Things of Intrigue

[Gill Simo]

Yes Tarsier...it was, of course, directed at Agor.
My response was kinda tongue in cheek....I too would like to know in what context it was meant.
Furthermore I wholly agree with your opinion...but I'm unaware of any such a design appearing here over my 13+ years....nothing whatsoever solved, not one single step forward in terms of progress.
This design, as I have myself expressed, will almost certainly add to that sorry state of affairs....but IMO `almost` it remains & almost it will remain until someone can put the matter intelligently to rest.
"I can't see/understand, therefore it deserves my ridicule" doesn't elegantly solve that, or progress it towards this end....any more than "I can see/understand only too clearly, therefore it deserves my ridicule"
Perhaps, whilst we both hopefully await Agor's reply, you might be kind enough to `explain` why, precisely,...& in what context, you yourself deem the design so very much the opposite to brilliant?

[Tarsier79]

Gill, I thought my last post subtly pointed to that. I didn't want to comment further on my thoughts on your design, as you seem to be offended by any comments that aren't positive. I was hoping Agors response might show me something I didn't see.

[Gill Simo]

If you'd care to look back over this thread then you'll surely see that I have asked several times over for others here to constructively debunk this ....so most certainly not something to offend me Tarsier.
Your input was offensive ridicule....hardly likely to be welcomed therefore.

[ovyyus]

'constructively debunk'... now there's a landmine :D

[Tarsier79]

Constructively debunk what? I haven't seen anything worth debunking. You haven't given any reason your design might create energy, or give any gain of any type, or even attempt to explain what its benefits are. All you did was tell me I wasn't smart enough to see how brilliant your design was, when perhaps you should be looking at yourself before pointing any fingers.

Here's something constructive though: Don't hold something in your hand if you are trying to observe its movement or measure its forces.

[murilo]

Forgive me do but I'm intrigued......
Someone posts an idea, others respond.
Ideas that are fundamentally flawed are quickly pounced upon...vigorously.
Ideas that warrant some thought are debated...vigorously.
Bar the ideas that I post...these are met, by & large, with stonewalled silence.
I lower myself to actually beg for you's to point out the fundamental flaw, else debate.
Still...nothing.
Why, I wonder, am I afforded so unique a treatment?
When the last idea I posted, for instance, was oh so simple...simple enough surely for any number of you bright sparks to immediately debunk, if nothing else?
I'm obliged to try yet again...& if ignorance is the only effect it has upon you then please ...
might you, at least, muster the respect & decency to state why that is.....for once?.

Construct Fig 1....if you're way too busy chasing yet another obvious waste of time then perhaps there's a 5yr old at hand who'll happily do it for you in next to no time?
It's pretty impossible to hold this thing by placing a finger at both x & y, so grab it here with fingers & thumbs.
If the thing has even the slightest of weight to it then you'll need to grab ahold pretty tightly....because the thing will want to turn/fall in towards the centre.
Turn the thing to any point you wish...at all times it will persist in its desire to turn/fall in towards the centre....at every point you will continue to need to grab ahold tightly at x/y to prevent it.
Imbued with this constant desire, then allowed to turn/fall the thing will also push/pull points x/y further/closer apart as it does so.
Placed between two hexagon rims, then those two rims, if turned against each other, will constantly provide the thing with an x/y, constantly varying in their distance apart...to accommodate the thing, as it constantly turns/falls....constantly push/pulls x/y.
In the thing's perpetual desire to fall, its perpetual push/pull drives the two rims around, in reverse directions.
Debunk or discuss....please.

For those perhaps uninitiated...

The thing video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8IIqxw2IQ0

The thing in more depth http://oneseventhheaven.weebly.com/

Thank you

Gill

GILL,
possibly the best way to respond your pain and intriguing should be an accurate learn of your own messages to other members, since 2003.
TC!
Murilo

[Gill Simo]

Tarsier....this is mighty tedious when all I wanted was for others to `hopefully` grasp what I was presenting & offer their thoughts in return.

