• 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.

Working Model of Perpetual Motion

AgingYoung

Muse
AgingYoung
Joined
Dec 5, 2005
Messages
973
I have a couple of reasons for starting this thread. One is to ask for suggestions for a protocol for a perpetual motion machine (pmm). Another is to state unequivocally that I don't have a physical model of a pmm. I've been accused of saying I did so I'd like to clear that matter up. In another thread I said 'if what I was working on didn't work I would say as much' and I'd like to repeat what I said there. I couldn't model the idea that I attempted. I tried numerous ways without success.

Still another reason for starting this thread is to challenge people's imagination. I know most doubt a pmm is possible but I'm asking you to suspend your disbelief and imagine that hp 'what if?' It took me some time to come to the idea of entering the Randi if I could model pm. I'm persuaded it would be a great thing for me and the foundation. The publicity of the announcement of pm would be explosive. Presently Randi isn't in a position to handle what it would do to his foundation. If you've enjoyed coming to this forum but have never supported it you might seriously consider doing that. I have a couple of monthly expenses that I plan on eliminating and when I do I'm going to become a regular contributor. That's just what I plan on doing but by all means do what you want. You might consider a hand written thank you note.

To the point of the explosive nature of the announcement of a pmm; it would be like several super bowl commercials. I use skype and at times there are 7-8 million users on their servers. I just checked the stats and currently there are
  • Currently Active Users: 194 (53 members and 141 guests)
on this forum.

It's only an ‘if‘ and also as you might imagine a huge if but if Randi were testing a pmm their servers would flatten under the traffic they would get.

The working model of pm I'm looking at is only a simulation. Several people in another thread mentioned a number of ways you could simulate pm. Nathan pointed out...
  • 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?
I agree that approximations of reality could give a picture of pm. One reason I don't see that in the graph is the change of direction. The rotation is cw then changes to ccw and keeps climbing at quite a rate. I put the times and angles on the graph but iirc it's spinning around 1300 rpm.

One thing I don't think was mentioned when talking about sims were residual velocities. You can make models with parts that have velocities. When you run the simulation they immediately start to move. The sim I graphed had no latent velocities.

Another reason a sim can give the appearance of pm is lack of friction. I was analyzing a small portion of the motion and didn't have frictions set. For the same reason that the pm indicated was a change in direction I don't think lack of friction gave me these results. In any event this is just one of two ideas I'm trying to combine in a model. The graph is way beyond the span of time I was analyzing.

6897454fc278a0fa9.jpg


In summary ...
  • What would be a protocol for a pmm
  • If the Randi foundation were testing a pmm the change for it would be explosive and I honestly don't think they're in a position to handle it.

Thank you for your time.


Gene
 
Last edited:
AgingYoung said:
I have a couple of reasons for starting this thread. One is to ask for suggestions for a protocol for a perpetual motion machine (pmm). <snip>
Click to expand...
First, you have to make a claim. Then, and only then, can a testing protocol be developed.

So what is your claim?

AgingYoung said:
Another is to state unequivocally that I don't have a physical model of a pmm. <snip>
Click to expand...
Lemme see if I understand: You started this thread to announce (in part) that you "don't have a physical model of a pmm"??

Thank you for that information. In the spirit of your post, I would like to announce that I do not have a "universal divining rod"(TM) that can find any pmm. Sad, isn't it?
 
Hi Gene,


the easiest version for a pmm protocol would of course be to build a working one, right?

You might consider worrying about the consequences until successful completion of a pmm. (Dr. Oppenheimer probably did the same, didn't he?)

I applaud your enthusiam in principle and I admire you persistence. In principle. Because there's a good chance you are on a wild goose chase.
 
One aspect of PMM that people often seem to overlook is the concept of work. A permanently spinning wheel is not a machine until it actually does some useful work (e.g., moves a load, heats some water etc.).

And it's not a perpetual motion machine until it can do that over and over again.
 
I, too, would like to announce that I, unequivocally, without a doubt, no question, do not have my own working PMM. When I do, believe me, I'll post the news here in this forum first. Until I do, please understand that I will not be posting on any progress and wasting your time. Back to the drawing board!
 
Good, please don't because I don't think the JREF servers can handle the traffic once your announcement does come out.

Contribute now, please.
 
SezMe said:
Thank you for that information. In the spirit of your post, I would like to announce that I do not have a "universal divining rod"(TM) that can find any pmm. Sad, isn't it?
Click to expand...

I do. *Shakes Stick* Nope, none in this universe.
 
Thank you Big Al. Work has a technical definition but as far as I know useful is subjective. If a wheel would turn and move enough air to blow out a candle it would be work but I don't know if you would call it useful. Thanks for your time.

Gene
 
Thanks for the input, Dumb all over. I do kind of resent your accusation of me having any control over what you do with your time. If I had any control you'd be mowing my lawn, spit shining my boots and you would definitely have to shave that stupid mustache.

Again, thanks for the input.

Gene
 
I'm sorry to say that your simulation is broken.

Computer simulations, Especially those that model collisions and constraint modeling, like working model does, can be prone to injecting energy into the system if not constructed carefully. Normally this is not a problem as most models will include damping effects that will pull this energy out of the system.

Look for Integrator Error in the working model instructions on how to help reduce these errors. If you still have a problem I'd contact Design Simulations Technologies with a bug report.

:)
 
Thank you, Orangutan.

wm2d has a means to vary the step as you probably know. A small step gives you improved accuracy and a large one gives you a quicker model.

I was fascinated that this model rotated but it was only a fascination. It isn't so much a model of a machine but a test of a principle. I was looking at other variables in it and how they would react in the first couple of seconds. I do think that it would be practically impossible to make a model of this sim that would behave like the sim. I can't disagree with your conclusion but as I said I was interested in how it would act in the first couple of seconds.

Besides goofing off worse than a union employee one of the things I'm trying to do is develop a mathematical description of this principle. I've made a little progress. It is a definite principle.

Again thanks for your time.

Gene
 
AgingYoung said:
In summary ...
  • What would be a protocol for a pmm
  • If the Randi foundation were testing a pmm the change for it would be explosive and I honestly don't think they're in a position to handle it.
Thank you for your time.


Gene
Click to expand...

I think it's been explained to you before that the protocol for testing would be negotiated between the applicant and the JREF once you send in the notarized application. So, once you get around to applying, you would have a major say in what the protocol would be.

So, perhaps we should be asking you what YOU think the protocol should be like. In fact...What would you propose?

As for your second point, how do you know whether James Randi and the JREF can handle this kind of announcement or not? From your post, it seems you have the impression that the JREF's only option in contacting the outside world is the website. If such an announcement (successful perpetual motion) were to be made, you can bet that it would be through mainstream media channels, and you can be assured that Randi knows his way around that.

Besides, the whole point is moot if you haven't got a working machine. So far, in the last thread and this one (and why is a new thread necessary, anyway?), you've mainly been reporting on your lack of success. Counting your chickens before they hatch, and all.

Once again, you shouldn't worry about the testing protocol, and your subsequent fame and fortune, until you've got something to be tested, and computer simulations don't cut it. Let us know when you've actually got a working device, and you and the JREF can proceed from there.

R
 
Orangutan,

If there were energies injected into this model would you expect the reverse of direction. If you look at the graph it is spinning in the negative direction (clockwise) then spins ccw. Wouldn't you expect that energy would force it to continue spinning cw?

Gene
 
Thanks for your response, Raja.

Could you kindly give me a link where this happened...

I think it's been explained to you before that the protocol for testing would be negotiated between the applicant and the JREF once you send in the notarized application. So, once you get around to applying, you would have a major say in what the protocol would be.
Click to expand...

What I'm interested in is the opinion of the forum members. I fully understand that the actual protocol isn't their decision.

Again, thank you for your time.

Gene
 
Dear Forum Moderators,

AgingYoung has stated, unequivocally, that he does not have a working model of a perpetual motion machine and, therefore, has no claim to make for the Million Dollar Challenge. Yet, he continues to post within the Million Dollar Challenge section of the forum to discuss the science behind his idea. Would it not be more appropriate for this thread to be moved to the Science and Technology section? There, AgingYoung can discuss his topic all he wants and not take up space devoted to those who have an actual claim for the million. Please advise.

DAO
 
I would like to announce that I actually do have a working perpetual motion machine and I will... wait... never mind, it's stopped.
 
I don't object to that Dumb all over yet I'm not discussing the science as much as trying to get an idea of what members think a pmm would be.

The only reason I explained I don't have a pmm is because I was accused of making that claim.

Gene
 
AgingYoung said:
Orangutan,

If there were energies injected into this model would you expect the reverse of direction. If you look at the graph it is spinning in the negative direction (clockwise) then spins ccw. Wouldn't you expect that energy would force it to continue spinning cw?

Gene
Click to expand...

It's probably model dependent. I have built simple cars (body wheels and suspension systems) in other modeling tools that due to feed-back in the suspension system have caused them to begin to oscillate and the whole car has literally flown straight up. This is because the simulation has tried to resolve a collision and the overall energy introduced by moving the components led to a upward velocity. The problem in that case was an non dampened suspension spring.

Another thing to consider is that the makers of working model have tried to model the known physical laws. Including conservation of momentum and the like. Any model that breaks this principle shows that their model is not working, not that there are other physical laws to be discovered.

If you do indeed find a way of modeling and detecting feedback loops in constraint chains I'm sure they would like to hear about it.

Just out of Curiosity are you using the free version of working model? If so how do you save your model or do you have to build it every time you turn your computer on?
 
AgingYoung said:
Thanks for your response, Raja.

Could you kindly give me a link where this happened...
Click to expand...
Well, it's entirely possible that I thought incorrectly, but I will check when I have the free time.

It's also possible that what with all the talk about the challenge, I simply assumed that you had read the Challenge rules and FAQ, where it's clearly stated. Certainly these links were mentioned frequently in the previous perpetual motion thread. In any case, if you hadn't heard it before, now you have. I also strongly suggest you read the aforementioned Challenge Rules and FAQ.

One other thing you ought to consider: When it comes down to designing a protocol, it would help if one knew some of the specifics of what will be tested. Various ideas for producing perpetual motion would be tested in different ways, one would think. If you want specific testing ideas, I would presume you'd need to provide specific information about what you think will happen.

Remember, in the thread that began this all, user "I am me" tried to suggest a test where he would not give any details of how his machine worked. This was not acceptable.

Would you care to address my other points at all? Specifically, why are you concerned about events in the future (a test protocol, dealing with the repercussions of a successful test) which can not happen until you actually create a working model?
 
AgingYoung said:
Still another reason for starting this thread is to challenge people's imagination. I know most doubt a pmm is possible but I'm asking you to suspend your disbelief and imagine that hp 'what if?'
Click to expand...


This is like asking, "let's say for sake of arguement that gravity doesn't exist." or "Let's pretend that pi is 50." or "what would a car look like if it ran on love."

a pmm that produces work doesn't exist. theoretically a ppm that moves forever could occur in a pure vacuum. But it still isn't true ppm and even in black space there isn't a perfect vacuum.

There must be a source of energy to drive work. there must be an energy potential.

Don't waste time on proving ppm. Look for a new source of energy, that's where the clever idea can come from.

I'd be more likely to believe that you can set up a potential across universes and that energy potential can be used for work, but not ppm.
 
Thanks Orangutan,

I'm using the free version. When I'm not looking at a model I put the machine in standby. One annoying thing that happens at times seems to be some sort of memory problem that causes it to crash. If you look at the graph you'll notice the degradation of the graphics around the slider at the bottom. This session I have 3 windows going. What I usually do is clear the calculations on a window but for some reason after a while it crashes.

Again, thanks. I really appreciate your comments.

Gene
 
How long must a pmm run for before being decared "Perpetual"?
A year?
A century?
A thousand years? (I can't spel "millennium").

Is there a magic number?
Does ball bearing failure constitute "stopping"?

It seems obvious that if any machine runs long enough , something will wear out , if only through vapour pressure or devitrification.
 
It's easy to come up with a simulation that appears nothing like real life. Just ignore a few basic or lesser-understood physical parameters and it'll do amazing things.
 
Big Al,

When you say...
It's easy to come up with a simulation that appears nothing like real life.
Click to expand...
I don't know if you realize how accurate that is. I think this gives a better picture...

  • it's next to impossible to simulate reality.

Gene
 
drkitten,

Some of the energy a weight generates as it falls is going to be consumed to overcome the inertia of the structure holding it along with other weights in addition to frictions. Do you consider that work (overcoming inertia and friction) to be part of the equation?

Also is there a lower limit of the energy ratio you’ve mentioned? Would you consider a ratio of 1.0000000000001:1 (Eout:Ein) to be perpetual motion?

Gene
 
Any "over-unity" would be considered PM, provided it could be measured. All testing equipment, no matter how sensitive, will have a certain degree of "tolerance" that affects measurement precision. But I do believe it's a moot point until such a working device exists.
 
AgingYoung said:
Some of the energy a weight generates as it falls is going to be consumed to overcome the inertia of the structure holding it along with other weights in addition to frictions. Do you consider that work (overcoming inertia and friction) to be part of the equation?
Click to expand...

You are getting ahead of yourself. It took more energy to raise the weight to a given height than the weight has stored as potential energy. You are already at a deficit before the weight falls.

In this example, a perpetual motion machine would be a weight that falls and has enough energy to raise itself back up to the same level so it is ready to drop again. After the initial input of raising the weight the first time, the machine would run on its own forever.
 
qayak said:
You are getting ahead of yourself. It took more energy to raise the weight to a given height than the weight has stored as potential energy. You are already at a deficit before the weight falls.

In this example, a perpetual motion machine would be a weight that falls and has enough energy to raise itself back up to the same level so it is ready to drop again. After the initial input of raising the weight the first time, the machine would run on its own forever.
Click to expand...

That's true, but if a ppm was designed than all the energy it took toraise the weight would be made up over time plus the energy it took to contruct the device, the energy it took to make the parts for the device, the energy it took to mine the materials to make the device,...

well, you get the idea.
 
joobz said:
That's true, but if a ppm was designed than all the energy it took toraise the weight would be made up over time plus the energy it took to contruct the device, the energy it took to make the parts for the device, the energy it took to mine the materials to make the device,...

well, you get the idea.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. A PM machine doesn't have to create more energy than it uses, it just can't lose any of the energy that it has. What we are talking about is 100% efficiency. If it creates more energy than it uses then it is more than 100% efficient.
 
Orangutan,

I've been thinking about what you said..
It's probably model dependent . I have built simple cars (body wheels and suspension systems) in other modeling tools that due to feed-back in the suspension system have caused them to begin to oscillate and the whole car has literally flown straight up.
Click to expand...

I agree with your point...
  • prone to injecting energy into the system if not constructed carefully
In the case of the suspension system you were designing if the forces that were accumulating were for the most part downward the ground would most likely have redirected them straight up. In any case I think they moved toward the path of least resistance.

The cog of the part (#17) that I was tracking had its momentum spinning ccw. It was 40° past 12 o'clock. I think given its momentum (and that of the rest of the parts) if any energy had accumulated (as was probably the case) they would have caused the model to continue to spin ccw only at a greater velocity. Those forces would have taken that path of least resistance.

I do think that the reaction shown in the graph is model dependent. I think it is the function of the principle I was testing. What do you think?

I was also curious if you were designing that suspension system for a class or was it something that was going to be produced? If it were for production how long does it take from design to production? Thanks.

Gene
 
Brian,

I think the best instrument to measure the output of a gravity wheel would be the wheel itself. If the wheel can spin overcoming its own inertia and friction it would be over-unity. That was my point.

In wm2d if you make a wheel, pin it to the background so it can spin then place a weight at precisely 12 o'clock it won't move. It will be perfectly balanced. Now rotate the circle by 1/10° (will be ccw) and run the sim.

The weight will spin practically all the way back to 12 but won't continue ccw. That's with zero friction. You can't model those perfect conditions in the real world. An actual model that can continue to move in the same direction overcoming inertia and friction is doing work and has a cop over 100%.

Gene
 
qayak said:
Not necessarily. A PM machine doesn't have to create more energy than it uses, it just can't lose any of the energy that it has. What we are talking about is 100% efficiency. If it creates more energy than it uses then it is more than 100% efficient.
Click to expand...
Understand, but even then modeling wouldn't prove it is possible.
will you also account for the loss due to atomic virbrations of the materials in motion? Are you going to account for viscous losses from the creep of the material you make it out of? It may take millions of years, but it is there.
 
Noise and heat energy - did the model take these factors into account. Unless the machine works in total silence, some energy is being lost as acoustic energy and heat. You can't get away from it.

It's called entropy, man!
 
AgingYoung said:
Brian,

I think the best instrument to measure the output of a gravity wheel would be the wheel itself. If the wheel can spin overcoming its own inertia and friction * it would be over-unity. That was my point.

*Noise and heat energy
Click to expand...

I should have said, 'all possible losses yet still manages to turn.'

Gene

edit: it occurred to me after I posted this ....any heat loss would be caused by friction. If the wheel would turn and overcome friction it would naturally be making up for any loss due to heat. Similarly if it had to make a little noise or a lot of noise to turn yet still turned it would none the less be turning. Any wheel that could turn would obviously be overcoming any obstacle it would need to overcome.

edit II: the 2nd law of Thermodynamics is a separate concept
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom