• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Perpetual motion machine examination rules, please.

In between looking at the different things I'm looking at I have every intention of having some real fun with this. Levity is good medicine.

Gene
 
Below is a screen shot from wm2d indicating the kinetic energy of a self sustaining pendulum that I recently designed. At times the energy approaches 200 joules yet there are valleys in the graph; I think it might be 100 joules on the average. I ran the simulation for 600 seconds. You have to click on the image to see a larger version.

Gene

 
AgingYoung said:
Below is a screen shot from wm2d indicating the kinetic energy of a self sustaining pendulum that I recently designed. At times the energy approaches 200 joules yet there are valleys in the graph; I think it might be 100 joules on the average. I ran the simulation for 600 seconds. You have to click on the image to see a larger version.

Gene

[qimg]http://thumb17.webshots.com/t/44/45/9/72/56/2310972560093730477NNqlbD_th.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...
The operative word here being designed. Come back when you can apply the word built.

Thank you, please drive through.
 
AgingYoung said:
Below is a graph of the angular momentum.

[qimg]http://thumb17.webshots.com/t/38/39/1/4/12/2161104120093730477VscFPg_th.jpg[/qimg]
Gene
Click to expand...
Below is an equally as convincing chart of astrological machination.

images
 
Psiload,

If you don't mind me asking do you have an engineering background ....mathematics and/or physics? Are you familiar with cad programs? ...possible problems there might be in the graphs I've posted?

Gene

edit: I guess what I'm trying to see is if you have a qualified opinion.
 
I think what Psiload is trying to say is that the difference between theory and practice in practice is greater than the difference between theory and practice in theory.
 
AgingYoung said:
Psiload,

If you don't mind me asking do you have an engineering background ....mathematics and/or physics? Are you familiar with cad programs? ...possible problems there might be in the graphs I've posted?
Click to expand...

I do and I am, though I'm not familiar with the program you're using. But if such a program is working properly it won't simulate a perpetual motion machine unless you specify frictionless joints, bearings, etc. which are impossible to make in reality. If you succeed in making it do so it'll only prove that the program isn't as good as it should be. Simulators work by solving equations derived from the laws of physics. You're trying to break those laws; a simulation based on them isn't the way to do that.

Your KE plot isn't the whole story, the fact that it goes up and down just means it's being exchanged for some other form of energy, probably gravitational potential energy. A design for a PM machine would have to show a time history of total energy that stays constant (with friction present) or increases (without friction). And if I'd designed the program I'd have made it so that it would be impossible to do so.
 
AgingYoung said:
Below is a graph of the angular momentum.

[qimg]http://thumb17.webshots.com/t/38/39/1/4/12/2161104120093730477VscFPg_th.jpg[/qimg]
Gene
Click to expand...
I can't see either of the graphs. Clicking on them does nothing. You may want to give a link to the full page rather than the thumbnail.

I also have engineering and simulation experience, and I could not put it better than Thing did above.

Maybe (and that's a very strong maybe) a real experiment could unveil new sources of energy. But I'm afraid a simulation cannot give you more than the underlying mathematical model allows for.
 
AgingYoung said:
Psiload,

If you don't mind me asking do you have an engineering background ....mathematics and/or physics? Are you familiar with cad programs? ...possible problems there might be in the graphs I've posted?

Gene

edit: I guess what I'm trying to see is if you have a qualified opinion.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with the graphs you're posting... they sure are purty.

But if you're operating under the notion that they somehow demonstrate the possibility of squeezing bood out of a turnip, then I'm sorry to inform you that you're urinating into the wind. No advanced degree is required to recognize this most obvious fact.

It doesn't matter how many letters you've got after your name, or how many framed degrees you've got haning on your 'I love me' wall, and it makes no difference how advanced and fancy a computer program you're using to churn out sexy looking charts and graphs, if your notions aren't rooted in reality then it's all just an exercise if futility.

And as far as exercises in futility go... there are few more strenuous and hopeless as perpetual motion.
 
Psiload,
I somewhat agree with this .....
  • It doesn't matter how many letters you've got after your name,
but it seems as if you disdain any sort of education. You seem to have a good appeal to authority but not too much understanding about what your talking about. Thanks for your opinion though.

Gene
 
Last edited:
Thing,
  • Your KE plot isn't the whole story, the fact that it goes up and down just means it's being exchanged for some other form of energy, probably gravitational potential energy. A design for a PM machine would have to show a time history of total energy that stays constant (with friction present) or increases (without friction).

