[lyner]

If we based our whole lives on that statement there would be no point in getting up in the morning.

[AB Hammer]

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.   

[Bikerman]

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.

[AB Hammer]

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?

[dentstudent]

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.

[lyner]

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?

[Bikerman]

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...?

[lyner]

Can you draw a cukoo on a cloud, perhaps.

[Flyberius]

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!!!

[AB Hammer]

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

[lyner]

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.

[AB Hammer]

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.

[AB Hammer]

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.

[Bikerman]

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).

[AB Hammer]

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.

[Bikerman]

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...

[AB Hammer]

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. 

[Bikerman]

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.

[AB Hammer]

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. []

[Bikerman]

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..