All you did was tell me I wasn't smart enough to see how brilliant your design was....where?

Your initial response....Gill. I'm not sure what you are excited about. As it is falling, you are constantly lifting the other side. Where is the imbalance? There needs to be some sort of imbalance.... force, torque, length, speed, weight, energy....

My reply.....Hi Tarsier......there is no falling (as you mean it I suspect) or lifting of other sides, or imbalance.....all things that have made all attempts futile over millennia no doubt.
I've exhausted every simple as possible explanation of this most simple of principle that I can think of.....
I'm therefore feel stumped & unable to assist further unfortunately.....

......an attempt to point out that assumptions, even when they've become set in stone, are still only assumptions....that those assumptions might, no, actually must, be in error somewhere if indeed PM is possible....and an apology for not being able to better express how this design might, in some way, put paid to those assumptions

Your response....Well, I don't even know why you used the word " Intrigue". You have just made something sort of the equivalent of two meshing gears.

My reply...Tarsier....I'm gracious enough to accept that your inability to grasp this simple concept is most probably down to my inability to relay it well enough...but it appears, from your last aside, as though you feel your lack of ability to grasp this is in fact a perfectly fine ability to grasp that you're simply dealing with a fool?
Please...do forgive me if I get the wrong impression but if not then feel free to go bother some other thread with worthless contributions.

....an attempt to point out that it's probably a failing on my part...but that you appear to be wanting to have a poke....and begging forgiveness if my assumption was wrong.

Your reply...I'm sorry. I defer to your brilliance..... Just one question though. Why, if it wants to spontaneously collapse, and is such a brilliant design beyond the comprehension of most, isn't it powering your house? And why does your godlike intelligence stop you from seeing that gravity never shifts anything that is balanced?.... Oh, silly me... that is two questions. Plus I have found the answer: It is because of the hexagon, isn't it? Maybe I should wear a pyramid on my head too.....Enlightenment and protection from the aliens. Maybe the prism acts differently if it has a hexagonal base?.....Brilliant!

Most definitely a poke!!

Most definitely no mention of how stupid you are, how brilliant my design is...?

And now...Constructively debunk what? I haven't seen anything worth debunking. You haven't given any reason your design might create energy, or give any gain of any type, or even attempt to explain what its benefits are.

I have had to probably bore the arse off of all here in my attempts to point out that this design appears, perhaps, to centre around gravity, pushing straight down, being forced to push around/down two points, in a figure of eight.

I've no bloody idea what this might throw up in terms of creating energy, giving gain or benefits thereof.....are you seriously suggesting that in order to post an `idea`, a thought, worthy of your precious contemplation, then I'd better make damn sure that I provide you with a full, good & proper, thesis on what PM is & how it's possible?
Lord above....even the guy who supposedly did it couldn't apparently explain that to himself!

That was the sole reason for seeking the assistance of you/s....in the hope that someone here might be able to apply some added thoughts, laterally....for once.

Clearly a hope utterly in vain though.....& the very reason surely why `in vain` defines this forum, past, present & future?

Humble apologies, yet again, for whatever irks you.....but please, if you've no drive nor ability to push your brain through the hoop in order to solve the one mother of all hoops that clearly requires such an effort....if you've no interest....then be kind enough to show that in the time honored & customary fashion.

Please...ignore & go elsewhere.

[agor95]

Hi Gill

I have been away for a while.

IMHO; which is the only one I have.

There are three classes of PM.

Class 1. They work and have justification for working.
Dominant Flywheel http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=dom ... ORM=VRDGAR
Bhaskara's Wheel http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=per ... &FORM=VIRE

Class 2. A Brilliant concept that increases movement duration for longer than expected.
Double pendulum over a signal pendulum.
Other complex mobiles.

Class 3. Highly efficient mobiles.
Rocking metal seasaw like examples under a vacuum bell jar.

