[Bored chemist]

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

[Paradigmer]

             
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.

[Paradigmer]

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?

[Bored chemist]

"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)

[Paradigmer]

"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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[justathought (OP)]

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.

[justathought (OP)]

I have also added a link to my 1999 video showing the wheels, movement and a better visual demonstration of the movements of the wheel's different parts.
The design is quite crude here but puts things very clear.

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

[Bored chemist]

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

[Paradigmer]

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

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

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

Point noted.

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

It matters; specifically this is a fallacy of composition.

Firstly because breaching any of the laws is impossible.

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

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

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

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

Now to get back to the matter in hand.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And finally

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Btw,

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.   

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Paradigmer]

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. 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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[yor_on]

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. and I think mine is new..

(yes, I'm just joking)