I agree that energy should increase but the fascinating thing I found about the KE plot is that it oscillates above zero; it doesn't alternate thru it. I used the default friction for pins which might be no friction.

When I was looking at the model (a four meter disc with 35 kilo's on it) there were times at the peaks where you could feel the power it was cranking into it. Also the cycle of oscillation was around zero to 180 degrees.

I'll look at the pin frictions. I've just started looking at wm2d and there are a lot of things I'm unfamiliar with. I have noticed that as I'm using it I think certain things would be a nice feature and as I use it they 'magically' show up. I guess the designers thought the same thing.

I was checking the accuracy the other day and it seems it calculates to 1/1000 of a degree of rotation.

Gene
 
Thank you Unnamed. When I was looking at the strength of the model I down loaded a bitmap to jpeg converter and opened up an account to post the graphs. I was kind of in a hurry. Thanks for your opinion.

Gene
 
Well, they might have been some pretty pictures but I modified the model in an effort to get it to rotate and could never get it back to where it was. :) Then finally wm2d either crashed or xp crashed it so the model is gone. I've tried to replicate it but the best I can do is a simple pendulum. I should do better documentation.

Gene
 
Since you seem somewhat fond of "qualifications" I'll just say I have a degree in math and work as an engineer.

AgingYoung said:
Thing,

I agree that energy should increase but the fascinating thing I found about the KE plot is that it oscillates above zero; it doesn't alternate thru it. I used the default friction for pins which might be no friction.
Click to expand...

KE = 1/2 * m * v^2

Now unless you have negative mass (whatever that means) or speed with an imaginary component (whatever that means) KE is expected to be positive. I suppose I could do a formal proof that shows the product of three positive real numbers is positive but it just seems kind of obvious.

Also, your graphs show a common artifact called "aliasing." This is what you are seeing that you interpret as odd or special. The graphs looked to me like a free swinging frictionless pendulum with a period less than the width of two pixels. According to the Nyquist theorem, you cannot accurately discretize the motion with that graph. If you keep everything the same, but make the time scale ten times wider (so that 600s is 1500 pixels wide instead of about 150) you'd probably see exactly what we would expect to see: a harmonic exchange of kinetic to potential energy and back again.

Of course, all this is just a theoretical question since the program, most inconveniently, crashed and took the model with it. Never the less, it all looked well within the realm of typical simulation to me.
 
Wavicle,

  • Since you seem somewhat fond of "qualifications" I'll just say I have a degree in math and work as an engineer.

Not so much that I'm fond of qualifications, that's not really the point. Now I hope you're not saying you're a degreed engineer just to make a point. I think at times people are simply repeating something they've heard without much understanding of what they're saying '.....dermodynamics, dude, don't ya get it??'

  • Now unless you have negative mass ...

or wm2d sends you a power bill. I thought about what I posted after I posted it. What I found significant about that model was the way 35 kilos would accelerate then decelerate. It would pick the weight off the bottom and move it slightly vertically. It wasn't a normal pendulum.

  • Of course, all this is just a theoretical question since the program, most inconveniently, crashed and took the model with it.

I had modified the model before wm2d crashed to the extent that I couldn't get it back to where it was.



I need to get in the habit of documenting what I'm doing. Since then wm2d has crashed several times. I only have a demo version of the program. I can't save models.

Gene
 
Wavicle,

  • Also, your graphs show a common artifact called "aliasing."
It might appear to be aliasing because of the compression of the data. What you call two pixels is a cycle. That pattern you notice between the cycles isn't the composite of different forces or frequencies; it's a difference in the slope of the cycles.

Gene
 
'I am here', there are not many fools on this board. Your description is one of those typical absurd claims that have been used to scam people thousands of times. Give up, go somewhere else. You won't find takers here.

BTW, while physics precludes the creation of energy, there are sources of energy on the planet that can be harnessed that come as close to perpetual motion as one can without violating laws of physics. A clock was built with a mechanism that wound the spring forward regardless of whether the barometric pressure went up or down. Running on barometric pressure changes, the clock has a constant limitless supply of energy. A working model was successfully made.

