Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: justathought on 26/06/2010 16:20:17
-
I have been researching and working on perpetual motion for the last 15 years. Despite a common notion that perpetual motion is not possible, I tend to think such a notion has been misplace. I have conducted experiments and demonstrations to prove that it is possible to come up with a perpetual motion device. However, I have observed certain key things which are a hindrance to our quest for one I find it important to talk about this as a background to my suggestion.
For a start, there is so much fire in the subject that we have lost direction of the argument. This has come about as a result of the numerous attempts by enthusiasts through history to create motion by scientifically wrong methods. Many have tried to create systems which turn out to be attempts at creating energy from nothing, and this is not possible. Their noble attempts have created concepts about perpetual motion which are misleading and as a result the term perpetual motion has been taken to mean a 'a machine which creates energy'. In effect the argument about perpetual motion has in a way made in reference to these attempts rather than the term perpetual motion itself.If we approach the subject with a free mind, putting aside the previous attempts, I find no logical explanation to disapprove perpetual motion even though I already disapprove these attempted designs.We can use known science to achieve it.
Our predecessors in this quest began well by trying to make the well-known overbalanced wheel mechanism. However, many could not figure out how to make the wheel imbalanced as the mechanisms they created always resulted in other features which balanced the wheel in accordance to thermodynamic laws. Now, they stopped there and upto date most attempts are of similar nature. This concept is what the proponents of the argument against perpetual motion relate to. In reality however, it is the method which is wrong and not the subject. A Perpetual motion device should be taken as an indipendent 'value' from the method used to attain it. It is not correct to say it is not possible just because so far we have wrong methods.
There is evidence of perpetual motion in the physical universe. The planets do orbit around the sun perpetually. This is scientifically sound and can be explained. But even when no man could explain it the phenomenon existed.It is wrong to limit reality to what we already know. If the wright brothers did this, we would not be having planes today. So what we need to do is to search for it and we will get it.
Obviously inventors in the past were trying to convert gravitational energy into kinetic energy when they came up with their designs. Their designs ended up not doing so because they lacked a definite mechanism to harness the gravitational power.
The suggestion I give offers a workable and tested way.
I will first outline the steps taken and then gradually describe each step one by one in coming posts.
There are three main steps:
1. Creating a balanced wheel with weights mounted on it whereby the wheel's balance is actually attained by the help of the weights on the lower side of the wheel. In other words, when these weights are negated in some way, then the wheel losses balance. In such a case the force created to rotate the wheel will be equivalent to the force of the negated weights. In this way there would be a definite and measurable source for the energy to drive the wheel and this energy is gravity!
2. The above mechanism should be in such a way that even when the wheel rotates, it does not loose the above feature. In this way when imbalance is created by negating the weights on the lower side of the wheel, then rotation does not affect the imbalance and therefore the imbalance is retained perpetually.
3. Use weights with equal density to water( or slightly more) and then partially immerse the wheel in water fr a specific depth in order to negate the effect of the weights on the lower side of the wheel and thus destabilizing the wheel perpetually.
I believe if the above are implemented successfully then we have our perpetual motion wheel.
-
I find no logical explanation to disapprove perpetual motion
Friction, air resistance, electrical resistance (if you're trying a "frictionless" magnetic bearing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE4Ty_BfC88&feature=related)).
-
In answer to you question: Yes, a device of this kind will fail to work.
I always think it's good when people ask questions of the world around them, but in this case you are starting from completely the wrong premise.
Sorry to hear you've put 15 years into something that can not work. I'm afraid, you can't draw power from gravity indefinitely for the simple reason that gravity is no more than geometry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhaskara_II#Engineering
"The earliest reference to a perpetual motion machine date back to 1150, when Bhāskara II described a [overbalanced] wheel that he claimed would run forever."
If you machine works I'll give you my house....
-
If you machine works I'll give you my house....
When can I pick up the keys?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_bird
Nice video here
http://www.job-stiftung.de/index.php?id=31,143,0,0,1,0
-
"In this way there would be a definite and measurable source for the energy to drive the wheel and this energy is gravity!"
I'll think I'll keep them for now! p.s. I only rent [>:(] [:D]
-
I Georgian times perpetual motion machines were displayed to a gullible public for a small charge, they normally operated via a magnetic coupling to a wheel in an adjoining room turned by a serf.
-
If you machine works I'll give you my house....
Yeepeee! House already? What a good start. [;D]
The concept surely works-at least on paper. The tests and experiments done also are very positive. My detailed mathematical analysis and experiments done, also counter checked by someone I trust, not only reveal the success but also gives an indication of the speed of rotation as well as the power expected from the wheel. A wheel of about 3 meters in diameter is expected to have a theoretical output of about 150W and rotate at about 27 rpm.
-
My detailed mathematical analysis and experiments done, also counter checked by someone I trust,
Perhaps you should ask your friend if he's ever heard of the First Law of thermodynamics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
-
Friction, air resistance, electrical resistance (if you're trying a "frictionless" magnetic bearing).
The concept takes care of all this. the notable thing in the concept is that there willl be sufficient energy to run the machine itself, counter all the friction and other negative forces, as well as offer enough to be tapped. It is expected to move with considerable force and won't need to be pushed so as to start.
Sorry to hear you've put 15 years into something that can not work. I'm afraid, you can't draw power from gravity indefinitely for the simple reason that gravity is no more than geometry.
Gravity is regarded as one of the four fundamental forces in the universe. Though it is the weakest of the four, the gravitational force experienced by objects towards the earth is a formidable force and a source of energy.
Perhaps you should ask your friend if he's ever heard of the First Law of thermodynamics.
My friend is an experienced lecturer in Mechanical Engineering in one of the local colleges. Myself am trained in Electrical/Electronics Engineering. So we both are well familiar with the laws of physics.
The concept I will share does not contradict these laws.
-
Perhaps you should ask your friend if he's ever heard of the First Law of thermodynamics.
My friend is an experienced lecturer in Mechanical Engineering in one of the local colleges. Myself am trained in Electrical/Electronics Engineering. So we both are well familiar with the laws of physics.
The concept I will share does not contradict these laws.
OK. The math should be interesting. Can we see it?
-
The concept I will share does not contradict these laws.
Yes, it does.
It drives a coach and horses through the first law of thermodynamics.
If you and your friend don't realise that, then you simply have not understood the first law.
-
OK. The math should be interesting. Can we see it?
I was not expecting this.
Well, I've had this concept and wheel design (and had it patented) for the last eleven years or so. To date it has been the most tricky thing to deal with in my life. In the process of trying to gain help for development, I have spilled so much about it but I have managed to keep the vital information and final analysis.
There are three things about this invention: The concept and first design which explains the principles used to create perpetual motion, the real wheel design which if built is expected to work and the detailed mathematical analysis of the real wheel. The concept is very clear and most people I have shared it have no problem understanding that if implemented it works. Implementing this concept is another tricky thing and there are secrets which I keep to myself on how to make the real wheel work using the principles I have outlined. It is these secrets and the analytical formulas which I have derived in line with the laws of physics; specifically to analyze the wheel, that I have shared to one person whom I trust so as to ascertain that I am on the correct path. I may not share them openly.
Even though the wheel design is not a very complex thing, its analysis is very complex and it is what has kept those who have wind of the invention unable to go forward with it. With these formulas so long as one is using the concept to design a wheel, one can perform analysis in a simpler way.
The formulas center around finding the moment of inertia of the wheel; both when partially immersed in water and when not immersed in water, finding the effect in the moment of inertia when immersing the wheel at different depths in water, and finding the Kinetic energy. The rotational speed was estimated from an experimental prototype made using the concept some time ago. The prototype was made using simple equipment and was designed to achieve partial rotation. When not immersed in water, it was completely balanced but when immersed in water, it lost its balance and rotated for about 45 degrees.When removed from water, it rotates back to its original position. This prototype is available for demonstration purposes.What is required to build a complete wheel is high level equipment and high precision in making the parts. The speed of rotation was observed to be 30 rpm. Further more, using my formulas the demonstrated imbalance by the prototype was confirmed.
For me to share details of my analysis means first of all I introduce each formula and how it has been derived to the satisfaction of the reader, present my real wheel design and then use the formulas to analyze the wheel. Then what will I be left with?
Maybe what I may do if need be is to submit the formulas and design for assessment by an independent mutually agreed party under an NDA, for the interest of an organization with whom we have entered into partnership. But this requires more discussion.
I will share as much as I can about the concept which I feel safe to expose because even if I don't, the information is now in many hands and may find its way into public forum.
The concept I will share does not contradict these laws.
Yes, it does.
It drives a coach and horses through the first law of thermodynamics.
If you and your friend don't realise that, then you simply have not understood the first law.
Well, let me go through this and I will post a reply
-
Yes, it does.
It drives a coach and horses through the first law of thermodynamics.
If you and your friend don't realise that, then you simply have not understood the first law.
I understand this concern. When I first made the breakthrough I got confused because at first it seemed as though the system creates energy. It took me some time to actually understand what my created system deed and later I realized that in deed the principle can only NOT work if the first law of thermodynamics is WRONG. So long as this law is TRUE, then it has to WORK. At that time the law of thermodynamics was to me more a common sense issue than something I had studied. In fact at that time I had not studied much about it. To be sincere I had not even done enough analysis on my machine at the time of patenting.
Let me begin by stating that the way I understand it, the first law of thermodynamics seeks to express the fact that the energy in any closed system is constant and energy has to be injected into the system so as to get the same energy out of the system.
Before I explain how my wheel fulfills this, I think it is important that one has to really actively forget about the perpetual motion machines made in the past so as to understand the concept. There is weight in what I am about to say and I hope it is received well.
At the time when I first conceived the idea about my wheel, I had no idea about perpetual motion machines and the attempts made through history. I believe in a way this was helpful to me as every thought I had, I had no reference to make.When I enrolled in college I did not study mechanics deeply. The first time I heard of the term 'perpetual motion' was when I had a meeting with one of the professors in a local university about a year after patenting my invention and even then I did not concentrate on it well and did not bother much about it. To me what I had was simply a wheel which can rotate by the use of gravitational force.I knew it would be a revolutionary thing but I did not know about the ripples it would create in science. Sometimes being ignorant is advantageous because I think I would have stopped a long time ago if I really knew what I was doing, as this would have made me think I am on the wrong path.
I so much believe the history of perpetual motion machines is the greatest hindrance to its success. I had to study about perpetual motion devices so as to understand the background of the invention internationally and this I did less than two years ago.
Previous perpetual motion machines attempted to create energy within a closed system.Quite dumb [:D] My wheel does not do this. In my wheel, work is injected in to the system. What I did was find a way of injecting work perpetually from gravitational pull. With the awareness and knowledge I have right now I doubt if I would have gone through what I did then. There is a very thin line between this concept and the well known perpetual motion wheels.My wheel is a PMM because it rotates perpetually but not because it creates energy within a closed system.
The historical attempts to make the overbalanced wheel was correct but people stopped there and got stuck.My first design turned out to be a kind of overbalanced wheel. Even though common sense told me it should not work, It took me three years to really analyze it and understand in detail why(or how) it did not work. Within the next year I got the breakthrough.
-
How much more time and effort are you prepared to waste on this before you accept that gravity is a conservative field and therefore cannot be a source of energy?
This
"What I did was find a way of injecting work perpetually from gravitational pull."
simply isn't possible.
There's nothing more to discuss.
Incidentally, you have failed to notice that "the earth with your machine on it" is a closed system and therefore cannot generate energy continuously.
Your idea really does breach the third law.
-
I think I will elaborate on the concept. As I said, the design to make a fully functional wheel is on paper. But the design to create partial motion has been done in practice and the motion has been created using the concept which I am sharing.
The first thing is to make what I refer to as an unstable but balanced wheel. This is a wheel which is balanced but its balance can easily be upset. In creating this I sort to separate the two moments of the wheel(clockwise and anti-clockwise)along the vertical and horizontal planes as opposed to the traditional right and left sides of the wheel.
[diagram=596_0]
Usually on a beam balance, the clockwise moment caused downward force on the right hand side of the fulcrum and the anti-clockwise moment causes downward force on the left side of the fulcrum. I therefore joined up two beam balances at 90 degrees so as to come up with a cross like structure. Then using a system of levers with weights mounted at the end of the levers, I created a system whereby weights on the vertical beam caused the clockwise moment while those on the horizontal beam caused the anti-clockwise moment. Such a wheel is balanced, but is unstable. When one or both of the weights mounted on the vertical beam is reduced, then only the clockwise moment is reduced and thus the balance is upset.
Now for weights I used those with equal density to water so that when the weight is in water, it appears weightless to the wheel. In this way the anti-clockwise moment becomes more and the wheel will rotate in the anti-clockwise direction.The fact that water comes in causing force on the weights opposing the gravitational pull makes the system open.
This is quite equivalent to someone pushing a wheel. That person injects force into the wheel and this force can be tapped. This work by the water is what translates into the driving force of the wheel. I would like anyone to think about this critically with a free mind.I think it is true.
I have demonstrated this practically and it works. If it is not true then why did the structure rotate by itself?
This is the basic principle used to make the wheel.
-
How much more time and effort are you prepared to waste on this before you accept that gravity is a conservative field and therefore cannot be a source of energy?
This
"What I did was find a way of injecting work perpetually from gravitational pull."
simply isn't possible.
I have been thinking about this. I think I was wrong to state that 'what I did was find a way of injecting work perpetually from gravitational pull'. I now accept, this is not possible.
Maybe my focus all these years has been to create a perpetual motion machine and not so much about the source of the energy. it seems I have not achieved perpetual motion but I have achieved continuous movement as long as water is present. I realize that my analysis on the wheel has been based on the gravitational pull and imbalance experienced on the wheel in which case I managed to achieve a state of constant imbalance with the help of still water. this has had led me to think that the energy is from gravity. I realize that the measurement of the gravitational pull here becomes only a measure of energy and not a source of the energy itself. Somebody tell me if I am saying something or I am just making noise.
The analysis and tests done on the prototype indicate that this has been achieved. However, I realize that the cause of the imbalance is the energy source which in this case is the flotation given by the water. In this case, I will have to change all of my documents and writings as I have been claiming it is a gravitationally driven wheel.
It means therefore that mine is not a perpetual motion wheel because it will stop running when the water evaporates or goes below the required threshold.
Could it be then that the discovery is about a means of harnessing power from still water or flotation? Because I think flotation is a force and is the force driving my wheel.The flotation here though results into a net zero force on the weight on which it acts upon( because the weight has the same density as the water) but not a net upward thrust on the weight as in the case where a ship is made to float.
In answer to Bored Chemist's question, I am interested in the search because all along I have not been necessarily looking to tap energy from gravity but to create motion on a wheel without the use of fuel or electricity. It just happened that I have fumbled into the gravitational arguments time and again of which I am seeking answers and not trying to prove a point. I would like to understand the phenomenon I have seen in my experiments. Thanks though (Bored Chemist) because your input has got me thinking and in a way put me on the correct path.
