? or is the motion perpetual?
2. When something is destroyed, is it truly destroyed or just changed?
Every thing goes through a change, which means change is perpetual. Now the wear and tear of a devices which can cause a change in a motion which can make a device fail. But the original motion design that is guided by the device is perpetual and will remain perpetual until the material changes. So you have to look at it as, if there is no change in the device the motion is and will remain perpetual. Thus once the machine is built, perpetual motion is proved.
Perpetual motion in my mind is a device which will continue in motion without the aid of any additional energy from an outside source other than that which it was given at the time the device started to move. Which in theory is possible however to achieve it and prove itself it would need to be in a closed system in order to eliminating all outside influences.
And as such a place could not be found or made on earth you;ve got no chance.
Put something in space far enough away from everything else and you could spin something and expect it to continue spinning for ever however on earth friction would cause to much of a loss of energy and any device would sooner or latter stop .
Unless you are a pure genuis that is and have found a way to convert 100% of the heat and sound produced by friction back in motion. Or have developed some new form of frictionless material. Or found a way to build an enclosure which stops gravity ,or the transference of heat and energy from inside or out.
-
Perpetual motion in my mind is a device which will continue in motion without the aid of any additional energy from an outside source other than that which it was given at the time the device started to move. Which in theory is possible however to achieve it and prove itself it would need to be in a closed system in order to eliminating all outside influences.
Greetings ukmicky
Up to this point you are correct. You can put it in a glass case.
And as such a place could not be found or made on earth you;ve got no chance.
Put something in space far enough away from everything else and you could spin something and expect it to continue spinning for ever
Now to this point we are approaching fantasy and the unpractical.
however on earth friction would cause to much of a loss of energy and any device would sooner or latter stop .
Wear and tear of materials has to be taken into consideration. For as long as the materials last the motion will remain perpetual.
Unless you are a pure genuis and have found a way to convert 100% of the heat and sound produced by friction back in motion. Or have developed some new form of new frictionless material. Or found a way to build an enclosure which prevents gravity ,heat or any form of energy being transferred from inside or out.
You missed overwhelming movement that overcomes all friction, until the material fails itself. Which is what it will be. The design for the movement is all that maters, for it can be rebuilt and allot more can be built and fictitious restrictions of impractical proof won't stop it. We have to keep our minds in the realm of reality and practicality.
Here is what you want. A device that runs with No fuel, no sun, no wind, no water, no recognizable source but gravity. And like any other machine repairs may have to be done from time to time. But that will then be all what is needed. It will perpetuate its movement until something stops it.
-
What will stop any and all the designs working is the whole of physics.
What's to discuss?
Greetings Bored chemist
Here is what one of your founding fathers said
“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.”
Quote By Max Planck father of Quantum physics 1858 - 1947
-
whatever is "overwhelming movement"?
How can any of this be taken seriously whilst such terms as that are used with no definition?
-
no recognizable source but gravity
Eh? If something moves down a gravitational potential it will gain in kinetic energy, sure... but you've still got to do work to start it off at the top, and it will still (possibly over many oscillations) unless it is a truly frictionless system, eventually lose that energy. At which point it will stop.
Running under gravity alone is not sufficient for perpetual motion.
-
no recognizable source but gravity
Eh? If something moves down a gravitational potential it will gain in kinetic energy, sure... but you've still got to do work to start it off at the top, and it will still (possibly over many oscillations) unless it is a truly frictionless system, eventually lose that energy. At which point it will stop.
Running under gravity alone is not sufficient for perpetual motion.
You are not looking a repetitive actions with in a device which will repeat and build up kinetic energy. Thus it becomes perpetual. Don't confuse perpetual with spiritual theory. I have a Graduates degree in theology with the Orthodox. And gravity will always exist so if a device runs on gravity it is perpetual. Even the US patent office has now recognized the possibility of a perpetual motion device. But they won't allow a patent, without a working model.
-
But they won't allow a patent, without a working model.
I can't blame them. Still, how do you get over the fact that work done against gravity must at least equal the energy gained from falling with gravity?
-
Someone else on another talkboard reckons he has some sort of turbine which needs energy to get it spinning and then the energy input can be reduce to zero and it carrys on spinning.. Yeah right!
-
Even the US patent office has now recognized the possibility of a perpetual motion device.
If you were a busy government official, which would you rather to do; argue the toss for ever with 'PM' inventors or just tell them to produce a working machine?
It strikes me as the ideal, time-effective, answer.
Sounds like the classic "Yes, dear, very nice" response from a busy Mum to an enthusiastic teenage son.
-
@ All
Back in the past the patent office was getting all to many perpetual motion machine patent applications. And sever where trying to get the idea of perpetual motion itself in any form. So when any body had a breakthrough they could use the courts to take it. It was getting out of hand so the patent office refused unless the people had a working model and it had to run for a year. This stopped the garbage which they were dealing with. Then it somehow became not accepting applications at all, until so many science breakthrough and things that were believed to be impossible became true, as well some near runners where produced in the magnet motor field, that would run for awhile and then stop. The eddy wave would build up heat and basically burn out the magnets. At least the is the theory.
A little history helps.
-
And the History does not demonstrate that the decision was either based on Science or supports your argument. Particularly because the conclusion was reached so long ago.
You surely can't suggest that any system with currents flowing around it (other than a superconductor) could ever be involved in perpetual motion.
Running down after a while doesn't qualify.
-
Just something interesting I found on the UK patents office site (now known as the UK Intellectual Property Office).
4.05 Processes or articles alleged to operate in a manner which is clearly contrary to well-established physical laws, such as perpetual motion machines, are regarded as not having industrial application
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/practice-sec-004.pdf
-
They've got a way of putting things, haven't they?
"The Court went on to hold that industry does not exist in that sense to make or use that which is useless for any known purpose."
I guess they've seen it all in their time.
-
Possibly.
-
What will stop any and all the designs working is the whole of physics.
What's to discuss?
Greetings Bored chemist
Here is what one of your founding fathers said
“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.”
Quote By Max Planck father of Quantum physics 1858 - 1947
True, but useless.
If there are no rules then we have still nothing to discuss. It might all turn into blancmange tomorrow.
-
Perpetual motion in my mind is a device which will continue in motion without the aid of any additional energy from an outside source other than that which it was given at the time the device started to move. Which in theory is possible however to achieve it and prove itself it would need to be in a closed system in order to eliminating all outside influences.
Surely perpetual motion of itself is not by any means impossible, a body at constant velocity will remain at constant velocity unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. An example of an unbalanced force which acts upon bodies we typically come across is friction. If you were to remove all friction, as well as any other forces from affecting the object then it will not stop. In practice that's impossible since at the very least it will be affected by the gravitation field of other ojects.
The real problem is to build a machine from which you can extract work perpetually without the input of energy
-
srobert
You've just described two non viable situations. The latter is just a bit more outrageous than the former.
btw, the gravitational bit is not strictly relevant because gravity is a conservative force.
-
Perpetual motion is a possibility. I have never seen a wheel design that would not eventually lose momentum due to friction. But then again, maybe friction is the thing to use. You don't get something for nothing. You just got to learn to use the same force more than once. I am currently on the second draft of a machine I have been working on for a LLLLLOOONNNGGGG time. Keep at it.
-
I am finally getting back to work, and as soon as I get caught up a little, I'll get my wheels done.
Here is one of first of my original designs I posted on other forums. I use it to help prove the possibility of perpetual motion.
-
I use it to help prove the possibility of perpetual motion.
Sorry but, if you take moments about the axis and add them all up, there is no net turning effect. If it were ever to work, it should start from stationary.
Then what about all the noise (energy) involved with all that clattering?
Have you really not read of all the similar designs which have been long since discredited?
You have as much chance as of turning base metals into Gold, you know.
-
Have you really not read of all the similar designs which have been long since discredited?
What similar designs? I have seen thousands and have not found one similar to this one. [8D]
You have as much chance as of turning base metals into Gold, you know.
Well I kinda turn metal into gold, its my living as a blacksmith/armourer. [;D]
http://www.creationtime.com/hisbsaw.htm
-
There must be some force to turn your wheel. This will have to come from the imbalance in moments. A thousand designs have relied on this and they all failed - of course. What else can happen?
Do you seriously not subscribe to Energy as a concept - and all that implies?
And here's a thought. Would not Evolution have produced living organisms, based on your idea, if it were really viable?
What saddens me is that, when your next machine runs down, you will simply blame it on practicalities and not on fundamentals. Why not direct your undoubted enthusiasm and energy into a more fruitful direction? Perhaps into improving efficiency of a 'realistic' system.
Well I kinda turn metal into gold, its my living as a blacksmith/armourer.
I like it.
-
Thought experiments. Could a system be built that relies on energy burned converting it back to the original source, separating back into combustible gas and oxygen.
This is something the planet achieves so must be possible to replicate on a smaller scale.
Hydrogen extracted from water produces water, which can be burned again and again without any net loss. Figure out how to separate the water without using as much energy as the gas releases to our engine and we could have some form of perpetual motion.
So if say our proposed perpetual machine was a boat that converted the water into gas to fuel an engine using less power than the conversion process would this qualify?
-
This is something the planet achieves so must be possible to replicate on a smaller scale.
Yes, but the planet has an external source of energy.
Hydrogen extracted from water produces water, which can be burned again and again without any net loss. Figure out how to separate the water without using as much energy as the gas releases to our engine and we could have some form of perpetual motion.
Fundamental misunderstanding of how chemistry works. The (theoretical) amounts of energy required to generate the reagents and released by the reaction are exactly equal. Unfortunately thermal losses during for example the process of splitting the water by electrolysis (or any other method) will never be zero, so we can never even break even on this or any equivalent chemical process.
-
AKF
Hydrogen extracted from water produces water, which can be burned again and again without any net loss. Figure out how to separate the water without using as much energy as the gas releases to our engine and we could have some form of perpetual motion.
When I was little I though I would be able to fly by waving two table tennis bats as I jumped down from the table. I grew up and learned the facts of life.
How can you say there's no net loss? Energy has to be supplied (EXTRA energy) each time you repeat the cycle because of losses. During every energy transfer, there is some Heat generated. Some of this, with the best insulation you can supply, will be lost to the system. The Efficiency in any process is not 100%. Why not accept that? There is even a net loss of Hydrogen and Oxygen as they combine, to a finite degree, with the material of the containers used.
Perhaps you should 'figure out' the facts and learn some Science (not Magic).
I know that the actual facts don't influence your particular views and Science is 'all out to get you' but give it a try.
-
Thank you Rosy.
It is not wise in science to say we can never.
This was a thought experiment supposing that a method of hydrogen extraction can be found that greatly lowers the amount of energy used to extract it to the point where an engine can run burning it and the vapour can be recycled back to the tank to repeat the process. Saying we can never achieve this is a bit like stating water under normal atmospheric pressure in a single open ended tube will not rise over the 10 meter mark, in the physics books relied upon by Sophiecentaur et al.
So let's deal with the external source of energy. Where does the energy from the sun come in to driving our hypothetical hydrogen engine?
Let's not forget the original idea of perpetual motion. It was to produce a widget that could output more energy than it uses to allow it to continue running indefinately. Should the object deteriorate over a year but still runs for that year perpetually we have not disproved perpetual motion but have merely exposed a flaw in the widget construction.
Sophiecentaur. Predicatably you throw up a defence. The net loss was in the amount of water used. In that once burned it transforms back into water so no net loss of water.
Make the hydrogen production more efficient than the losses due to friction and we can ignore heat loss providing the widget keeps running ofc.
Just thinking aloud here so cut me some slack
-
The net loss was in the amount of water used. In that once burned it transforms back into water so no net loss of water.
That's like saying that there is no 'net loss' of bicycle chain when you ride a bike. Almost true (apart from wear and tear) but irrelevant when we are discussing energy and efficiency, surely.
So, if we allow efficiency to be greater than 100%, we have free energy. Where does that statement get us? It doesn't mean that 101% efficiency is a concept worth considering.
-
Andrew K Fletcher
Here some video that may help you stand.
E=mc2 (part I)
E=mc2 (part II)
-
It is not wise in science to say we can never.
OK, I forgot to state explicitly that I was assuming we don't need to rewrite thermodynamics from the bottom up. I make this assumption because the evidence supporting thermodynamics is about as cast iron as it gets. Naturally it's possible if someone bangs their head against it for long enough they may discover a flaw... but I suggest they're more likely to get concussion.
Saying we can never achieve this is a bit like stating water under normal atmospheric pressure in a single open ended tube will not rise over the 10 meter mark, in the physics books relied upon by Sophiecentaur et al.
Yawn. Andrew, this is still not a particularly remarkable result. A column of water is only supported by the atmosphere to 10m under a vacuum, but if there are interactions with the walls of the column it may be transiently stable to a greater height. King Charles's Head (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/King_Charles'_head (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/King_Charles'_head)) comes to mind.
So let's deal with the external source of energy. Where does the energy from the sun come in to driving our hypothetical hydrogen engine?
Uh? Well, you could use it to drive a solar cell to electrolyse the water. But it's not PM because it depends on an external energy source.
-
This just a thought to add.
How the term "free energy" rakes against my nerves.
It would best be called "over unity investment"
You still have to spend money for the windmills, solar panels, the materials of whatever we use to collect the available energy. Then it finally pays for itself from freeing you from spending that much money to the power grid. So you get more back from you investment. More out than in = over unity. [:o)]
-
The video's were good enjoyed them Thanks.
Looking at the title of the thread, we are trying to show that perpetual motion is possible. Reference to perpetual movement of planets suggests that PM is not impossible but probable. And that the bar against it is the level of our current knowledge.
A comet for example appears perpetual as it travels through space, so we should consider a vacuum and zero gravity to remove friction from the widget. Super cooled magnets from memory are able to reduce friction between a track and a monorail train, think it was in Japan. So there are many ways to get over obstacles.
-
"Reference to perpetual movement of planets suggests that PM is not impossible but probable."
Come back in 10 billion years and you will find that it's not perpetual.
"Super cooled magnets from memory are able to reduce friction between a track and a monorail train,"
Since there's no contact the friction losses are zero. However there are losses due to viscous drag; losses due to electromagnetic induction and, probably other losses too.
The bar here is your current knolwedge. If you knew some physics you wouldn't waste time on this pipedream.
"So there are many ways to get over obstacles."
Yes, but there is no way to get over the laws of thermodynamics.
-
BC You remind me of a scene from Red Dwarf where the despair squid has infected the crew. They have one bullet left, so line up to allow the single bullet to kill them all and put them out of their misery. Blakey from On The Buses was another that reminds me of your negative attitude.
All we are doing is throwing around a few ideas that might stimulate some interesting conversation, the topic is interesting, whether or not you feel it disagrees with the laws of thermodynamics.
Stating that 10 billion years is required to prove or disprove a perpetual motion machine is hardly worthy of a round of applause
-
"Stating that 10 billion years is required to prove or disprove a perpetual motion machine is hardly worthy of a round of applause"
I'm not after a round of aplause, I'm after scientific discussion on a scientific website.
We could talk about 6 foot pink bunny rabbits, but whom would this help?
You seem to think that I'm negative and that this isn't productive.
How productive is the delusional notion that perpetual motion machines are possible?
-
Perpetual motion in my mind is a device which will continue in motion without the aid of any additional energy from an outside source other than that which it was given at the time the device started to move. Which in theory is possible however to achieve it and prove itself it would need to be in a closed system in order to eliminating all outside influences.
Surely perpetual motion of itself is not by any means impossible, a body at constant velocity will remain at constant velocity unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. An example of an unbalanced force which acts upon bodies we typically come across is friction. If you were to remove all friction, as well as any other forces from affecting the object then it will not stop. In practice that's impossible since at the very least it will be affected by the gravitation field of other ojects.
The real problem is to build a machine from which you can extract work perpetually without the input of energy
srobert
You've just described two non viable situations. The latter is just a bit more outrageous than the former.
btw, the gravitational bit is not strictly relevant because gravity is a conservative force.
What's wrong with my first statement, since it's just a statement of Newton's first law which I was taught as "A body continues to maintain its state of rest or of uniform motion unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force." All I said was that there's no law broken if all external unbalanced forces can be eliminated. Of course in practice this is essentially impossible, but unless you're telling me Newton's first law is wrong at low velocities, or I've mis-remembered it where have I gone wrong?
-
Bored chemist
Impossible or possible, this is the meaning of the string.
You take my design I posted. If the shooter design shoots the ball from the 8:00 position up towards the 2:00 position which will hit most likely at the 3:00 position due to weight displacement. The wheel will rotate as long as the shift for the shooter shoot around the 8:00 position for each ball. Thus this perpetuation of the motion which mean shoot and shift on time.
If this happens it will run until it is stopped or break down. Is this not perpetual motion if this happens? According to the patent office it would be.
-
I don't think we'll find a supercooled magnet which requires no energy and we won't find a region of space with no atoms in it. So neither of those scenarios are anything but 'limiting cases' for a totally academic argument.
As for actually getting energy out of a perpetual machine, there's little point in discussing it if it won't even self-sustain.
Red Dwarf is great fiction; so is PM. They go together well but RD is more fruitful.
-
blakestyger said: ..."Yes - everything has to be paid for!"..
The above are all very well
BUT THEN WHAT IF SOMEONE" ACTUALLY DID PAY FOR IT!"
and thus...
-
.... and thus there would be an input.
-
Bored chemist
If this happens it will run until it is stopped or break down. Is this not perpetual motion if this happens? According to the patent office it would be.
If it were perpetual motion then it would be perpetual motion.
Since it won't work (due to friction etc), it won't be perpetual motion.
-
I wonder why are we replying to this nonsense?
It won't work.
'They' will have to waste a lot of time to prove to themselves that it won't work - but, even then, they will say that a practical detail was to blame when it fails.
It's like people at Monte Carlo with a 'system'. You just can't tell 'em.
-
It is not always the quest but, it is what you learn from the quest. Many many inventions have come from this quest that have helped change the world or had lead to others that have. I myself have 4 inventions that have come from this quest. One I am presenting for contract with the US military, but it has many other uses as well. (it is not a weapon)
PS Bored chemist
That is a blanket answer. You didn't truly answer the question.
-
So the means justify the end, so to speak?
-
blakestyger said: ..."Yes - everything has to be paid for!"..
The above are all very well
BUT THEN WHAT IF SOMEONE" ACTUALLY DID PAY FOR IT!"
and thus...
Lets ask about energy? can you destroy it? No you can only change it. everything is a cycle. The cycle of life ect. For perpetual motion you are just containing it in a smaller space.
-
So the means justify the end, so to speak?
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. 1 action causes another reaction which causes anther reaction in a closed loop could become perpetual.
For my hobby. The enjoyment justifies the hobby, the rest are just fringe benefits. Here is a youtube video I did with magnets You should find it an interesting effect. Regular steel bar above holding a regular steel ball above the magnet without touching a magnet. I am sure I can show many slide of hand magic tricks that can incorporate the effect.
-
I am sure I can show many slide of hand magic tricks
No doubt. What has that got to do with a genuine demonstration of PM?
What have 'reaction and action' got to do with energy transfer? Does a dropped ball bounce for ever?
-
It is not always the quest but, it is what you learn from the quest. Many many inventions have come from this quest that have helped change the world or had lead to others that have. I myself have 4 inventions that have come from this quest. One I am presenting for contract with the US military, but it has many other uses as well. (it is not a weapon)
PS Bored chemist
That is a blanket answer. You didn't truly answer the question.
I gave a blanket answer because it's right. The details don't matter; perpetual motion doesn't work.
You said "if this ran forever would it be perpetual motion?"
Well, yes, it would - of course. So what? Since it won't run forever...
It's like saying "if it were driven by magic inexhaustible pink unicorns it would run forever". Could be- who cares- there aren't any pink unicorns.
BTW, the US military have done some monumentally stupid things in their time but even they are not gullible enough to buy a perpetual motion machine.
-
BTW, the US military have done some monumentally stupid things in their time but even they are not gullible enough to buy a perpetual motion machine.
LMAO Talk about misdirection. I said it was another invention not a perpetual the idea came from my hobby.
BTW The perpetual machine I'm building is the machine design I posted, and you won't see it until all is finished. [8D]
sophiecentaur
That video was just for everyone's entertainment. I can also show you a steel rod taking the steel ball from the magnets in similar manner. I have also balanced 5 steel balls on the edge of the steel rod and lifted them 3 inches from the magnet as well. Again it is just a fun effect for entertainment. But the effect could be useful for someone working on a magnet wheel.
-
And I can play God Save The Queen on a banjo. It's quite irrelevant to PM.
-
Bored chemist: ...Since it won't work (due to friction etc),...
Satellites don't suffer friction in space but the orbit drops out because of the requirement for gravity.
Perhaps using magnets whirling each other for attraction to keep them in place outside a gravitational field could produce the alike to the extent that it finally becomes the decay by half life of the substances used before it is geometrically disrupted.
-
Space is not free of friction (if you define the term wider than solid against solid). Certainly, satellites are close enough to be very much influenced by drag.
-
Satellites , effectively centrifical drag.
So let's move out into deep space and perhaps with these theoretical magnets orbiting each and other they will never overcome each other by oscillatorally re-supplying the energy they were given by either repulsion or attraction.
Perhaps the only loss could be made to be temporary but only while the other has that energy.
-
effectively centrifical drag
??? what's that?
-
Satellites to orbit require centrifical force to stay up there and orbiting earth or they must sit further out in space in non orbit.
Gravity(the centrifical drag so to speak) holds them in orbit around the earth , to orbit that requires a small shove in the right direction to traverse their own orbit circumfrence relating being over the same area in sync with the earths rotation.
-
Centrifugal?
-
All right centrifugal drag as in ultra centrifuge.
-
What does that involve - i.e. forces and mechanism?
-
Do you know how centrifugal force(e.g. measurement of torque in Newtons) operates and that gravity is an accelerative(not constant speed) force, and that the earths axis tilts? [if you want further answer to that].
-
But none of those involve energy transfer. The issue of perpetual or non-perpetual motion depends upon energy loss - not forces.
And, whilst you are trying to be precise, the Speed of a satellite can be constant under gravitational acceleration. In a circular orbit, it is the Velocity which constantly changes- velocity being speed and direction.
Also, Torque is measured in Newton Metres, not Newtons (the unit of force).
If you want to explain things properly you need to be a bit more rigorous.
Good Science has to be very fussy.
-
Somebody keep wittering on about making an electric motor which is 'thoudands' of times more efficient than current motors????
-
Just assuming a force such as gravity would cause some interference that could be eliminated by taking it beyond such a field.
The cited culprit against perpetual motion appears so far to be friction(mentioned by someone previously in the thread).
The only explanation for gravity appears to be mass. The more mass, the more gravity, so out in space away from all the usual fields perhaps the existent objects used for perpetual motion may themselves have a problem of themselves.
To counter against friction, magnetic devices have been used to prevent contact with a track in laboratories and the moved object balanced and directed by the repulsion field.
not: i was just saying gravity is not measured as a constant speed, its an acceleration e.g. the result of a division of a distance increment that again is divided by another denominator.
-
The objection to PM is summarised by the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
1st law essentially says that energy can neither be created or destroyed
2nd law essentially says that heat flows from hotter to cooler (often summarised as 'entropy increases')
Any system of PM must achieve 'over-unity' - ie you get more out than you put in. That is impossible according to the above laws.
-
Just assuming a force such as gravity would cause some interference that could be eliminated by taking it beyond such a field.
Beyond the range of the inverse square law, do you mean. A bit beyond the Moon's orbit, or beyond Pluto or outside our Galaxy?
1/x2 never gets to zero, however big you choose to make x.
In any case, Gravity doesn't 'use up' energy. It is a conservative field and I don't mean David Cameron's garden. So getting away from it is no help at all.
Bikerman: I am sorry. You have clearly missed the rules of this particular thread. You have made a huge mistake by introducing fact, reason and Science in a Post. You can guarantee it will be ignored in this fantasy land.
Let's assume that Perpetual Motion is possible ---- then Perpetual Motion is possible. QED
Yes, but just say it was. AAAAAAARRRRGGGGHHHHH
-
Let's assume that Perpetual Motion is possible ---- then Perpetual Motion is possible. QED
Yes, but just say it was. AAAAAAARRRRGGGGHHHHH
LOL...nobody told me it was the tautology special...I though it was happy hour [:D]
-
Hic :)
Laws? SCHMAWS!
-
The objection to PM is summarised by the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
1st law essentially says that energy can neither be created or destroyed
2nd law essentially says that heat flows from hotter to cooler (often summarised as 'entropy increases')
Any system of PM must achieve 'over-unity' - ie you get more out than you put in. That is impossible according to the above laws.
“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.”
Quote By Max Planck father of Quantum physics 1858 - 1947
-
If we based our whole lives on that statement there would be no point in getting up in the morning.
-
If we based our whole lives on that statement there would be no point in getting up in the morning.
LOL No, it is still worth getting up in the morning. The so called laws have served us well and should never be taken lightly. But we shouldn't hold on to them like a religion either for they are only as good as we have advanced so far. Like I have new ideas of magnetism, but I have allot to study before I try to say anything. But experiments are a must to check out hypothesis of each idea. That is what science is, to learn and prove what is learned. So when I show a perpetual wheel, it will be true. But if I am mistaken and can not prove it, then I will have still enjoyed my hobby.
-
Err, the 'so-called' laws have a sound theoretical basis and have been tested empirically more times than you can shake a stick at. On the basis that no physical law can ever be proved (induction..cf Karl Popper) then, of course, you can posit that one day we may discover they are wrong. There is absolutely no reason, however, to believe that the laws of thermodynamics ARE wrong, and a huge amount of data and theory supports the idea that they are correct.
Planck was talking at a time of fundamental discovery. The new quantum theory challenged traditional 'classical' physics and, of course, he was keen to point out that the classical laws were not set in stone - it was already apparent that the Thompson and Rutherford models of the atom were erroneous (cf the ultraviolet catastrophe)
That does not really apply with the laws of thermodynamics. There is nothing in modern physics that seems to indicate that thermodynamic laws are on shaky ground.
-
Greetings Bikerman
I see you are well versed. Very good for you might be able to see what I have truly been saying.
Each action in a wheel system works by angle gravity and direction. Also each action overbalances a wheel. Now this is the basic theory for a perpetual wheel. Now in thousands of attempt that have been done they would move and then balance before another action can take place. This is an obvious and typical problem and used to show the impossibility of perpetual motion.
Now lets take a system where each typical movement and expected but added together. movement reaction to another typical movement reaction, which react to another typical movement reaction creating a continuous overbalance to keep spinning and keep shifting until it breaks or something from the outside stops it.
Each and every action by itself lays within the known laws of physics. But together since they react to each other setting them in motion perpetuating the reactions in a closed system. Now how can that break the laws of physics? Logic say it shouldn't but the physicist says it does. Under these circumstances if proven a new understanding will have to occur, no matter how hard the physicist says no.
So under what I wrote here. How can you say it breaks the laws of physics?
-
The objection to PM is summarised by the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
1st law essentially says that energy can neither be created or destroyed
2nd law essentially says that heat flows from hotter to cooler (often summarised as 'entropy increases')
Any system of PM must achieve 'over-unity' - ie you get more out than you put in. That is impossible according to the above laws.
“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.”
Quote By Max Planck father of Quantum physics 1858 - 1947
Bikerman - This is the other default zone - qoute someone about something. This therefore makes your case valid. Something of a logical fallacy, I believe.
-
ABH
Any system for PM will or will not work because of the actual quantities involved. You have not quoted a single value in your arguments.
If you can't show by calculation how, for each of your "actions" and "reactions", you will get something extra out, then the system won't work. Flowery phrases don't make an internal combustion engine or a generator work and they won't make your machine work either.
You have proved to yourself already that machines don't go on for ever. Why not believe your own evidence if you won't believe what Science is telling you?
-
Greetings Bikerman
I see you are well versed. Very good for you might be able to see what I have truly been saying.
Each action in a wheel system works by angle gravity and direction. Also each action overbalances a wheel. Now this is the basic theory for a perpetual wheel. Now in thousands of attempt that have been done they would move and then balance before another action can take place. This is an obvious and typical problem and used to show the impossibility of perpetual motion.
Now lets take a system where each typical movement and expected but added together. movement reaction to another typical movement reaction, which react to another typical movement reaction creating a continuous overbalance to keep spinning and keep shifting until it breaks or something from the outside stops it.
Each and every action by itself lays within the known laws of physics. But together since they react to each other setting them in motion perpetuating the reactions in a closed system. Now how can that break the laws of physics? Logic say it shouldn't but the physicist says it does. Under these circumstances if proven a new understanding will have to occur, no matter how hard the physicist says no.
So under what I wrote here. How can you say it breaks the laws of physics?
I'm sorry, I just don't understand what you are proposing. Everytime movement is transferred from one element to another you have a loss of energy - either through heat or inertia.
Perhaps you can sketch your proposal so I can properly critique it...?
-
Can you draw a cukoo on a cloud, perhaps.
-
Am I right in thinking Andrew said we shouldn't over specify what PM is? If thats the case then I vote the universe a perpetual motion machine. Why you ask? Because it wont stop moving. Ever.
I win. Whats more I can see my discovery benefiting millions of humans accross the globe with its highly practical deeper message. Go quackery!!!
-
Can you draw a cukoo on a cloud, perhaps.
Sarcasm A?
Well you say perpetual motion doesn't exist? Well then why is it in the dictionary?
Hit you with some of your own style logic. LOL
-
You will also find fairies, witches, magic and God in the dictionary. Not everyone would say that they believe in any of them.
But let's have some numbers from you. If there is enough energy to overcome the losses - plus some to spare, you must know where it is coming from and have an estimate of its value.
Presumably you do understand the concept of energy and work.
-
LMAO
Well here is a believed photo of fairies, I am married to a witch, I have a graduates degree in theology for the belief in God, and miracles are also call magic.
PS I took the photo.
-
But let's have some numbers from you. If there is enough energy to overcome the losses - plus some to spare, you must know where it is coming from and have an estimate of its value.
Presumably you do understand the concept of energy and work.
Well here are some numbers 20%. Out of a 100 lbs of weights in a wheel I keep 20% greater advantage. This is the same as 20 lbs value to the descending side 100% of the time constant spin. This is the numbers that count the rest is trivial.
-
But let's have some numbers from you. If there is enough energy to overcome the losses - plus some to spare, you must know where it is coming from and have an estimate of its value.
Presumably you do understand the concept of energy and work.
Well here are some numbers 20%. Out of a 100 lbs of weights in a wheel I keep 20% greater advantage. This is the same as 20 lbs value to the descending side 100% of the time constant spin. This is the numbers that count the rest is trivial.
That's not numbers - that is words. 20% greater than what? Sketch your device and, as I said, I will point out your error (and yes, there will be an error - there ALWAYS is in these cases).
-
That's not numbers - that is words. 20% greater than what? Sketch your device and, as I said, I will point out your error (and yes, there will be an error - there ALWAYS is in these cases).
Greetings Bikerman
I have 20% more weight constant on the descending side of the wheel under constant shift of the total weight of the weights in the wheel. Since this is my secret and until all protections are in place. I can not show you what it is. Nor do I ask for money either so I am not a scamer. I work under an honest approach but personal design. Well all and all this is what Bessler had to deal with as well. But his was ready and the people just wanted it for free. Bessler could not afford to do that so he died with his secret and I may be the person who found it.
-
Greetings Bikerman
I have 20% more weight constant on the descending side of the wheel under constant shift of the total weight of the weights in the wheel. Since this is my secret and until all protections are in place. I can not show you what it is. Nor do I ask for money either so I am not a scamer. I work under an honest approach but personal design. Well all and all this is what Bessler had to deal with as well. But his was ready and the people just wanted it for free. Bessler could not afford to do that so he died with his secret and I may be the person who found it.
LOL....if I had a pound for everytime I had heard that then I would have enough for a new bike.
Anyway - if your invention is unprotected then why are you posting on a public forum about it? Why don't you simply register the patent and show us science bods how wrong we are? Could it be, perhaps, that it is total baloney and that you simply want to sound like you have something? After all there is a long and ignoble tradition of such postings in many forums...
I'll make you a wager. I'll bet you than in (say) 12 months you have no working prototype, no patent protection and, essentially, nothing to offer. I've offered the same wager to 4 people previously who made similar claims about PM devices - funnily enough none of them took me up. Should we say a thousand pounds? I can easily provide credit details to be arbitrated by a third person...
-
Greetings Bikerman
I am preparing myself, For once shown, I will have to talk allot to very intelligent people and despite the showings there will be people trying to prove it a hoax and those people will attack vigorously due to our teaching we have lived by. It will be kind of like breaking someones religion, and when peoples belief's are broke. Some people become violent. Most hoaxers show some form of machine with a hidden driving units. I will not show my machine/machines until I can show them inside and out safely.
-
Words, friend, just words.
Why not take my wager if you are so confident? After all, £1000 is not to be sneezed at. Simply provide details of a deposit, I will do the same, and we'll nominate a third party to act as arbiter.
You can register a patent for £130 search fee here in the UK. That would leave you £870 profit.
PS Bessler WAS a scammer. The fact that we don't know how he did it is largely down to the fact that it was so long ago and much of the detail has been lost in history. Like all such 'mysteries' a whole body of internet folklore has been created around his wheel but the simple facts are that his 'invention' contradicts the known laws of science and nobody has ever been able to replicate his results.
-
Greetings Bikerman
A wager would be breaking the rules. But the real truth is. If I am correct a £1000 would as valuable like the penny you just didn't pick up for it wasn't worth the bother. Not to mention it would open up an opportunity for someone to take such a breakthrough for so little. [::)]
-
Greetings Bikerman
A wager would be breaking the rules. But the real truth is. If I am correct a £1000 would as valuable like the penny you just didn't pick up for it wasn't worth the bother. Not to mention it would open up an opportunity for someone to take such a breakthrough for so little. [::)]
Oh yeah..right...So registering a patent (which provides 20 year protection) would be giving your idea away would it? Sure it would...
I'm afraid you are now consigned to my ever-growing list of internet loonies..
-
LMAO Bikerman
I can afford to laugh for you have it and you don't. I already have what I need. Bessler went through the same type of statements from those who attacked him as well. So I feel I am in good company. [;D] [;D] [;D]
-
I figure I would clarify what I said.(you have it and you don't.)
I have given all the information you need, but you don't have the foresight to use it. you allow your teachings to cloud allot of your possibilities. So all and all you will just have to wait. Another forum I spent some time on did experiments and they where skeptics as well, but they put it to a true testing and even tried to do simulations and even a build. All from the design I posted here as well. [::)]
-
Until you have a working machine nobody will believe you.
Stop posting; start building
-
Any news from the MIT prof who reckoned he could transmit power several metres through the air by radio with very little loss? He hadn't demonstrated it but had proved (?) mathematically it could be done.
-
The problem everyone will encounter with most systems planned and dreamt up is in the fact that they all have common problems; wear on moving parts which contact other parts, friction and gravity.
Why does everyone assume that perpetual motion must be a stable and uniform motion?
-
In this diagram, two permanent magnets are suspended from a gantry with fishing line. The N & S poles are aligned with each other. Gravity will pull them down, but the like poles will push them apart. Would they eventually stop moving? Does the external force of gravity exclude this from the accepted term of perpetual motion? Is this too simplistic to work?
What say you?[diagram=377_0]
-
Isn't there an awful lot of energy that has gone into the polarisation of the magnets in the first place?
-
Good point!
-
Until you have a working machine nobody will believe you.
Stop posting; start building
@ Bored chemist
The reason I went looking for another forum is because I have been stuck in the house with phenomena and now that I am getting over it I have to do my living work first before I can get back to my hobby work. I have built around 30 wheels and untold amount of test over the last year and a half, as well as designed around 400 wheels, and have helped others with designs counting around 40. Hands on tell you more than any math can tell you when it comes to balances and effects. I have had 3 near runners up to date.
-
The problem everyone will encounter with most systems planned and dreamt up is in the fact that they all have common problems; wear on moving parts which contact other parts, friction and gravity.
Why does everyone assume that perpetual motion must be a stable and uniform motion?
Fortunately wear and tear is accepted in the real world, when it come to machines. But Gravity is your friend once you learn how to use it. Also the reason people look for a uniform motion is for smoothness and it will work more expectantly with modern day machine designs the way they are expected to work.
-
ABH
I have had 3 near runners up to date.
That's like saying you're almost a virgin. PM is an absolute.
Don_1
Your two magnets will eventually come to rest with the strings pushed outwards a bit - depending on actual angles and magnet strengths etc. Balancing forces has nothing to do with transferring energy. This is SO fundamental. If you are to have a sensible conversation about these things you can't avoid the meanings and the definitions of Energy, Work, Efficiency etc.
A force of 100N, 10000N or 100000N can't do any work until it starts to MOVE something. Just sitting there doesn't involve any energy transfer at all.
You know, there really are better things to concern oneself with than what is, frankly, untried nonsense. If these odd ideas were to have any merit, the PM machine would have been working and giving us free energy for years. It hasn't because much much greater minds than yours have applied themselves to it and concluded that it is a failure. Let's be a little humble before we say that past Science is full of dolts who have 'missed something'.
How many, would-be, PM inventors have managed to understand all of Newtonian Mechanics, Classical EM theory and Classical Thermodynamics? You'd need to be at least that smart before you could reject the Science which has shown how much nonsense PM is. Optimism and arrogance are not enough.
-
I have to agree.
People seem very ready to reject classical physics without really understanding it.
Many of them (and I'm not suggesting this applies here) even cite quantum physics to support their lack of understanding of classical physics, thus we frequently see;
"don't bother learning Newtonian physics because it's all quantum innit"
Once you have a sound understanding of classical physics (which includes the boundaries where it breaks down) then you can take a more considered view of this type of proposal. Unfortunately for the proponents, the considered view is - it dun't work!
-
Absolutely. I couldn't agree more.
How can you possibly claim to understand the new stuff if you don't get the stuff it's based on. I think it's a love of buzz words rather than a love of trying to understand things.
-
WOWGOLDS, BUZZ OFF!
-
Warcraft. That says it all.
Fantasy.
-
WOWGOLDS, BUZZ OFF!
I've just reported them.....
-
I have fairly comprehensively banned wowgolds
-
sophiecentaur, This was not an attempt to outsmart anyone or anything of the sort, my appologies if it came across that way, it was really just a thought and as I asked 'would the magnets eventually come to rest?' was an admission of the probable failings of such a set-up.
BTW, I don't think that any PM machine, even if one could be invented, would be able to generate power in excess of the power it requires to move itself.
-
Don_1
Sorry if I over reacted but this thread has been verging on the ridiculous.
Any system which is free to move will come to rest, eventually, in a minimum energy state as energy is lost from it. It's only a matter of time.
-
Don_1
Sorry if I over reacted but this thread has been verging on the ridiculous.
Any system which is free to move will come to rest, eventually, in a minimum energy state as energy is lost from it. It's only a matter of time.
Careful Sophie...you need to qualify that....
-
Very few virgins, I'll admit but some of it is ridiculous.
-
virgin on the ridiculous?
(Just thought i'd state the blindingly obvious...)
-
LMAO ridiculous? LMAO
Strong word for science. The same word was used for the Wright Brothers, Tesla, and many more. The term impossible and ridiculous are never good words for science, but prove the hypothesis by research and "trial and error". History of failure is not proof that it can not be done either, but it does give a warning to those who try. My studies of Bessler says it was done. I get my info from eye witnesses and how much he had to fight, which logic says he truly had done it. You need to look up John Collins books and the letters written about Bessler. It makes for interesting reading.
-
Only ignorant people laughed at the Wright Brothers - birds have been flying for years - there's nothing fundamentally different about powered flight, it's just a matter of degree. If you had claimed to have made a bearing which is more efficient than any bearing made so far no one would be laughing at the idea.
Tesla was a showman who claimed more than he achieved. He was far from wrong in everything, though, of course.
BTW, it's not 'a history of failure' that tells us it can't be done. It's a history of SUCCESSFUL Science which supplies a lot of evidence that it can't be done. If the only evidence which you have is from some reports of some events hundreds of years ago then you should use your head and not your heart before committing to it.
-
It really is quite simple. There is no combination of gravitational potential energy, angular momentum and rotational inertia which can possibly produce PM. This is kids stuff - Newtonian physics 101.
-
Only ignorant people laughed at the Wright Brothers
Main stream science learned a new understanding when the Wright Brothers flew. And once I am done, there will be another new understanding. You just have to learn what to overcome and do it.
I wish I could show what I have learned but it would expose my hand to soon. You can call me names, and believe I am mistaken and such. But in the end the names will change and you will have your very own V8 moment with understanding. [;D]
-
Main stream science learned a new understanding when the Wright Brothers flew
You, of course, have references to support that statement? Their's was an engineering first - not a Scientific breakthrough. Do you seriously think they upset anyone's theory when they got an aircraft to fly? Do you understand the difference between Scientific advance and Engineering development?
I wish I could show what I have learned
Unless you showed me something that bikerman didn't mention in his last post then you would have nothing worthwhile to show me. And, if it was that brand new, you wouldn't be flailing wheels around. Your machine would be totally unlike anything your historical idol could have assembled. It would be beyond your imagination
-
OK sophiecentaur
I will tell you that it is simple. and most likely you have seen what has to be done in other machines. But you have to know the correct combination to make it happen. [O8)]
LOL The secret to the universe is? I will tell you when I am good and D@#7 ready. [:D]
-
Do you have to say a magic spell at the same time?
-
Which Scientific Law did the Wright Brothers violate, btw?
-
Tesla is a bit of a fraud. Not a good example to quote.
-
Which Scientific Law did the Wright Brothers violate, btw?
They didn't. That is what I have been trying to say. A new understanding, for main stream science felt that Man flight outside of a baloon was improvable back then, but now say PM is impossible when improvable would be a better statement up till now.
Pumblechook
Tesla may have been a bit flaky, but he was no fraud. You need to look into his history and you will see how much impact he had made into our lives. Alternating current, remote control, Radio, and on and on. But big money did try to bury his name and Hollywood villainized him as a mad scientist.
-
for main stream science felt that Man flight outside of a baloon was improvable back then
You must be able to quote someone from 'mainstream Science' before you can make a statement like that. Newton wouldn't have said it was impossible if he had been told about the internal combustion engine.
How can you 'improve' beyond a fundamental limit? It's not just a matter of getting better oil, you know.
There were a lot of vested interests in the ENGINEERING of Tesla's day. AC vs DC was only a VHS vs Betamax argument. And, of course, there were a lot of ignorant people about then, too. Can't you distinguish between that category of discussion and what you are proposing. I can only conclude that you haven't understood what you are saying and what, in your ignorance, you are rejecting. It is just naive enthusiasm talking.
Or perhaps you could assure me (and demonstrate) that you are perfectly familiar with Thermodynamic principles and all of Classical Mechanics and can tell me the essential hole in all the arguments against PM. Also, of course, if you are correct, then there will be all sorts of 'knock-ons' which would seriously change the world as we see it.
I'm afraid that you are demonstrating some fantastic arrogance about the matter.
-
Tesla didn't invent very much at all.
Totally overrated.
E.G 3 phase AC was pioneered in Britain by John Hopkinson before Tesla had even arrived in the USA.
Some of Teslas claims and/or the claims of his fans are plain barmy. Like a radio controlled boat in 1896 when most of the components needed to make such a thing possible hadn't been invented then. It is just about possible he might have made a boat which started off..no steering.. and possibly a stop signal.
And the suggestion that Tesla invented technology which has been suppressed in these more than one hundred years is particularly barmy.
-
LOL
How many of you believe that the earth travels around the sun? Or to put it another way.
How many of you believe the sun is the center of our solar system? [;D]
-
Get back to us when the machine works for a year without stopping.
-
How many of you believe that the earth travels around the sun? Or to put it another way.
How many of you believe the sun is the center of our solar system?
Err..I do.
I believe it to be the case based on sound theoretical and observational evidence (ie NOT faith, but belief).
What has that got to do with perpetual motion wheels?
-
I believe that the Earth won't be in its present orbit for ever. We are pretty sure that it wasn't there for ever, either.
But what has that to do with your whirly wheel?
-
How many of you believe that the earth travels around the sun? Or to put it another way.
How many of you believe the sun is the center of our solar system?
Err..I do.
I believe it to be the case based on sound theoretical and observational evidence (ie NOT faith, but belief).
What has that got to do with perpetual motion wheels?
Well put it this way. If you use the sun as the center of our solar system to project space travel in our solar system you will not make it home. But if you use the earth as the center of out solar system you will make it home. As for perpetual motion what we perceive is deceptive in a similar manner.
-
Well the sun is perceived as our center of our solar system. But what anchors the sun in the center? Each solar system we see in space has a wobble due to conflicting gravitational pulls so what may look like a planet on one side and then the other is more like changing places. Our solar system is no different the bodies pull at each other and we wobble. Our planetary paths are from observation, but when you add all the mass of the planets and the sun the earth fits between the larger masses in the wobble so as they change places the earth is in the center. This is why NASA does all there math calculations as if the earth is in the center of out solar system.
As for perpetual motion each mass works for and against each other which makes the shift a wobble effect which creates the wobble over onto the descending side. This is just one of the approaches.
-
I think you are deceiving yourself actually.
You haven't managed a directly parallel argument to your situation yet.
It's not true to say that you couldn't navigate using a geocentric model. More complex, maybe, because you would need a lot of friggery.
Interestingly enough, the later model is much simpler than the earlier one. Your bolt-on for the present model makes everything else but your PM machine much more complicated.
In any case, Science doesn't rely on past stories of 'hard done by' revolutionary Scientists. It aims, at least, to be evidence based and nothing is ever accepted without proper evidence. You have none so how can you be surprised that no one believes your ideas?
Perhaps you could risk learning some of the evidence which shows how your cursory approach will take you nowhere. Get down to some serious learning; Know your enemy.
Just read your last post. Do you actually know how much the Sun 'wobbles'? Could you actually believe that I didn't know that it does? And is it relevant?
-
This whole line of argument is just silly.
Motion is relative - this much has been know since (and probably before) Galileo. In fact we call such a notion Galilean Relativity.
The notion that the sun wobbles is nothing new and nor is it of any relevance to this particular debate. NASA doesn't do 'maths calculations' as if the earth is the centre of the solar system - they know fine well that it isn't. They simply calculate relative to a 'stationary' earth for motion important relative to earth. This much is obvious. When, however, they come to calculate orbits, then the motion of the earth is (almost) entirely irrelevant. If you want to calculate a trajectory for insertion into Mars orbit, for example, you calculate using Mars as a 'stationary' point. That's one reason we use the word 'relativity'.
None of this has any bearing on this debate. This debate is about whether you can construct a PM system in an inertial frame of reference centred on the earth.
You can't.
-
Ok so a PM is defined as being in a closed box?
What defines closed?
Can we ever prove a universe to be closed?
How about instant tunneling, wormholes, kaons, virtual particles, Black holes.
We can define a 'system' as being closed i suppose, same as we can discuss 'two-dimensional' objects in lattices, but do they exist?
-
You have none so how can you be surprised that no one believes your ideas?
Curiosity, and doubt, is why this string is still going strong or why are you guys here? To see what doubt may be wrong? Maybe this guy has done something?
Under this case the final evidence is the machine. But I can't show it or them at this time, if I have any at all. A flower is at its best in full bloom.
Get down to some serious learning; Know your enemy.
I know my enemy but my enemy, and it is also my friend. It is established thinking inside the box of what we have been tout to the point of almost becoming a religion. Outside the box is our freedom of our minds but never leave good knowledge behind.
Just read your last post. Do you actually know how much the Sun 'wobbles'? Could you actually believe that I didn't know that it does? And is it relevant?
(Do you actually know how much the Sun 'wobbles'?)
No.
(Could you actually believe that I didn't know that it does?)
does it really to me mater if you know it or not in this argument?
(And is it relevant?)
More than you can accept at this time without seeing the machine.
-
Ok so a PM is defined as being in a closed box?
What defines closed?
Can we ever prove a universe to be closed?
How about instant tunneling, wormholes, kaons, virtual particles, Black holes.
We can define a 'system' as being closed i suppose, same as we can discuss 'two-dimensional' objects in lattices, but do they exist?
It is simple. Can we create a system which, without external input, can continue to move ad-infinitum? Such a system would be a 'unity' system, with no energy lost to the 'outside'. (Most PM proponents go beyond this and (as Bessel did) claim that their particular devices are 'over unity' - ie they generate excess energy which can, presumably, be extracted from the system ad-infinitum). The claim was, and is, bogus, as anyone familiar with basic physics can tell you.
Now, if you want to consider more esoteric systems (such as zero point energy) then there is some interesting physics to be done. Zero point energy does not contravene energy conservation on the macro scale of things - it (apparently) does it on the micro scale and only for very small periods of time (in accordance with uncertainty principle). Overall there is a balanced 'budget' of energy since the final sum total must be zero.
Wormholes are speculative and would not, in any case, necessarily be subject to the laws of spacetime that are in 'normal' operation, since they require a 'fracture' or 'folding' of spacetime. I'm pretty sure that no violation of thermodynamic laws would occur in any case.
Black holes seem to obey the laws of energy conservation. You stick mass/energy into a black hole and it increases its mass/energy accordingly.
With the Kaon I presume you are intending to talk about CP violation? That would require a whole new thread to discuss, but let's just say that this would not allow contravention of thermodynamics on any macro scale.
Quantum tunnelling does not violate thermodynamic laws. In fact quantum tunnelling can ONLY occur from a high energy state to a lower energy state, in strict conformance with thermodynamic laws (the fact that it goes 'through' a higher energy 'peak' is another matter).
-
ABH
If it is so Earth shattering, why are you wasting time on this website?
-
ABH
If it is so Earth shattering, why are you wasting time on this website?
I told you I have been sick with pneumonia, and I am just starting to catch up with my armour work and then I can finish constructing of my wheels and there are 3 different designs that pass my pre-test. So if I am correct which I believe I am, you know the rest.
-
But how can our humble little forum compare in importance with your fantastic field of research?
If you have the energy to bicker with us then why not use it to investigate a bit more theory and speed your success?
-
I told you I have been sick with pneumonia, and I am just starting to catch up with my armour work and then I can finish constructing of my wheels and there are 3 different designs that pass my pre-test. So if I am correct which I believe I am, you know the rest.
But the simple fact is that you either don't know, or can't/won't communicate the theory behind your invention.
If you can't/won't tell us the theory then why post? All you have posted to date is a lot of nonsense which anyone with a basic education in Newtonian physics can dismiss instantly.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You have none.
-
Perhaps it's just attention seeking.
-
Greetings all
When I found this forum I was stick in the house, and bored out of my gourd sick with pneumonia. Now I am still restricted to good weather since my shop has to much weather exposure being a blacksmith. At home I did allot of drawing design adjustments ect. Tried a few magnet arraignments trying to manipulate the field with only moderate improvement for a magnet design. Due to my sickness I am also looking for a better shop set up to fight against weather exposure. Today was heavy moister so I was limited in how long I was aloud to be out. I do not want a relapse, my lungs hurt to much.
It is plain as day the patronizing, and I learned along time ago to ignore it. As for showing my designs. Only a fool shows his/her hand before the bet is made. If you want I'll show you some other designs that I have posted on other forums if you wish and we can discuss why, or how it won't work or possibly can.
I tell you what I will post my anti buoyancy devices. This should make for good fun.
-
Are you 'avin a larf?
-
I am.
-
AB Hammer,
Do you realise that, if you turn those devices upside down they look like the perpetual waterwheels that were shown not to work in the middle ages?
Of course these "new" versions won't work for the same reason.
Anyway, I wish you a speedy return to full health so that you can go and make these designs of yours. It's clear that nothing, apart from their failure, is going to convince you that they will not work.
-
sophiecentaur ,Pumblechook
Ha Ha do you even understand it?
It is real simple "if" you can get the bubbles you reduce the buoyancy in the channel tube. Even myth busters proved this about air bubbles and buoyancy. The air line feed back is valved to keep the air feed from filling up with water to be pumped out. A while back I use to work with vacuum cleaners doing repair work. And as a black smith I am well knowledgeable about blowers and compressors. The second version is the best of the 2. The trick is "if" you can get the bubbles it will work. It all depends on the source for the bubbles. Once the bubbles are added will the buoyancy side have enough lift to run the blower/compressor, "if" it can, we have a winner, "if we can't we have another design for the museum of unworkable devices. The other thing to look at, is in what other ways we can use the basics of the design.
PS. again I don't post my best designs, even though this one has a slim possibility.
Bored chemist
Well it is a new approach despite the similarities. No one had tried to reduce the buoyancy before.
-
And how do the bubbles get down under the water? Energy is needed to displace the water. Whether you can spot it or not, there is a net loss of energy when any fluid flows.
What's revolutionary in your design which eliminates this energy loss?
-
Ok, good answers Bikerman. And yes, it was 'cp violations'
(On the other hand, on this site I don't expect anything less:)
Than good answers I mean, or, at least 'imaginative answers':)
And when I get both at the same time:)
That's a real 'kick'
Ah, 'zero point energy' do sounds like a way to get 'free' energy.
M..m.aybe???
-
And how do the bubbles get down under the water? Energy is needed to displace the water. Whether you can spot it or not, there is a net loss of energy when any fluid flows.
What's revolutionary in your design which eliminates this energy loss?
How do you think they got air down to a deep sea diver, and I am only talking about 3 feet. The depth will depend on how strong the pump mechanism needs to be.
-
AB :)
Somehow any CP machine needs to 'produce' more energy than it uses.
(as compared to being in a equilibrium I mean:)
Do you think this one will?
------
Btw: where would you say that this 'extra energy' would come from?
And how does it gets replaced?
To have a true CP you can't allow the energy in the universe to 'run down' can you:)
-
AB :)
Somehow any CP machine needs to 'produce' more energy than it uses.
Do you think this one will?
If I can get enough bubbles. When designing you try for any possibility and then put it to the test grid to check to see if it can be provable. The anti buoyancy design can't be tested with the grids of displacement. Also you look for thing that haven't been tried, or at least look to see what you came up with has been tried by someone else. While I was in the US Coast Guard I observed a river harbor tugboat get pulled down into the Mississippi river due to it's loss of buoyancy due to bubbles. So on this design I am running on experience and what I know. Will it work? that will remain to be seen until I finish my projects on hand that show a 20%+ gain, according to the grids. The grids are my design that uses math in all angles to determine the effects expected. The grids have been tested with other machines with so far 99% accuracy on what would happen. The grids are for regular gravity effects only.
-
Good luck:)
And if it works, give it a spin from me.
And if it doesn't you will have new experiences enabling you to create even better designs.
Trial and error is a cool teacher.
-
That is just gobbledegook and you know it.
(Not the good luck message)
-
SC what is best.
Sitting down doing nothing.
Or testing your ideas to see if they work?
But you are right in that I'm a doubter:)
I think though that AB knows that i doubt.
-
SC what is best.
Sitting down doing nothing.
Or testing your ideas to see if they work?
But you are right in that I'm a doubter:)
I think though that AB knows that i doubt.
You are correct and everyone should doubt. The school of trial and error teaches other possibilities as we go along. That is how I cam up with my grids, by close observation or balance and reaction. The book thumpers who don't build anything are the ones that try to give me the most grief. They can't understand that it is my hobby and I enjoy it and I am chairing some of what I do with others with the same hobbies and those who would just like to see a possible breakthrough.
-
Could you invent a supersonic aircraft or a TV or a computer by trial and error?
Which theories are you prepared to accept and which ones do you reject?
Are you going to develop the whole of your Science by trial and error?
You are being selective and totally subjective about this matter.
Why are you involving yourself with a Science forum if you don't subscribe to the fundamentals of Science?
-
I think that it might have something to do with this being a very factual site.
When I read interesting ideas I kind of forget it at times.
What is it the marines say?
Learn Adapt and Overcome:)
Anyway, test it and see.
A cool hobby keep you 'on your toes'.
Physically as well as mentally.
And that one beats a couch by light years:)
--------------
SC, Now you made me think of the Wright brothers.
-
Could you invent a supersonic aircraft or a TV or a computer by trial and error?
Which theories are you prepared to accept and which ones do you reject?
Are you going to develop the whole of your Science by trial and error?
You are being selective and totally subjective about this matter.
Why are you involving yourself with a Science forum if you don't subscribe to the fundamentals of Science?
All of science starts with a hypotheses then the trial and error through testing so the answer to your question is a resounding YES!!! [;D]
I got to get back to work, lunch is done.
-
All of science starts with a hypotheses
No - it starts with a whole history behind it. It then makes informed hypotheses, based on intelligent analysis of what's been found out already. It does not waste its time in half thought out nonsense.
What you are doing is not Science, it's romance, to put it kindest.
-
All of science starts with a hypotheses
No - it starts with a whole history behind it. It then makes informed hypotheses, based on intelligent analysis of what's been found out already. It does not waste its time in half thought out nonsense.
What you are doing is not Science, it's romance, to put it kindest.
So you are confusing someones experiences with science (it starts with a whole history behind it) These things help with the hypotheses of course. But the experiences are not the science, they are the person's working with science background that help him or her in there decision to make hypotheses. In history the artisan, scientist, engineer, and the blacksmith all went under the category of "arts and science". So don't tell me I am not doing science. All and all, All science starts with hypotheses and then the hypotheses have to be tested to see if it is correct or not, Trial and error. Take a look at how many hypotheses are correct first time out? The answer is most likely none, thus the trial and then an error. And this happens again and again and again ..... [;)]
-
So you think Newon and Einstein both started from scratch, do you?
Actually, they built on existing and well tested Science. Anyone who starts off on a new, uninformed, track is at serious risk of wasting their time. Be a bit humble about this business; take advice, learn some Science and avoid wasting your time (and that of many other people).
-
So you think Newon and Einstein both started from scratch, do you?
Actually, they built on existing and well tested Science. Anyone who starts off on a new, uninformed, track is at serious risk of wasting their time. Be a bit humble about this business; take advice, learn some Science and avoid wasting your time (and that of many other people).
sophiecentaur
Pay more attention to what is written. Don't confuse experience with being an entity. Each individual is just that, with experience and references. You are talking like the scientist are suppose to be part of an entity, spending all there time trying to improve what is known. We call this inside the box. The only real progress is those who go outside the box and then later those in the box will absorb it into "your entity" and try to ignore that it was an all new idea and an all new hypotheses that went through trial and error and verbal abuse from those inside the box. "Your entity".
Einstein's theories went against mainstream science and was ridiculed at first as well and then the quantum theory cam to be. A new understanding. You need to get your head out of the box and look around how the best breakthroughs came to be and then look how the rest of science steps in to improve it. That is how science works.
________________________________________________
“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.”
Quote By Max Planck father of Quantum physics 1858 - 1947
-
I'd stay away from discussing Einstein's theories, and their reception, unless you understand the scientific and social context. His theories were NOT ridiculed at the time since there was a growing realisation that Maxwell's work could not be reconciled with Newton, as well as a growing realisation that Newton could not account for the orbit of Mercury. There was some scepticism about SR, but that is how science works and is entirely justified. Very few people at the time actually understood the theory and the worst you can say for Einstein's treatment is that his theories were not immediately accepted - it took a while. This is right and proper in science - you don't just accept the next theory that comes along. You try to experiment to disprove it. Eddington offered the first experimental evidence with his solar eclipse photographs and from that point onwards Einstein was taken very seriously indeed.
This idea that scientists start with a hypothesis is nonsense. Science starts with observation/problem. You observe a new phenomenon, or one which cannot be accounted for by current theory. You then hypothesise and finally you test, with an aim to refute (not prove) the hypothesis.
Now, to compare this with what you are doing is an insult to hard-working scientists.
You have no observation/phenomenon that cannot be explained by current theory.
Citing Bessel here is like citing Uri Geller and saying we need to explain how he bends spoons. We don't. We know it is possible to bend spoons, using a variety of 'tricks', but we don't know the exact method Geller used - it doesn't matter. The assumption is he is a con-man until he can demonstrate that there really IS a phenomenon that cannot be explained by current theory. Exactly the same applies to Bessel's wheel.
You have no hypothesis worthy of the name, and your testing consists of trying to prove an assumption is correct with no regard for proper scientific methodology. This has nothing to do with science at all - it is hobbyist tinkering, at best.
-
ABH
Einstein's theories went against mainstream science
I don't think you have much idea about either, actually, or you wouldn't be making the statements you have made..
-
Ah, 'zero point energy' do sounds like a way to get 'free' energy.
M..m.aybe???
Perhaps (though it would not be free - it would be simply harnessing an existing energy source). I remain sceptical about zero-point energy 'harvesting'. I know there are many proposed devices on the net but I've yet to see one that has been properly tested, or even that looks likely. Most of the physicists that I talk to are deeply sceptical. Many point out that the production of virtual particles occurs on such a small timescale that there is no viable way to utilise the 'energy' since, according to uncertainty principle, the overall energy state is 0 taken over any meaningful timescale...
-
I think that it might have something to do with this being a very factual site.
When I read interesting ideas I kind of forget it at times.
. . . . .
A cool hobby keep you 'on your toes'.
. . . . . . .
What does Science do, if it does not attempt to get as near to the 'fact' as possible? Why do you think that people like me subscribe to this sort of site? If you want an 'airy fairy wouldn't it be nice if' type of site then you have come to the wrong place.
And since when (ignoring the diilitante amateur experimenters of a past age) was Science some sort of hobby, to be toyed with?
Football fans may talk in term of 'passion' but, with Scientists, it's dedication.
-
Bikerman
The reason there are so many 0 point energy devices, is because they are easy to fake. All of these need to be tested honestly and fairly where the public can see the posted results. Fraudsters are all over just trying to get into peoples pocket. But there are those trying to make an honest effort. Most of the honest ones don't ask for investment until they feel they have something to show, than just an idea.
-
AB Hammer,
You are asking us to invest our time. You have, at the moment, nothing to show but ideas.
The ideas are decidely suspect.
Don't spend any more of your time posting here until you have a real concrete example you can show us.
You can spend the rest of yopur life typing and you won't convince anyone.
If you make the thing work then you will convince everyone instantly.
-
AB Hammer,
You are asking us to invest our time. You have, at the moment, nothing to show but ideas.
The ideas are decidely suspect.
Don't spend any more of your time posting here until you have a real concrete example you can show us.
You can spend the rest of yopur life typing and you won't convince anyone.
If you make the thing work then you will convince everyone instantly.
So you want to stomp on my freedom of speech? Forums are for people to express themselves. You don't have to answer me, but you have the wright to tell me what ever as long as you stay within the rules. Your time here is the same as mine voluntary. Your word are worth no more than mine. Now if you look at this string it is one of the longest strings on this forum. I would say it is good for the forum.
-
What you say about forums is true to some extent but it is only fair to talk Science on a Science forum. You seem to steer well clear of that particular requirement.
What would be the point of talking baseball on a football forum?
-
Personally, I feel this thread has more than run it's course. It's come down to most people pointing out that perpetual motion is an impossibility, and one claiming it's possible but refusing to offer any evidence. I see no advantage in allowing this thread to continue and so will be locking it soon. If anyone feels that they have anything constructive to add, please send me or one of the other moderators a private message. If enough people feel it should be unlocked for the arguments to continue, I shall do so.