Looking for a link to Cox's clock I found this interesting site, overunity.com "The international free energy research forum". It looks well worth a perusal especially in today's climate. (Oooh, a pun, and by coincidence I watched Syriana last night...woooo ;) )

Generators that use the tides are in use. They do not have the issue of intermittent energy that solar and wind generators have, nor the problem of drought which affects turbines in dams. All of these sources, Sun, rain, wind and the tides are fairly limitless sources of energy. Efficiency, transporting the energy to distant locations and supply in the first three cases are only short term issues since there is no reason to think those issues won't eventually be solved.
 
AgingYoung said:
Wavicle,
  • Since you seem somewhat fond of "qualifications" I'll just say I have a degree in math and work as an engineer.
Not so much that I'm fond of qualifications, that's not really the point. Now I hope you're not saying you're a degreed engineer just to make a point. I think at times people are simply repeating something they've heard without much understanding of what they're saying '.....dermodynamics, dude, don't ya get it??'
  • Now unless you have negative mass ...
or wm2d sends you a power bill. I thought about what I posted after I posted it. What I found significant about that model was the way 35 kilos would accelerate then decelerate. It would pick the weight off the bottom and move it slightly vertically. It wasn't a normal pendulum.
  • Of course, all this is just a theoretical question since the program, most inconveniently, crashed and took the model with it.
I had modified the model before wm2d crashed to the extent that I couldn't get it back to where it was.

http://community.webshots.com/photo/2321931940093730477yeInxhhttp://thumb17.webshots.com/t/60/160/9/31/94/2321931940093730477yeInxh_th.jpg

I need to get in the habit of documenting what I'm doing. Since then wm2d has crashed several times. I only have a demo version of the program. I can't save models.

Gene
Click to expand...
You posted not-very-pretty pictures (my 2nd year ET student son does better) with no explanation of the parameters you used, nor what the graph supposedly describes, other than "Kinetic Energy of a pendulum"
Well, gee whiz- I can do the same thing in MathCAD, or even Excel by assuming frictionless. The pendulum accelerates down, decelerates back up, then accelerates down...ad infinitem.
Ain't physics amazing?
Give us the sim. not ugly pictures that cannot be read, with a time scale so small that the tic marks run together.
And, yes, I am a degreed engineer, Mechanical, and am also a registered Professional Engineer. I do simulations for a living--and I can pretty well make any kind of pretty pictures you want.
We are not impressed by pictures. We need evidence.
 
does anybody have a recommendation for a software package that could be used to simple mechanical simulations.

I took a look at wm2d but it looks to be wildly expensive. I did download the demo package but I hesitate to even spend the time to install it if the demo package is so defeatured as to be useless.

I installed cadsm and have been playing with that a bit. It seems a little buggy and I am having a little trouble learning how to use it. It's only $25 bucks if you decide to keep using it after 30 days though.
 
Psiload said:
...But if you're operating under the notion that they somehow demonstrate the possibility of squeezing bood out of a turnip, then I'm sorry to inform you that you're urinating into the wind. No advanced degree is required to recognize this most obvious fact.
It doesn't matter how many letters you've got after your name, or how many framed degrees you've got haning on your 'I love me' wall, and it makes no difference how advanced and fancy a computer program you're using to churn out sexy looking charts and graphs, if your notions aren't rooted in reality then it's all just an exercise if futility...
Click to expand...

There are many examples of this is the commentary each week!
I completely agree.
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
'I am here', there are not many fools on this board. Your description is one of those typical absurd claims that have been used to scam people thousands of times. Give up, go somewhere else. You won't find takers here.
...
Click to expand...

"I am here." has not posted on this Forum since Dec. 14, 2005, skeptigirl.



Also, since this thread obviously does not deal with Challenge related issues anymore, perhaps someone - you, Gene? - might want to start a new thread in the "Science..." Forum.
If a sensible, productive discussion is the aim of the participants, the thread and the "Science..." Forum would most likely benefit from a relocation, i.e. new beginning.

0,02 €
 
  • You posted not-very-pretty pictures (my 2nd year ET student son does better)
Someone mentioned they were pretty; I have no opinion about it.

  • Well, gee whiz- I can do the same thing in MathCAD, or even Excel by assuming frictionless. The pendulum accelerates down, decelerates back up, then accelerates down...ad infinitem.
That's a close description but it actually would accelerate upward; the acceleration would happen when it was at the bottom and slowing down; it would do a vertical lift. wm2d tracks the system cog and the direction was evident.