-
The Earth with your machine on it is still a closed system.
It is still impossible to extract work continuously from a closed system
Your idea still does not, and can not, work.
-
It means therefore that mine is not a perpetual motion wheel because it will stop running when the water evaporates or goes below the required threshold.
There you go!
As long as you understand that it is highly unlikely that your machine is not doing work without some source of energy, you should be in good shape. If you can make a machine that can harness the available ambient energy and convert it into useful work, it's a great machine.
-
As far as I can tell the water isn't doing anything so you could just put a lid over it to stop it evaporating.
Then, once again it's a closed system and cannot do work without breaching the laws of thermodynamics.
-
Justathought: Can you put a video of your working prototype on Youtube?
-
I am sorry for late replies. I have been away for some days. Though I had drafted a reply to some of the questions two days ago before I left but for some technical reasons I could not post them. Let me go through some of the queries now.
The Earth with your machine on it is still a closed system.
It is still impossible to extract work continuously from a closed system
Your idea still does not, and can not, work.
I am yet to understand this well. How is the earth and my machine on, a closed system? Does the same apply to a hydro-power plant or even a fuel-driven electrical generator?
If the above two are not closed systems, then I don't see why my machine is.
I am hoping to make a completely operational prototype and hopefully, this may give us answers or maybe questions-I don't know.
As long as you understand that it is highly unlikely that your machine is not doing work without some source of energy, you should be in good shape. If you can make a machine that can harness the available ambient energy and convert it into useful work, it's a great machine.
I agree. I would also re-affirm that all along I have been working on the machine with the knowledge that it is getting its energy from some source. Only that I was not sure from where. The conception was in a 'cart before horse' manner because I envisioned a continuously imbalanced wheel. The imbalance meant there was some energy provided in line with thermodynamics. Let me explain this : If you place two equal weights on the opposite sides of a beam balance and at equal distance from the pivot, the beam balance is balanced. If you however, apply force so as to move one weight further from the pivot, then you will create imbalance and consequently motion and Kinetic energy. This motion and kinetic energy should be equal to the energy used to shift the weight less the other energy losses such as friction. This has been the basis of my working because at every step of my design, I analyzed to see that there is an ideological balance to satisfy thermodynamics laws.And that there is a logical explanation as to the presence of the force which moves the weights. This is how I could tell that my first design would not work. I later, sought to get energy for moving the weights and I found out how to use water to help move the weights. So principally, the energy to move the machine is actually the flotation. Even though I have not built a fully functional prototype, my conviction so far is that there has not been enough reason based on analysis to show that it does not work. My sharing of this concept is aimed at putting it into scrutiny by different people to really get the truth about the concept.However I try only to expose what to me is safe to help the argument without exposing too much for obvious reasons. And I think answers to 'how' the concept has failed rather than 'why' it has failed are the more appropriate ones for anyone who has a contrary opinion.
Justathought: Can you put a video of your working prototype on Youtube?
I have been thinking about this for quite some time, but I think it is not yet time for this. The gains of putting it on internet are less than the harm of exposure. The prototype I have currently achieves motion for only about 45 degrees of rotation. I will be honest and say that even though there is motion, the force of rotation during testing was smaller than I had expected. I had downplayed the effect of friction on some joints whereby I should have used bearings and water resistance and was not keen to reduce it in the design. I should have streamlined the parts which move through water and also the weights themselves.
The machine rotated as explained when partially dipped in water. Contrary to what I had stated in an earlier post, It did not rotate back when removed from the water, but remained unmoved and balanced. When making that earlier post, I had confused the results with some earlier test results I had conducted on the machine out of water.Sorry for that.
The force achieved however logically shows that if completely made the machine would rotate continuously in one direction, not requiring push so as to start. If I manage to make a completely functional one, I will post it; obviously, after making the necessary protection arrangements.
-
"
Quote
The Earth with your machine on it is still a closed system.
It is still impossible to extract work continuously from a closed system
Your idea still does not, and can not, work.
I am yet to understand this well. How is the earth and my machine on, a closed system? Does the same apply to a hydro-power plant or even a fuel-driven electrical generator?
If the above two are not closed systems, then I don't see why my machine is. "
Hydro power isn't perpetual motion, it's powered by the sun. Eventually, the sun will run out of hydrogen and stop working so the hydro power plant will stop.
A fuel driven generator will run out of fuel, it will then stop.
It's not perpetual motion.
Your machine doesn't use anything up (like fuel or hydrogen) so it would carry on forever.
That makes it a perpetual motion machine and, therefore impossible.
You really need to realise that you are wasting your time.
-
It depends how you define perpetual motion, perpetual motion certainly exists in systems that are not exporting any energy such as the electron cloud around an atomic nucleus.
When one talks of perpetual motion machines it assumed that one can continuously extract power from them, this of course not possible and although some designs may appear to defy this rule it is normally because they are in fact low efficiency heat engines such as the nodding duck.
Your wheel dunking weights in water probably falls into this class.
-
Your wheel dunking weights in water probably falls into this class.
Probably. I don't rule this out. I guess only when I finish making a fully functional one will anything about it be confirmed.
Eventually, the sun will run out of hydrogen and stop working so the hydro power plant will stop.
This may be true or not because it is based on an axiom, just in the same way as the thermodynamics laws and many other scientific laws that we adhere to.
Axioms are not proven beyond doubt with 'hard evidence' and may not be proven, but are believed to be true, mainly because they offer crucial answers and work when applied in science. I however think it is not correct to refer to them as infallible. Even if an axiom is correct lack of its complete understanding opens up loop holes in its application. Basing argument on axiom is a good guideline but should not be a limiting factor.Rather in reality something may operate due to some factors outside the axiom applied so long as the factors are not contradictory to the axiom itself.
While I don't wish to challenge axioms that for long have been working for us, I on the other hand, tend to take a law as infallible and therefore unchallengeable if there is hard evidence supporting it. Many times, what works is not always correct or true. Something may work due to what I call a 'true lie theory'.
A 'True lie theory' to me is one which is working without being necessarily correct but when applied, it enforces some parallel unknown or known law which is the one that works. For instance, For many years ago, Diabetes [ High blood sugar(glucose)] had been perceived to be caused by the intake of sugary(sucrose) foods and as such, people were advised by medical practitioners to reduce intake of sweet and sugary foods. In later years, It was discovered that Diabetes is not precisely caused by high sugar intake but rather by not having enough fiber content in our foods and not taking whole unprocessed foods.
The earlier perception partially worked because in the effort of avoiding sugary foods, most people actually avoided processed and low fiber content foods ( most of the sugary foods fall into this category) and so it worked but was not entirely true.
The interpretation that one cannot gain useful energy from a physically rotating object without the input of fuel or electricity has been held for long but is this a correct interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics? If my concept applied on earth is a closed system and limited to operate as long as the earth and sun exists then is it not worthwhile?
We also may not be able to understand every phenomenon observed in the universe. For instance we cannot perceive in our minds or explain whether the universe has an edge or not? Using science there is no answer to this, but the universe is a reality. In a way it seems our minds are limited to a certain extent of understanding something which most scientists including Isaac Newton, came to realize. However, there is still more to be understood and discovered and we should seek to get them for our own benefit as mankind.
While appreciating the great work done by scientists through history and for the laws that have been of such huge benefit to us, I don't think we can entirely prove that everything they said was 100% correct even though they work. Some laws may be operating in the 'true lie theory'( I don't know if there is another term for this -it stands to be corrected). The only way a law can be regarded as infallible is if it has a substantive prove of which this may not be possible for some.
Right now, because they work, then we should use them as they are the best of what we have. We should not however resist change or modification on them.The world is changing and new discoveries are being made. There may be forces in existence which are yet to be discovered. Sometime later we might discover some new laws or even build on existing laws. What is working right now may eventually be found out to be not true or being partially true.
This is the reason why I look for substantive evidence against a concept. My concept has to be analyzed in line with currently known axiom. However the statement that it is not possible to source energy by a system which runs not on known fuel, wind, solar or active energy input is in itself not an axiom but is based upon an axiom. The interpretation of the related axiom resulting in the statement may be in error. The axiom is that energy can not be created in a closed system. In that case the question should be if my concept seeks to do this of which I think it does not. My concept if proven by a working model, may have succeeded in taping energy from flotation or whatever we may find out. My experiments so far are positive, but until I have a fully functional wheel, I cannot claim 100% that it works. I however, seek substantive argument on the concept and not on the law it tends to break because if it works, it may be found that there is no law being broken and that there is source of its energy. I don't consider this a waste of time. How much time and money has been spent in research on finding possible solutions to our problems? What is spent on this project is relatively very little and I think it is worth it.
I will share more on the concept to allow for more scrutiny.
-
So, you are saying that running out of fuel won't stop the sun?
OK ignoring the fact that this is a science website and that's gogwash, you have then decided that the sun is a perpetual motion machine.
But, since perpetual motion machines don't exist, it must be awfully dark where you are.
"While I don't wish to challenge axioms that for long have been working for us, I on the other hand, tend to take a law as infallible and therefore unchallengeable if there is hard evidence supporting it."
OK, the conservation of energy is very robustly demonstrated to be true in absolutely every system in which it has been tested.
You therefore accept that the conservation of energy is true.
So, why are you wasting time on a perpetual motion machine which you already know cannot, and will not, work?
"It was discovered that Diabetes is not precisely caused by high sugar intake but rather by not having enough fiber content in our foods and not taking whole unprocessed foods."
Would you like to explain that bollocks to my vegetarian yet diabetic friend?
Do you not understand that diabetes was a known condition before there was much processed food. Do you know that it occurs in non-human animals too?
"The interpretation that one cannot gain useful energy from a physically rotating object without the input of fuel or electricity has been held for long but is this a correct interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics? "
Yes, it is.
"What is spent on this project is relatively very little and I think it is worth it."
Possibly, but only as a work of art; because it will never work.
-
About the Diabetes thing, let me not talk much about it as it is not the subject of our discussion. My point was to express the fact that some times some theory might work but not necessarily because it is correct. I however am aware that currently the talk on Diabetes centers around encouraging people to eat whole, unprocessed foods as well as having a physically active lifestyle. Not being a medical practitioner, my statements may not be accurate. I also have heard that these measures are taken more because of statistical evidence rather than research. Let me leave this for the respective experts to confirm. I am sorry if I have wronged anyone in relation to this; it was not my intention.
Now concerning the wheel, let me say that there is no harm in trying out something so long as I am not causing infringement on anyone, intellectually or otherwise. So far my attempts are based on trial- but not with 'error'. I am working as well as reflecting on relevant laws concerning what I am working on and so long as I find the going is within the relevant laws, then I don't see reason to stop. In the end if my wheel does not work, it will still be a good trial.
though I plan to post information about the wheel,I may not be able to explain enough about it on this forum for reasons of space and continuity, but more is on my blog.
I am seeking constructive criticism on the wheel to find out why it should not work. If it violates scientific laws then I will need to know how. For instance I would like prove that my wheel has not attained constant imbalance; if it is balanced or an analysis on forces working on it.I am prepared to expose enough about it. I risk loosing its novelty in the event that it is a runner, but I am prepared for this.
-
If you want to prove your wheel has not achieved constant imbalance, then note that friction will slowly reduce its momentum until it rests (perfectly balanced) at the lowest point of its swing.
-
"About the Diabetes thing, let me not talk much about it as it is not the subject of our discussion."
OK.
The wheel still won't work.
You keep saying that it won't do any harm for you to try.
It will.
It lends credibility to the "anti science" movement.
It wastes time that you might use doing something useful.
It may lead others to waste their time.
-
If you want to prove your wheel has not achieved constant imbalance, then note that friction will slowly reduce its momentum until it rests (perfectly balanced) at the lowest point of its swing.
This statement applies to mechanisms that utilize swinging action, or that would need to be started in some ways. In such mechanisms, the motion achieved is as a result of the initial force applied so that the force has to be applied again and again so as to maintain the motion and to keep overcoming the friction and other forces.
Now my principle does not operate in this way. I am thinking of how to post a video shot of my experiment. A picture speaks a thousand words.
To give an explanation, the principle utilizes some force (flotation/gravitational). Now the force created on the wheel by this principle is enough to fulfill the following three key requirements: to drive the wheel, overcome all resistances; friction and other,and still maintain enough power that will be tapped for economic use.
The force which moves the wheel is not applied by push or any other input.Once the wheel is completely assembled, it is expected to initiate its own rotation. Force will have to be applied to prevent it from rotating so long as it is partially immersed in water.This means that the friction and other forces are already overcomed from the start. Also, the force available at any time for rotation is enough to run it. The wheel has imbalance at all times of rotation though the force of imbalance varies as it rotates, but the minimum force at any one time fulfills all the above three key requirements.
-
It lends credibility to the "anti science" movement.
This is one "movement" I will try to keep away from or be an inspiration to. Back here at home we have a saying: 'You don't cut down the tree which supports you'. The mental picture is a person sitting on a branch and then using a saw to cut down the same branch at the base where it joins the main trunk.
I respect science and am far from 'attacking' it. All along, man has benefited from science.
My efforts will come to an abrupt end once I build a complete wheel and it fails to work. So I think the faster I do this the earlier we would conclude on the matter.
If the wheel fails, science will have won, I would have learnt.
In the event that my wheel works, science will still have won. A new area of scientific study might have opened up. So far I am using science to do my work, the calculations, analysis and experiments are all scientific.
I tend to think this work may benefit all of us. Why would I bring this wheel onto this forum if it is not scientific? Even though I have worked on the wheel, I tend to think I need more expert input from others. If somebody proves that the mechanism cannot work, then that's the end of the story, we 'shake hands' go our different ways. Just in case it works (however unlikely this seems)we all benefit. We join hands, work together for the benefit of all. So in a way the prize at the end is greater than the shame.
-
After much deliberation, I have decided to put my principles out for scrutiny. All comments are welcome. More so, those directly on the principles used in the wheel's mechanisms. I will appreciate it so much if someone would point out the mistakes in the principles and give a sound analytical argument. The details of the wheel can be downloaded through the links given below:
http://www.filesonic.com/file/17520449/FREE WHEEL ANALYSIS 2.docx (http://www.filesonic.com/file/17520449/FREE WHEEL ANALYSIS 2.docx)
http://www.filesonic.com/file/17515797/FREEWHEEL PARTS (IMAGES) DEISCRIPTION.docx (http://www.filesonic.com/file/17515797/FREEWHEEL PARTS (IMAGES) DEISCRIPTION.docx)
http://www.filesonic.com/file/17516177/Fulcrum S.GIF (http://www.filesonic.com/file/17516177/Fulcrum S.GIF)
http://www.filesonic.com/file/17520411/fw drawings.pdf (http://www.filesonic.com/file/17520411/fw drawings.pdf)
http://www.filesonic.com/file/17516201/Image001.GIF (http://www.filesonic.com/file/17516201/Image001.GIF)
http://www.filesonic.com/file/17516243/Image012.GIF (http://www.filesonic.com/file/17516243/Image012.GIF)
http://www.filesonic.com/file/17516287/Image013.GIF (http://www.filesonic.com/file/17516287/Image013.GIF)
http://www.filesonic.com/file/17516757/Image018.GIF (http://www.filesonic.com/file/17516757/Image018.GIF)
http://www.filesonic.com/file/17516799/Image019.GIF (http://www.filesonic.com/file/17516799/Image019.GIF)
http://www.filesonic.com/file/17516843/Image020.GIF (http://www.filesonic.com/file/17516843/Image020.GIF)
http://www.filesonic.com/file/17516923/Video000.3gp (http://www.filesonic.com/file/17516923/Video000.3gp)
-
"I will appreciate it so much if someone would point out the mistakes in the principles"
One mistake is that you have forgotten about the law of conservation of energy.
Incidentally, I couldn't actually see the files but that really doesn't matter in this case.
-
I have noticed the problem with the file links I gave previously. Sorry for all affected by this. I have removed the files from that particular server and placed them in another one. This time there are no hassles. The links may be copy-pasted onto the address window of your browser if they don't work automatically.
http://www.ziddu.com/download/11416002/FREEWHEELANALYSIS2.docx.html
http://www.ziddu.com/download/11415974/FREEWHEELPARTSIMAGESDEISCRIPTION.docx.ht
ml
http://www.ziddu.com/download/11415983/Video000.3gp.html
http://www.ziddu.com/download/11415919/fwdrawings.pdf.html
http://www.ziddu.com/download/11415858/Image020.jpg.html
http://www.ziddu.com/download/11415849/Image019.jpg.html
http://www.ziddu.com/download/11415811/Image013.jpg.html
http://www.ziddu.com/download/11415829/Image018.jpg.html
http://www.ziddu.com/download/11415749/Image012.jpg.html
http://www.ziddu.com/download/11415741/Image002.jpg.html
http://www.ziddu.com/download/11392416/FulcrumS.jpg.html
http://www.ziddu.com/download/11390915/Image001.jpg.html
Thanks
-
Most of those files just link to a whole lot of junk advertising.
Surely you can come up with just one simple picture and post it here on this site.
-
Bored Chemist and all, hope you will excuse me for taking long to reply.Due to some personal activities I am unable to participate more frequently.This may go on for some time, but I will try as much as possible to keep up with the going.
About the links I gave, I have found this to be convenient. Any other way simply is not working well. However, anyone who has been able to download the documents and pictures successfully may post them on the forum.
Regards
-
OOops!
I didn't know the uploading was successful. Anyway here are more pictures.
-
Some more
-
Just to point out, diagrams 18 and 19 show the two positions by which the wheel balances. This reveals the reality about the pedal and imbalance forces I have described in the analysis.
-
It's a very nice art installation you have there, Justa'
I'm glad to see you've discovered the device's balancing point... Having done the work to build your machine, now you can see in person how the system will find the lowest energy state - and stop. There is no 'free' energy here, I'm afraid.
-
I'm glad to see you've discovered the device's balancing point...
No,The machine is supposed to be immersed in water so as to loose its balance. The machine I have posted aims to show the principle by which permanent imbalance can be achieved. More is explained in the analysis. I was posting it immediately after the pictures but was interrupted by a power black-out; the very thing I am fighting.
so, below is the analysis which aims to prove imbalance created by the use of the principle.To avoid complexity of the explanation, I have not included the calculations to determine the energy. The energy equivalents are only estimates based upon the imbalance. The conventional formulas for calculating Kinetic energy are not applicable here directly due to the numerous movements of different parts of the machine. I have a way to simplify the machine into a rigid equivalent 'imaginary 'structure for the purpose of getting it's kinetic energy, unless someone suggests another way. I will share this some other time.Note that the diagrams in the analysis could not be displayed and one may need to check them out from the downloads, until I formulates some for this forum.
ANALYSIS OF THE MAIN FORCES
ACTING ON THE WHEEL (FREE WHEEL)
This study is aimed at revealing the main forces acting on the free wheel which eventually cause motion on the Free wheel. Practically due to the fact that the wheel partly moves in water, the total resultant forces are many including water resistance, friction as well as up thrust. This study however does not focus on them. It is expected that the wheel design seeks to reduce these forces as much as possible. This study focuses on the main forces which are responsible for both the clockwise and anti-clockwise moments on the wheel which are:-
A) Imbalance force
B) Pedal force
A) IMBALANCE FORCE
Figures fw. 1 and fw. 3 show the movement of the weights as seen from the side of the wheel as it rotates. The drawings show 16 different weight positions as a single weight moves in one complete revolution of the wheel.
The lever (r) is joined to the big arm (R) through a joint (S) so that as the wheel rotates, (r) revolves about the joint (S) at the same angular velocity but in a plane which is 90° to the wheel’s plane of rotation. This means that as the wheel rotates in the anti – clockwise direction the weight in position 1 moves in a direction 90° to the paper i.e. either ‘out’ of the paper or ‘into’ the paper.
The perpendicular distance of r (perpendicular distance of weight from (s)) will be r cos θ where θ is the angle of rotation from the weight position 1. If the wheel had 16 weights each mounted on a lever(r) and positioned as shown in the diagram fw.3, then if it is made to rotate, each weight assumes the position of the fore-running weight and thus the weights will always be positioned as shown despite the rotation.
The arrangement has achieved two important things:-
a) The weights descending are positioned further from fulcrum (f) and the weights ascending are positioned closer to fulcrum (f) and thereby creating imbalance.
b) Unlike most perpetual motion wheels suggested, the number of weights distributed on the left hand side and on the right hand side of the point of rotation are equal in number and thus the imbalance is still maintained by this arrangement (side view arrangement).
This arrangement however, comes with a price which as we will see later balances out the wheel and this price is the pedal force.
B) THE PEDALING (Pedal) FORCE
The introduction of a second plane of rotation on the wheel results in some side-ways weight displacement which can be seen by a front view of the wheel. This causes the ‘pedal’ force. This force result from the mass of the weights acting at 900 from the wheels plane of rotation as the weight revolves about fulcrum (s).
As seen from figures fw2 and fw4, the pedal force will be at a maximum at weight positions 5 and 13 and reduce to zero at positions 1 and 9.
If the laws of conservation of energy are to be retained then the wheel should be balanced. The ONLY possible explanation is that the imbalance reveled on figure fw3 and fw1 (side view) is cancelled by the pedaling force shown in figures fw2 and fw4.
NB. All of the pedaling force is contributing to the clockwise moment.
Taking each plane as a balance lever machine the weights act in pairs i.e. weight on position 1 acts with weight on position 9. Consequently weight 2 acts with weight 10, and weight 5 with weight 13 etc. In this case it will be discovered that the weights on the horizontal i.e. positions 16 through 2 and 8 through 10 have more imbalance force in them then pedal force.
NB. Compare figure fw1 and fw2 or fw3 and fw4 to see this.
However, weights 12 through 14 and 4 through 6 have more of the pedal force then imbalance force. As such, the weights on vertical plane contribute more to pedal force and thus the clockwise moment - but the weights on horizontal plane contribute more to the imbalance force and thus anti – clockwise moment.
Creating force to move the wheel
If weights with equal density to water such as water bottles, are used and the wheels submerged into water at the level show, then the force that will be ‘canceled’ by the submerged weights will be the pedal force (or more of it than the imbalance force) and thus, force will be created to cause motion on the wheel.