P.S. Other members can have there own opinions. I plan not to justify mine; only illustrate.

[eccentrically1]

No, those aren't the classes of perpetual motion machines.
The classifications are
1. Doesn't consume any resource (violates CoE).
2. Spontaneously converts heat to work without a second reservoir (violates irreversibility of natural processes).
3. Inertial motion with no losses (violates CoE, you can't achieve a lossless environment).

[ME]

Please don't mind my intrusion, I just felt like writing something...

I've no bloody idea what this might throw up in terms of creating energy, giving gain or benefits thereof..... are you seriously suggesting that in order to post an `idea`, a thought, worthy of your precious contemplation, then I'd better make damn sure that I provide you with a full, good & proper, thesis on what PM is & how it's possible?
Lord above....even the guy who supposedly did it couldn't apparently explain that to himself!

That guy didn't need an explanation because he already had physical proof. A proof (many of us think is) worth studying in-depth in order to gain understanding because in the mean time that 'proof' got smashed multiple times (so what are we studying here?). It is possible that guy didn't completely understand the mechanism (who knows) but it's clear he didn't want to share any explanation before he sold that thing first.

When there's no physical proof then some branch of Science is likely to provide the next best methodology: as its being the current best shortcut to predict the behavior of many things in the physical world.
Unfortunately "science" already 'decided' the impossibility of such mobile thing for all the known reasons: so basically no help there.
It's anyone's prerogative to not be happy about such conclusion (in vain, or not).
But as far as I know the state of happiness doesn't change the current laws of Physics, perhaps only affecting the amount of appreciation for its consequence and the choice of application.

When known-science is not an option then the next level would still be science with the introduction of a brand new hypothesis (or a suggestion) to explore the possible unknown reasons of the existence of perpetual motion: which is surprisingly hard even though it's thought to be surprisingly simple once found - each attempt feels like that familiar final pivoting failure just on the edge of understanding, or that word you seek but fail to speak...

I personally tend to think we'd actually all benefit from a scientific theory based on decent proof instead of misdirection based on yet another fantasy.
So yes: a solid thesis on the possibility of perpetual motion would be very welcome. A successful proof of principle of perpetuality would be even better, but that should simply be implied by a positive scientific theory. :-)

The other (I think less logical) option is where some arbitrary trials & errors lead to some mysterious personal learning-curve and opens the statistical possibility where one happens to invent something by accident or without understanding.
In all fairness it's no tell which road is the shortest path to victory, but in the latter case (I'm aware some of us follow this road) the rest of us still needs that exact learning curve or a physical proof of principle in order to appreciate some new application. We'd all hope that at least the inventor himself is able to grasp the working principle.

...aaanyway:
How to debunk your design: Science by its current definition.
How to proof your design: Build.
The rest between "debunked" and "proven" is conjecture, a suspicion, a guess, or still a subset of sciency stuff like math or perhaps simulation; and its final acceptance likely based on trust and its result possibly affected by the amounts of happiness....or frustration.

As this talk probably doesn't help you a thing, let's add to my previous debunk-attempt:

Consider a ball on an inclined-plane on rollers.
For certain dimensions and parameters the ball will drop vertically and the inclined-plane rolls horizontally on its rollers away from the ball. When that ball does not drop the inclined-plane does not move either.
To get that ball to its original position it needs to be lifted back up, while the inclined-plane shifts back to its original position: these restoring actions are most likely independent of each other while each still need the energy to get this restoration done. Ideally it needs the same amount as when the ball dropped. There's no indication of any surplus energy.

It actually doesn't matter if that ball is some complex mechanism, or that inclined-plane is mirrored and changes its slope symmetrically (like your rotating hexagon).

Also IMHO any design should skip bidirectionality completely (no-one should care) and be focused on net-torque or some acceleration-factor. I guess a "brilliant" design is a design showing this most clearly.

[eccentrically1]

Unfortunately "science" already 'decided' the impossibility of such mobile thing for all the known reasons: so basically no help there.

No, "science" doesn't make "decisions ".
Good grief.

[agor95]

Hi eccentrically1

I strongly agree with your classification.

However they are not Mutually exclusive.

My Humble Opinion layman classification are not the Scientific agree definition.

I also agree we need good proofs, maths, virtual and physical models.

Now we all agree :-)

Merging Classification 1 with item 1 from your opinion.

Result - this is taking resource from outside the device.

Classification 2 This does not violate any physical laws.
Classification 3 This does not violate any physical laws.

So in effect we have this basic fact; we have a Definition for Perpetual Motion that is impossible.

That is like defining a car as an object that can not have an energy resource.
And a layman's classification that a car does have an energy source.

We can resolve this by agreeing the two examples supplied do consume resources. Therefore are not Perpetual Motion devices; however their motion does perpetuate IMHO:-)

I will defend your opinion as well.

Regards

[ME]

Unfortunately "science" already 'decided' the impossibility of such mobile thing for all the known reasons: so basically no help there.

No, "science" doesn't make "decisions ".
Good grief.

I thought I managed with my use of quotation marks :-)

"Science" is also about the consensus of what actually should be the current collective embodiment of knowledge where truth is based on testable explanations able to predict the behavior of the physical world around us.
The human part of this consensus is a 'decision' by its own nature.
There must have been a point in time where there was enough evidence pointing towards the correctness of thermodynamic laws and a shear lack of evidence of perpetual motion. TD vs PM as a mutual exclusive situation basically proven by the definition of science (evidence and the lack thereof) both mathematically as practically.
Because the mutual exclusion is so strong the Laws of Thermodynamics are tied one-on-one to the classification of Perpetual motion* (and/or vice versa), hence PM's are defined to be impossible or otherwise our world falls apart (you never know the influence of a PM machine).
When any solution officially never popped up and/or never got replicated or simply assumed to follow circular paths like any other 'normal' mechanism, or any possible future solution is found to be too abstract to even consider, then those laws never got challenged.
So it's still possible a PM-mechanism is not impossible and 'simply' hard to conceive so we have to try a little bit harder here, or otherwise it is just an impossible exercise and we all are fools for even considering.

IOW: "Science" is right until proven wrong.
And when a true PM is found it has to be acknowledged by the science community somehow.
Then some light-bulbs will flock together and start to 'decide' again what to do with this exception, or which paper proposes the most convenient truth. Perhaps it gets muffled away as an exceptional abnormality in some footnote, perhaps it starts a whole new scientific revolution: who knows?
May the best consensus win :-)

- - - -
* The classification of Perpetual motion (based on the LoTD):

1. A perpetual motion machine of the first kind produces work without the input of energy.
   It thus violates the first law of thermodynamics: the law of conservation of energy.
2. A perpetual motion machine of the second kind is a machine which spontaneously converts thermal energy into mechanical work.
   When the thermal energy is equivalent to the work done, this does not violate the law of conservation of energy. However, it does violate the more subtle second law of thermodynamics. The signature of a perpetual motion machine of the second kind is that there is only one heat reservoir involved, which is being spontaneously cooled without involving a transfer of heat to a cooler reservoir. This conversion of heat into useful work, without any side effect, is impossible, according to the second law of thermodynamics.
3. A perpetual motion machine of the third kind is usually (but not always) defined as one that completely eliminates friction and other dissipative forces, to maintain motion forever (due to its mass inertia). It is impossible to make such a machine, as dissipation can never be completely eliminated in a mechanical system, no matter how close a system gets to this ideal.

[agor95]

Hi ME

I agree with your Definition of Perpetual Motion.

My first classification is not defined by item 1 or 2.

classifintion 3 in your post is fine.

Also agree that "Sciences" being a process of testing and improving our knowledge.

Regards

[Gill Simo]

Hi...I have a Gif animation saved on my laptop that I'd like to share.
Is that possible please & if so how do I go about it.
Thanks/Gill