  • Give us the sim.
I've thought about the motion and although I haven't reproduced the model I think I might be able to.
  • I do simulations for a living--and I can pretty well make any kind of pretty pictures you want.
You can down load a demo copy of wm2d. I'd be impressed if you could get that amount of energy out of a pendulum swinging on a 2 meter radius with a weight of around 35 kilos. You might give it a shot before you say you can.

Gene
 
davefoc said:
I took a look at wm2d but it looks to be wildly expensive. I did download the demo package but I hesitate to even spend the time to install it if the demo package is so defeatured as to be useless.
Click to expand...

Dave,
The main feature you don't have with the demo is the ability to save models. It depends on what you're doing. When I'm looking at something I put my machine on standby.

There are packages that run on linux that are rather powerful and are free; 3d packages that you can model anything you could imagine. I haven't used any but I'm seriously considering it.

Gene
 
Wavicle,

I apologize for this quote; you were actually right. I'm still trying to reproduce that model.

  • Also, your graphs show a common artifact called "aliasing."
It might appear to be aliasing because of the compression of the data. What you call two pixels is a cycle. That pattern you notice between the cycles isn't the composite of different forces or frequencies; it's a difference in the slope of the cycles.

Gene
Click to expand...
 
GzuzKryzt said:
"I am here." has not posted on this Forum since Dec. 14, 2005, skeptigirl.



Also, since this thread obviously does not deal with Challenge related issues anymore, perhaps someone - you, Gene? - might want to start a new thread in the "Science..." Forum.
If a sensible, productive discussion is the aim of the participants, the thread and the "Science..." Forum would most likely benefit from a relocation, i.e. new beginning.

0,02 €
Click to expand...
Thanks, I realized after I posted that what I thought was a new thread was a bumped thread with 10 pages. I wasn't paying attention I guess. Anyway, I'm pleased with the forum I found anyway. I have an idea kicking around that it gave me motivation to pursue a bit more.
 
AgingYoung said:
If you don't mind me asking do you have an engineering background ....mathematics and/or physics? Are you familiar with cad programs? ...possible problems there might be in the graphs I've posted?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing your CAD package is using a discrete time approximation to simulate the system's evolution. Do you know what integration method it is using, and whether that is appropriate for your system? If not, then I suspect your design is exploiting the approximations in order to appear as if it were a perpetual motion machine. I'm sure you'll agree that reality is not an approximation :)
 
nathan,

img2.gif


Kutta-Merson?

  • I'm sure you'll agree that reality is not an approximation

I would agree that reality is independent of our thoughts and ideas of it. The pendulum I made would boot strap itself off the bottom. You can't imagine how frustrating it is trying to replicate it. I've since found out how simple it is to document a model. I could have saved the coordinates, mass, etc. in a simple text file. Although it would have been tedious to reconstruct the model from that file it would have at least been a collection of the facts. I am so frustrated.

Gene
 
I once tried to make a PMM out of Lego back when I was a kid, I tried the old unbalanced wheel method as well as lots of wierd things involving ball bearings.
None of them worked.

I did learn a lot however by trying it.

It seems you have gotten to the 'it doesn't work stage' but have yet to actually learn anything..

What does it mean to you that you can make models of these machines in a computer but none of them actually work in the real world?
 
moog,

Thanks for sharing. Who knows, with any luck I might be able to retrace the steps of your understandings and hopefully one day come up to your level. Again, thanks for sharing.

Gene
 
moog,

I did have a thought about your childhood learning experience with legos. Did you ever try to make an internal combustion engine with legos as a child? I wonder what you might have learned.

Gene
 
AgingYoung said:
moog,

I did have a thought about your childhood learning experience with legos. Did you ever try to make an internal combustion engine with legos as a child? I wonder what you might have learned.

Gene
Click to expand...

My lego set was not complex enough to do something like that.
It does seem like something I would have tried if I could though.

I have a sudden urge to buy a new set now :)
My old Lego got lost along the way...
 
I've reconstructed the details that were responsible for the self sustaining pendulum. The aliasing that Wavicle pointed out are various levels of kinetic energy; there are 4 levels.