COMPLICATION IN CREATING CONSTANT IMBALANCE
In ideal situations and to get as much power as possible from the wheel, then all the weights in positions 12 through 14 and 4 through 6 should be ‘cancelled’ or negated in some way.
Because of the ellipse shape of the path of the weights, achieving this is tricky. To find the best way, we need to look at several outstanding factors of the Free wheel arrangement.
a) Both the ‘Imbalance’ and ‘Pedal’ forces can be increased by either or both of the following:-
Increasing the mass of the weight used
Decreasing the ratio of the length of the lever (r) to the arm (R).
Increasing the small (gear) radius (please see note below)
N/B. If the difference between r and R is increased then the weights will tend to move closer to their usual circular path (shown by the dotted) line and both the ‘imbalance’ and ‘pedal’ forces will be reduced. However it will be easier to cancel out the pedal force. This is because it will be easier to ‘capture’ the weights inside water through positions 4 and 6. It will also be easier to design a railing to ‘support’ the weight through position 13 to (almost) 15. Refer of fig Fw. 3. Ideally the distance of weight through x should be in water and the distance y not in water.
If r:R is 2 : 5 i.e figures fw.3 and fw.4 then at least we will be able to ‘capture’ distance w in water which is a good achievement. Unfortunately a bit of y is also captured in water(it shouldn’t be) and a portion of x (from position 6 to 7) is not in water (it should be).
Even though so far I have not designed the railing to support the weight from position 14 to 15. This is possible and will contribute some more to the energy to rotate the wheel.
Considering that r: R is 4: 5 (figure fw.1 and fw. 2) there is more ‘pedal’ and ‘imbalance’ force created but unfortunately much less of distance x is ‘captured’ in water and at the same time all of distance y is in water (again,it shouldn’t be).
The water level may be in either of the two levels shown.
Move experimentation needs to be done to find out the best dimensions of r and R to be used for optimum energy and efficiency.
N/B. The ‘small wheel’ is the gear attached to the (r) and which transmits the ‘pedal’ force to the wheel. It is shown in the technical drawings and prototype pictures.
EXPERIMENTS RESULTS
An experimental prototype with Four weights was made to test the forces acting on the wheel
The ratio of r: R was 1: 2.
The wheels measurements were as follows:
R = 25cm
r = 12.5 cm
Mass of weight = 500g
Small wheel radius = 4.25cm
The lower weight was removed to cause the effect of negating as when it is immersed in water. The results were as follows:
a) The wheel attained enough force to rotate when three weights are placed in position 1, 9 and 13 each, and also in positions 2, 10 and 14 each. These two positions are significant as they can be achieved by emerging the wheel in water to negate the lower weight.
However, position 15, 7 and 12 had a balance effect with no motion either clockwise or anticlockwise. This is likely due to the small wheel radius which is quite too small as compared to r thus causing a bigger pedaling force on the weights.
b) Weights on the vertical plane exhibited clockwise moment e.g. if two weights are mounted in positions 13 and 5 each, they would move in the clockwise direction until they reach positions 3 and 11.
c) Weights on the horizontal plane exhibited anticlockwise moment as expected. If two weights are placed in positions 16 and 8 each, they would move in the anticlockwise direction until they reach position 3 and 11.
d) Two weights placed on position 15 and 7 each exhibited a balanced state with no motion in either direction.
e) A single weight placed in position 5 exhibited clockwise moment and moved at least to position 4 and if r is closer to R, the weight moved beyond 4 and closer to 3.
These experiment results reveal that the principle used to cause imbalance and pedal forces are successful. More can however be done to improve on the working of the wheel.
-
You can spend from now till doomsday analysing the forces.
It stops.
That's kind of hard to square with the idea of a perpetual motion machine.
On the other hand, you might do well to try to follow this guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Tinguely
-
The concept surely works-at least on paper. The tests and experiments done also are very positive. My detailed mathematical analysis and experiments done, also counter checked by someone I trust, not only reveal the success but also gives an indication of the speed of rotation as well as the power expected from the wheel. A wheel of about 3 meters in diameter is expected to have a theoretical output of about 150W and rotate at about 27 rpm.
I doubted the theoretical output of about 150W.
Foucault pendulum was known to be interacting with the rotation of Earth and exchanges angular momentum in the process. In theory, a horizontal wheel pivoted at the center if suspended in mid air would spin with a perpetual differential force as a result of Earth's angular momentum (caused by gravity) is stronger towards the equator and lesser towards the pole.
I noticed the smaller horizontal wheels in your design. IMHO, at best with a wheel at ten times the size you mentioned it could only turn on a few LEDs.
For renewable energy production, there are viable technologies such as wind turbine or PV panel. Are you updated that PV panel has currently achieved an economy payback period of less than ten years? Fifteen years ago it would take about one hundred years. At the irradiance level of 1000w/sqm at 25°C, a 20% efficient monocrystalline silicon PV panel the size of your wheel (3m diameter) could generate a power of π(3/2)^2 x 1000 x 20% = 1,414 watts. Give it five hours of sunlight per day it could still achieve an average power of 295 watt in a twenty-four hours cycle, or about 7 kWh of average energy production per day.
The oil industries would not be worried by your wheel at all even if it could work to produce your expected amount of power you so claimed, and you still have not even got it working at all after fifteen years; why the secrecy? Even if your wheel is well designed and built, I reckon it at most could produce 5 watts of perpetual power; a couples of thermodynamic drinking birds could do better than that.
-
Incidentally, you have failed to notice that "the earth with your machine on it" is a closed system and therefore cannot generate energy continuously.
Are you aware of Einstein's frame-dragging effect? What do you think had caused the polar vortex of Jupiter to spin in perpetual motion with its atmosphere on it? This occurs on Earth as well.
Your idea really does breach the third law.
Breached the third law? Anyway, this was breached in proven scientific experiments, have you not heard of Bose-Einstein condensate and Dr. Hau's stop light experiment (http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/01.24/01-stoplight.html)?
-
"Are you aware of Einstein's frame-dragging effect? What do you think had caused the polar vortex of Jupiter to spin in perpetual motion with its atmosphere on it? "
Only if you use the unorthodox definition of perpetual which means it will eventually stop.
"Anyway, this was breached in proven scientific experiments, have you not heard of Bose-Einstein condensate and Dr. Hau's stop light experiment?"
I'm probably going to regret this but OK; enlighten me.
How does a B-E condensate break the 3rd law?
(There are, btw, zero instances of the word "law" or "thermodynamics" on the page cited. There is one instance of the word "third" which refers to the fact that the gloop is 3 times longer than its thickness)
-
"Are you aware of Einstein's frame-dragging effect? What do you think had caused the polar vortex of Jupiter to spin in perpetual motion with its atmosphere on it? "
Only if you use the unorthodox definition of perpetual which means it will eventually stop.
The dictionary definitions for the word "perpetual" also refers to motion that lasts for an indefinitely long time; not necessary forever. Where did you get your so-called orthodox definition that the word "perpetual" would absolutely mean forever?
It is obvious that you have not read the first post of this thread by justathought for his definition of his PMM. He clearly stated that his machine was designed to harness energy from an external source; his PMM involves an external energy input. Wheather he could harness it or not is another issue.
The device of justathought is not a PMM of the first kind. Geezer illustrated a PMM of the second kind that has existed and worked, while RD suggested a PMM of the third kind that are known to work when its circumstances are met. The orbital motion of Earth moving around the Sun as suggested by justathought could be categorized as a PMM of the third kind created by nature.
By inisiting that justathought's PMM is of the first kind you are making a strawman argument here.
"Anyway, this was breached in proven scientific experiments, have you not heard of Bose-Einstein condensate and Dr. Hau's stop light experiment?"
I'm probably going to regret this but OK; enlighten me.
How does a B-E condensate break the 3rd law?
It's not like its a well kept secret. Just google for it and it is all over the places. Professor Hau's experiment could stop light with her Bose-Einstein condensate of sodium atom that was cooled to within a billionth of a degree of minus 459.7 degrees F.; an impossible feat according to the third law of thermodynamics.
(There are, btw, zero instances of the word "law" or "thermodynamics" on the page cited. There is one instance of the word "third" which refers to the fact that the gloop is 3 times longer than its thickness)
Yeah right, so who posted the below in this thread?
Yes, it does.
It drives a coach and horses through the first law of thermodynamics.
If you and your friend don't realise that, then you simply have not understood the first law.
Incidentally, you have failed to notice that "the earth with your machine on it" is a closed system and therefore cannot generate energy continuously.
Your idea really does breach the third law.
Then, once again it's a closed system and cannot do work without breaching the laws of thermodynamics.
One mistake is that you have forgotten about the law of conservation of energy.
Btw, you still have not explained how justathought's PMM does breach the third law.
-
Fanfare and flashing lights as B C admits to a mistake.
Oops! Typo; it's the first law he breaches, not the third.
Mea maxima culpa.
In fairness, if you had something that breached the 1st law I think you could use it to make something that would breach the 3rd law.
It hardly matters for two reasons.
Firstly because breaching any of the laws is impossible.
More importantly still (take a deep breath and think hard about this)
his machine stopped.
Now to get back to the matter in hand.
Re the definition of perpetual.
This is the first on line dictionary entry I found
"continuing or enduring forever; everlasting."
from here.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perpetual
There are plenty of others.
Of course, a "perpetual" motion machine that just goes for a long time isn't anything special. One that works forever would be.
You may remember that it stopped. So, not very perpetual was it?
Now let's look at the first part of the original post.
"I have been researching and working on perpetual motion for the last 15 years. Despite a common notion that perpetual motion is not possible,..."
There are two sorts of PPM those that can work, but do nothing useful- the cliche example is the electron in orbit round a proton (not a strictly accurate picture- but it proves the point); and the impossible sort which provide energy continuously without needing some energy source.
Now it's quite clear that the OP is talking about the impossible sort of PPM because he says it's the sort everyone says is impossible.
OK so, you say "It is obvious that you have not read the first post of this thread by justathought for his definition of his PMM. He clearly stated that his machine was designed to harness energy from an external source; his PMM involves an external energy input."
I pointed out that while the earth is external to his machine, you can consider the earth and his machine as a single composite entity.
In that case the composite system would, if his magic worked, be a PPM of the impossible kind.
That's not a strawman, its reductio ad absurdum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Are you sure it's not you who failed to read this?
Incidentally, since the Earth/Sun system loses energy as gravity waves, it's not perpetual either.
Anyway, back at the question you seem to have forgotten to answer.
Why do you think the 3rd law is a broken by the BE condensate and, more interestingly, why wasn't this touted all over the press?
The 3rd law says getting to absolute zero is forbidden. Getting jolly cold is still permitted; these people did that. Is that what you have got mixed up about?
And finally
(just in case anyone is still reading this)
"Yeah right, so who posted the below in this thread?"
I did; you can tell- it has my name against it.
So what?
I take it you don't understand what "cited" means
It means the page you referred to.
This one
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/01.24/01-stoplight.html
that is the page you cited; you can tell because it doesn't mention "laws" or "thermodynamics" but it does use the word "third" - just once and referring to the fact that the gloop is 3 times longer than its thickness.
Incidentally, why on earth are you seeking to defend the "perpetual" motion machine that stops?
-
Guys, Excuse me for being on and off the forum. It is unavoidable for now.
I would like to acknowledge the sentiments about my wheels power. I agree, the power is much smaller than many available alternative energy systems.This is just but a starting point. My attempts to post the mathematical analysis failed several times for some reasons that I don't understand. I will however try posting them here.
Even if your wheel is well designed and built, I reckon it at most could produce 5 watts of perpetual power; a couples of thermodynamic drinking birds could do better than that.
I really doubt if this is true about my wheel. Theoretically, there is good sign that it could produce more. For now however, My aim is to create the motion then work on the power to improve it.The first aeroplane could barely ferry a person across a football pitch, but it was a starting point.
I would like to clarify that the wheel shown in the pictures is not the final wheel design I have, but an experimental prototype to demonstrate the principles used in achieving PM. For the wheel to work, it has to have more than eight beams. For novelty reasons, I will not post the final design which also has an added feature to improve its power for practical motion.
it is therefore not correct for B C to say that it stops. The mathematical analysis proves that there would be continuous motion.
-
I have also added a link to my 1999 video showing the wheels, movement and a better visual demonstration of the movements of the wheel's different parts.
The design is quite crude here but puts things very clear.
http://depositfiles.com/files/zx7uiesrr
-
I'm not waiting 108 minutes for it to download.
Anyway
If it has not been running continuously then you seem to have rather missed the point about my assertion that it stops; I'm quite correct to say so.
However you dress it up, it stops.
End of story
-
Fanfare and flashing lights as B C admits to a mistake.
This is exaggeration. Besides, the editing tool of this Internet forum has no capability for displaying words with flashing light and it offers very limited distinct color. Red was merely a convenient color used for highlighting the keywords of opponent’s arguments that were in doubt or not clear for clarification purposes.
Oops! Typo; it's the first law he breaches, not the third.
Mea maxima culpa.
Point noted.
In fairness, if you had something that breached the 1st law I think you could use it to make something that would breach the 3rd law.
It hardly matters for two reasons.
It matters; specifically this is a fallacy of composition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition).
Firstly because breaching any of the laws is impossible.
This is a converse fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Converse_accident) in a sweeping generalization. It is a fact that breaching of scientific laws had occurred time and again in the past; you are passing an assumption as a fact here. The science of thermodynamics although is a rigorous theory that had achieved scientific consensus, the assumption for energy in its mathematical treatment is still an uncertainty and the postulation of heat as its first principle was based on extrapolated hypothesis.
“It is important to realize that in physics today,
we have no knowledge what energy is.” - Richard Feynman
More importantly still (take a deep breath and think hard about this)
his machine stopped.
In the past before Levitron was proven to work, although people trying to build such similar gadgets had been unsuccessful, it does not conclude the mechanism for Levitron is impossible.
Now to get back to the matter in hand.
Re the definition of perpetual.
This is the first on line dictionary entry I found
"continuing or enduring forever; everlasting."
from here.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perpetual
There are plenty of others.
You selectively leave out its other definitions; you are denying the antecedent that leads to fallacies for your arguments pertaining to the terminology defined by justathoght in his thread.
Of course, a "perpetual" motion machine that just goes for a long time isn't anything special. One that works forever would be.
You may remember that it stopped. So, not very perpetual was it?
This is a moot argument that is off the point. The generalization for the standard classification for perpetual motion in the thermodynamics context refers to self-powered perpetual motion; these types of PMM are impossible in the science of thermodynamics. And even then, it cited there are rare exceptions particularly for the PMM of the third kind. Such PMM are known to work and was used in the Gravity Probe-B project in a precision measuring instrument.
Your argument implies the one that just goes for a long time would not be significant is merely your opinion in a circular reasoning to assert your proposition.
Now let's look at the first part of the original post.
"I have been researching and working on perpetual motion for the last 15 years. Despite a common notion that perpetual motion is not possible,..."
In the first post where justathought elaborate on his PMM, there were fifteen instances where he used the word “perpetual motion” to explain what he meant for his PMM, what you did was snipping a part of a paragraph from his first post to assert your straw man argument.
There are two sorts of PPM those that can work, but do nothing useful- the cliche example is the electron in orbit round a proton (not a strictly accurate picture- but it proves the point); and the impossible sort which provide energy continuously without needing some energy source.
Two sorts of PPM? I take this as typo mistakes; two? sorts? PPM? Specifically there are three types of PMM in the standard classification; the word sort implies the assortment in any type of PMM is not appropriate for describing the standard classification for PMM. I believe you meant PMM as the acronym used by justathought and I saw you typing it correctly elsewhere in your post.
Now it's quite clear that the OP is talking about the impossible sort of PPM because he says it's the sort everyone says is impossible.
Nah. It was absolute clear that justathought is talking about a not self-powered PMM. His analysis is flawed in many aspects, but that’s another issue.
OK so, you say "It is obvious that you have not read the first post of this thread by justathought for his definition of his PMM. He clearly stated that his machine was designed to harness energy from an external source; his PMM involves an external energy input."
I pointed out that while the earth is external to his machine, you can consider the earth and his machine as a single composite entity.
In that case the composite system would, if his magic worked, be a PPM of the impossible kind.
That's not a strawman, its reductio ad absurdum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Are you sure it's not you who failed to read this?
Your argument forwarded here is a fallacy of composition within another fallacy of misplaced concreteness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_Misplaced_Concretion#Fallacy_of_misplaced_concreteness), its ignoratio elenchi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi).
Your straw man argument is undeniable; you altered his posit with what you insist he was positing that was known to be fallacious.
Incidentally, since the Earth/Sun system loses energy as gravity waves, it's not perpetual either.
See the other dictionary definitions for the word perpetual. Again this is denying the antecedent in linguistic fallacy.
You statement ”There are two sorts of PPM those that can work, but do nothing useful- the cliche example is the electron in orbit round a proton” contradicts with what you had mentioned above for the Earth/Sun system.
Anyway, back at the question you seem to have forgotten to answer.
Why do you think the 3rd law is a broken by the BE condensate and,
In that sentence (as quoted below) I did not state BEC violates the 3rd law of thermodynamics. When you asked the question for the first time, I take it that you have not understood the sentence in that post, you obviously did not know that the sodium atom used by Professor Hau was a BEC; in my subsequent reply I therefore relates it for you.
“Anyway, this was breached in proven scientific experiments, have you not heard of Bose-Einstein condensate and Dr. Hau's stop light experiment?”
more interestingly, why wasn't this touted all over the press?
As if there was big value to motivate the press in doing so.
After Galileo had proven that Venus revolves around the Sun and not the Earth with the heliocentric model, Copernicus’ publication for this remained as “the book no people read”. This is merely my take based on similar incidents in the past; I leave it to you to wonder on this for your interest aroused. The mainstream of this field simply isolate BEC as a novelty state of matter that was unusual, it’s classified it under a contemporary physics theory not within the context for the science of thermodynamics; the theory could therefore be maintained as consistence with the inconsistencies in its logical paradox and who cares?
Other than BEC, the states of matter in superfluidity (including liquid BEC) and superconductivity were isolated as well, so technically these unusual states of matter are not relevant to those laws of thermodynamics that are supposed to be universal; these laws are still pragmatic for normal matter. Like Newton’s laws of motion, they are still good for its quantitative predictions by close approximation when dealing with motion of object at speed insignificant of c.
The 3rd law says getting to absolute zero is forbidden. Getting jolly cold is still permitted; these people did that. Is that what you have got mixed up about?
You are twisting the third law of thermodynamics with your own context; this is moving the goalposts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts).
And finally
(just in case anyone is still reading this)
"Yeah right, so who posted the below in this thread?"
I did; you can tell- it has my name against it.
So what?
I take it you don't understand what "cited" means
It means the page you referred to.
This one
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/01.24/01-stoplight.html
that is the page you cited; you can tell because it doesn't mention "laws" or "thermodynamics" but it does use the word "third" - just once and referring to the fact that the gloop is 3 times longer than its thickness.
I search your word “gloop” in the page I cited as well as this thread and nothing showed up. Then I recalled you used the word “third” once in your post in this thread, searched and confirmed that. I then further search the word for “law” and “thermodynamics” and these showed up in many instances in this thread. The ambiguity of page cited that was not specified at then and those mismatches baffled me, I therefore raise the issue for you to clarify. Just clarify it would suffice; there is no need to kick a fuss.
Incidentally, why on earth are you seeking to defend the "perpetual" motion machine that stops?
I am glad you have asked this question; this brings the bandwidth back for the scope of discussions for the topic posted in this thread.
Honestly I do not buy those arguments and the claims by justathought, there were lots of flaw everywhere and many concepts were based on false or wrong facts. Such as attempting to draw gravity energy mechanically by dunking his wheel into water shows he does not understand the third law of motion.
Nevertheless, a well-designed orthogonal spinning wheel that is based on sound foundation that is known for its basis might kick off such a PMM. Although it would not be useful at all as a source of energy for pragmatic applications and therefore can fare no economic value for widespread use, it could add as a novelty gadget that could also experimentally prove the Lense-Thirring effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lense%E2%80%93Thirring_precession) immutably.
This guy with his thingy was not entirely nonsensical like how you had potrayed him.
Btw,
Fanfare and flashing lights as B C admits to a mistake.
I was not aware you had admitted on any mistake in your last post like you are now mentioning. Honestly, I thought anyone who could admit his mistake is a noble act and I would not deliberately belittle anyone in such a position; instead it would command my respect. If I do unintentionally made you feel offended on this commendable act, please accept my sincere apology.
-
I could go for a point by point rebuttal of, at least most of, those assertions. It would be a very long post that few people would read. In any event, it's not important. There's only one important thing to note about justathought's invention.
It still stopped.
It's still not perpetual.
It still never will be.
Let me know when something changes.
-
The first aeroplane could barely ferry a person across a football pitch, but it was a starting point.
The thermodynamics drinking bird (TDB) was invented in 1945, according to your logic, shouldn't the TDB be able to power at least an entire family house by now; a commercial aircraft can now carry more than 500 people in cross-continent trip.
I would like to clarify that the wheel shown in the pictures is not the final wheel design I have, but an experimental prototype to demonstrate the principles used in achieving PM. For the wheel to work, it has to have more than eight beams. For novelty reasons, I will not post the final design which also has an added feature to improve its power for practical motion.
it is therefore not correct for B C to say that it stops. The mathematical analysis proves that there would be continuous motion.
Your logic of the mathematical analysis proves that there would be continuous motion is non sequitur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)). Is your mathmatical analysis based on proven fact or assumption?
A mathematical analysis not based on proven principle cannot be extrapolated for reification or prove anything at all; you are putting the cart before the horse and this is not how thing works.
-
The first aeroplane was a start because it worked.
A perpetual motion machine that doesn't work isn't a start.
If the maths says it works but reality say it doesn't; then it's not reality that's wrong.
-
How about this then? a Perpetual perfect orbit and with a very long staff sticking out on which we hang a perpetual oil-can, oiling the track? and the orbit is made from plates using The Casimir Force to light a very tiny bulb, made out of the newest energy-saving materials. To understand that the plates never will reach each other I refer you to the parable about the tortoise and Roger rabbit. One of a kind that is, and perfectly applicable..
The only problem I can foresee is the oil-can, but maybe it will work without that?
==
I did a careful research in the museum of unworkable devices. (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm) and I think mine is new..
(yes, I'm just joking)