The point that rwguinn made ....
  • Well, gee whiz- I can do the same thing in MathCAD, or even Excel by assuming frictionless. The pendulum accelerates down, decelerates back up, then accelerates down...ad infinitem.
... doesn't quite explain the relationships. A normal pendulum has kinetic energy peaking at the bottom of it's swing. That kinetic energy moves the pendulum up on it's swing and is transferred to potential energy as Wavicle pointed out
  • If you keep everything the same, but make the time scale ten times wider (so that 600s is 1500 pixels wide instead of about 150) you'd probably see exactly what we would expect to see: a harmonic exchange of kinetic to potential energy and back again.
There is a harmonic exchange with two overtones. The pendulum was dancing in a vertical lift to the tune of those harmonics. Thanks Wavicle for pointing me to an understanding of what I was seeing. You should seriously consider getting another leggo set.

When I first modeled this idea I hide most of the mechanism and only showed the mass as it was swinging. I was very amazed to see it lift itself off the bottom. That was part of the problem of reconstructing the mechanism. I spent quite a lot of time looking in the wrong place. As several people pointed out the idea that the bearing (pin) friction was zero contributed to the effect. I was looking at something else when I noticed that effect and have been seriously derailed from that effort. I don't disagree that a zero pin friction helped produce what I saw. If I had modeled that original idea precisely as I imagined it I would never have seen this. It was interesting but I don't think it has the merit I first thought it did. Trying to control that motion would be a nightmare in the real world.

GzuzKryzt,

Thanks for the birthday wishes. :) I noticed your suggestion of starting a thread in the science section. When I first saw this pendulum I was seriously considering that very thing. A problem with the idea of starting a thread is that it takes a lot of time if you take it seriously. I'd rather spend that time in search of perpetu*woo*motion. There is some value in...
  • All talk, no build.
The discussion led me to an understanding of what I was seeing. It was a very wild model even though I accidentally stumbled to it. I have two ideas that I want to try to model that I'm more interested in. I am glad that I came to an understanding of what I was seeing.

Gene

edit: spelling
 
Last edited:
chran,

chran said:
Gene, happy birthday! :D

Sounds like you need some love - here's hoping your machine starts working! :cool:
Click to expand...
I was wondering what all that birthday noise was. :) I tried to change it at the control panel and noticed this again...

  • Your date of birth and age are displayed in several places on the forum. Only the administrator will have access to your date of birth should you choose to hide it via the privacy option below.
    Please contact the Administrator if your date of birth has changed.

I found that bold text particularly funny. See, anything's possible.

Gene
 
Go for it, Gene.

We wish you all the best. And we do not want to impart any pressure. Except if that's what you'd need to make your PM work.
 
Wavicle,
I looked at harmonics when I studied electronics (1/2 wave antennas, etc.) but I did a review at wikipedia when you mentioned the idea. I followed a link to Overtone singing and learned that people can produce...
  • allows the singer to create more than one pitch at the same time, with the capability of creating six pitches at once

Closed_Pipe.JPG

Some time ago I was listening to Willie Nelson sing and it seemed to me that there were three voices at once, which at the time seemed a little far-fetched. I guess it isn't. I managed to produce those harmonics in my voice during normal conversation but never knew what was happening. I could hear them and noticed a change in the expression of the person I was talking to.

The latest stint in this thread has been very interesting for me. Thanks everyone.

Gene

thanks, GzuzKryzt.
 
AgingYoung said:
Wavicle,
I looked at harmonics when I studied electronics (1/2 wave antennas, etc.) but I did a review at wikipedia when you mentioned the idea. I followed a link to Overtone singing and learned that people can produce...
  • allows the singer to create more than one pitch at the same time, with the capability of creating six pitches at once

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Closed_Pipe.JPG[/qimg]
Some time ago I was listening to Willie Nelson sing and it seemed to me that there were three voices at once, which at the time seemed a little far-fetched. I guess it isn't. I managed to produce those harmonics in my voice during normal conversation but never knew what was happening. I could hear them and noticed a change in the expression of the person I was talking to.

The latest stint in this thread has been very interesting for me. Thanks everyone.

Gene

thanks, GzuzKryzt.
Click to expand...

That is fascinating. Thank you.
 
AgingYoung said:
[qimg]http://wwwasdoc.web.cern.ch/wwwasdoc/shortwrupsdir/d202/img2.gif[/qimg]

Kutta-Merson?
Click to expand...

That's a first order differential equation. Furthermore the web page you've copied that from appears to be a numerical approximation library for same. You'll notice H0 is the step length.

IIRC you'll need at least 2nd order equations. Regardless of which, my question is whether f is integrable analytically and whether your CAD package does that? Or does it perform a numerical approximation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom