Perpetual Motion is Impossible

A Bessler, gravity, free-energy free-for-all. Registered users can upload files, conduct polls, and more...

Moderator: scott

Post Reply
User avatar
ME
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3512
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:37 pm
Location: Netherlands

re: Perpetual Motion is Impossible

Post by ME »

Trevor Lyn Whatford wrote:Hi ME & MR V,

ME quote,
When a mass attached to a lever rotates a rotating disc, it will act like a pendulum in a rotating frame.
It 'pendulates' towards the centrifugal acceleration.
This centrifugal acceleration acts like a gradient gravitational field, a=w^2*r.
Hence my question earlier.
It only makes matters worse,
Worseness depends on the kind of relation - don't know what you have in mind.

As I thought (force-)gradients were mentioned several times somewhere (perhaps imagined) as being a key part in PM, I simply played with centrifugal effects.
I don't expect magic from such thing, but I was at it anyway - perhaps it sparks some idea somewhere else.
And I omitted gravity in that exercise.

oh, that quote was a reaction to jim's statement that "A Newton's cradle isn't operating in a rotating environment."
Last edited by ME on Tue Dec 29, 2015 2:27 am, edited 2 times in total.
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
User avatar
Tarsier79
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5115
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:17 am
Location: Qld, Australia

re: Perpetual Motion is Impossible

Post by Tarsier79 »

Me. I understood it was not impact driven. That does not change my view. I will beleive it when I see and measure it.
User avatar
ME
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3512
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:37 pm
Location: Netherlands

Post by ME »

Well, at some point I guess there needs to be some interaction... right? (or could it be a sort of leverage?)

There is actually a situation where impact does cause a slow moving weight to give up half its velocity to a faster moving weight. It happens when the "Coefficient of restitution" Cr= -2
Add: actually half the speed differential.
wikipedia wrote:e < 0: A COR less than zero would represent a collision in which the separation velocity of the objects has the same direction (sign) as the closing velocity, implying the objects passed through one another without fully engaging. This may also be thought of as an incomplete transfer of momentum. An example of this might be a small, dense object passing through a large, less dense one – e.g., a bullet passing through a target, or a motorcycle passing through a motor home or a wave tearing through a dam.
As it's uncertain what actually happens (the given example is hard to follow) I tend to agree with the observation of Furcurequs [pg 11]


Example:
m[1]= m[2]= 1 kg ; v[1]= 10 m/s ; v[2]= 20m/s ; Cr= -2
Sum.P= 30 Ns ; Sum.Ek= 250 J
After transfer
u[1q]= 5 m/s ; u[2q]= 25 m/s ; Sum.P= 30 Ns ; Sum.Ek= 325 J ; d.Sum.Ek= +75 J ;
Efficiency: 325/250= 100% + 30%
After doing this again
u[1b]= -5 m/s ; u[2b]= 35 m/s ; Sum.P= 30 Ns ; Sum.Ek= 625 J ; d.Sum.Ek= +300 J
Efficiency: 625/250= 100% + 150% (Same as doing once with Cr = -4)
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
User avatar
Grimer
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5280
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Harrow, England
Contact:

Post by Grimer »

jim_mich wrote:
Grimer wrote:But these are power functions, not exponential functions.
I think I've confused Grimer by abbreviating the math formula.

Inertial Momentum is IM = m × v.
Kinetic Energy is KE = 1/2 × m × v^2.

If I assume the mass to be 2, the formula reduces down to KE = v^2
I'm not much concerned about Inertial Momentum since I know is is a conserved quantity until KE is removed from the weights.

Image
I'm not confused. I'm just objecting to your loose use of the word exponential.
It makes you look ignorant and gives your critics a chance to demean you. I'm sure you must know the difference between a power function and an exponential function and were just using it carelessly to indicate something that was rising faster than linear.

If you stop using the word inappropriately, I'll be content.
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
Furcurequs
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1605
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:50 am

Post by Furcurequs »

ME wrote:Well, at some point I guess there needs to be some interaction... right? (or could it be a sort of leverage?)

There is actually a situation where impact does cause a slow moving weight to give up half its velocity to a faster moving weight. It happens when the "Coefficient of restitution" Cr= -2
Add: actually half the speed differential.
wikipedia wrote:e < 0: A COR less than zero would represent a collision in which the separation velocity of the objects has the same direction (sign) as the closing velocity, implying the objects passed through one another without fully engaging. This may also be thought of as an incomplete transfer of momentum. An example of this might be a small, dense object passing through a large, less dense one – e.g., a bullet passing through a target, or a motorcycle passing through a motor home or a wave tearing through a dam.
As it's uncertain what actually happens (the given example is hard to follow) I tend to agree with the observation of Furcurequs [pg 11]


Example:
m[1]= m[2]= 1 kg ; v[1]= 10 m/s ; v[2]= 20m/s ; Cr= -2
Sum.P= 30 Ns ; Sum.Ek= 250 J
After transfer
u[1q]= 5 m/s ; u[2q]= 25 m/s ; Sum.P= 30 Ns ; Sum.Ek= 325 J ; d.Sum.Ek= +75 J ;
Efficiency: 325/250= 100% + 30%
After doing this again
u[1b]= -5 m/s ; u[2b]= 35 m/s ; Sum.P= 30 Ns ; Sum.Ek= 625 J ; d.Sum.Ek= +300 J
Efficiency: 625/250= 100% + 150% (Same as doing once with Cr = -4)
Where the wikipedia article gives an example of e<0 ("e" being your "Cr"), it appears that the conditions they describe would only apply for -1<e<0. In other words, there would be no gain in energy.

For e<-1, that would be a special case in which there would be a gain in energy as energy would somehow be released in the collision/interaction - as with the special case they actually do describe for e>1.

I suspect you know this, but I wouldn't want certain people to pretend that the lack of detail in the wikipedia article means the math would magically allow for an energy gain without an energy source.
I don't believe in conspiracies!
I prefer working alone.
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2879
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Re: re: Perpetual Motion is Impossible

Post by MrVibrating »

Trevor Lyn Whatford wrote:Hi ME & MR V,

ME quote,
When a mass attached to a lever rotates a rotating disc, it will act like a pendulum in a rotating frame.
It 'pendulates' towards the centrifugal acceleration.
This centrifugal acceleration acts like a gradient gravitational field, a=w^2*r.
Hence my question earlier.
It only makes matters worse, When CF builds up, you then have two forces to shift the weights against, and still with the stronger forces being at the bottom of the wheel. But CF does make a good natural governor for gravity driven devices for that same reason.
For my part, i hadn't yet considered that CF could also reverse the sign of a reaction mass flung inwards against it, in much the same way as gravity; doubtless it would've occured to me sooner or later but the point here is that it's an internal reference frame, and reversing the sign of a reaction momentum only needs a symmetrical interaction, so the equal inbound to outbound F*d is a benefit rather than a limitation - i'm trying to cause a progressive rise in net system momentum per cycle, not an asymmetric gravitational or CF interaction.

In short, perfect inbound vs outboud symmetry means that what goes up must come down with all its KE and momentum intact.. just vectored in the opposite direction; a result which challenges the usual outcome of Newton's 3rd law, and hence conservation of momentum and energy.

Both Gravity & CF force vectors have to be taken into account, that is why I could not see the logic in having a vertical wheel if you do not want to use gravity? If I was to build a CF & AM only wheel I would build it on the horizontal.
Agreed, but a reliance on gravity wouldn't necessarily preclude an exploit also requiring or just benefiting from CF (and likewise, vice versa).
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

re: Perpetual Motion is Impossible

Post by jim_mich »

Grimer wrote:I'm not confused. I'm just objecting to your loose use of the word exponential.
It makes you look ignorant and gives your critics a chance to demean you. I'm sure you must know the difference between a power function and an exponential function and were just using it carelessly to indicate something that was rising faster than linear.

If you stop using the word inappropriately, I'll be content.
Grimer, what planet are you from? I'm using the right word: exponential. It means a number raised to an exponential value. Eight raised to a power of two is sixty four. The two is the exponent, or index, or power. The eight is the base. As the base increases linearly the result increases exponentially. When graphed, the result is a curve.

I'm using the right word and using it properly. You just need to clean the cobwebs from your cranium. It makes you look rather ignorant.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponentiation

Image
Attachments
Exponent and Base
Exponent and Base
How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3166
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

re: Perpetual Motion is Impossible

Post by eccentrically1 »

..
Last edited by eccentrically1 on Tue Dec 29, 2015 2:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
daxwc
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7330
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:35 am

re: Perpetual Motion is Impossible

Post by daxwc »

Jim:
daxwc wrote:
I doubt very much your weights follow the same radius around the wheel at all times. It is not as black and white as you make it seem.
It is much more black and white than you seem to make out. But the basic concept is as I've described. I can only disclose in broad terms, else the whole mechanism becomes disclosed.
Fair enough Jim, but are you absolutely sure you have calculated all the forces in a rotating frame of reference that will cause counter-torque to the total system? Even simple rotating mechanisms have surprising outcomes at least for us 8 ft plank guys trying to cross a 10 ft creek.

All curved paths require a centripetal force to create them and the usage of energy. If motion begets motion then our view of the universe is wrong and things like gravity could very well be the fictitious force.
What goes around, comes around.
User avatar
Grimer
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5280
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Harrow, England
Contact:

Post by Grimer »

Jim

Well, I have to admit you have an unarguable defence - particularly that image which is a peach. :-)

However, I still think that to use the word exponentially is unnecessary and misleading - and likely to lead people to fall into the same trap as I did. :-(
Furcurequs
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1605
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:50 am

re: Perpetual Motion is Impossible

Post by Furcurequs »

I found the following quotes on a math site which specifically address what Grimer was pointing out to jim_mich:
Exponential functions look somewhat similar to functions you have seen before, in that they involve exponents, but there is a big difference, in that the variable is now the power, rather than the base. Previously, you have dealt with such functions as f(x) = x^2, where the variable x was the base and the number 2 was the power. In the case of exponentials, however, you will be dealing with functions such as g(x) = 2^x, where the base is the fixed number, and the power is the variable.
You may have heard of the term "exponential growth". This "starting slow, but then growing faster and faster all the time" growth is what they are referring to. Specifically, our function g(x) above doubled each time we incremented x. That is, when x was increased by 1 over what it had been, y increased to twice what it had been. This is the definition of exponential growth: that there is a consistent fixed period over which the function will double (or triple, or quadruple, etc; the point is that the change is always a fixed proportion). So if you hear somebody claiming that the world population is doubling every thirty years, you know he is claiming exponential growth.

Exponential growth is "bigger" and "faster" than polynomial growth. This means that, no matter what the degree is on a given polynomial, a given exponential function will eventually be bigger than the polynomial. Even though the exponential function may start out really, really small, it will eventually overtake the growth of the polynomial, since it doubles all the time.
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/expofcns.htm

So, jim_mich's use of "exponentially" was not correct, for it has a specific meaning to the educated.

Grimer, but that doesn't mean you are not still confused. How dare you challenge jim_mich like that?! You should know by now that our resident super genius perpetual motion machine inventor is to be treated as if he is right even when he is in the wrong! If you don't stop this, you troll, you will need to be red dotted and banned!!

...lol

;P

Don't forget. Another non-working wheel could be only days away!
I don't believe in conspiracies!
I prefer working alone.
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by jim_mich »

OK, what we have here is the Master Word Twister Dwayne.

I never made a claim of an EXPONENTIAL FUNCTION.

My claim was simply that as the Inertial Momentum (the velocity) changed in a linear fashion, then the KE increased in an exponential fashion.

Image

As the base (the velocity) increases then the result (the kinetic energy) increases exponentially.

Mr. Smart-Ass Dwayne, what word would you have me use here?

My original statement in post #139415:
jim_mich wrote:The result is that as the IM increases in a linear fashion, then the KE increased exponentially.

If momentum doubles, then kinetic energy increases four times. And if momentum triples, then kinetic energy increases nine times.
I made no mention of a EXPONENTIAL FUNCTION. I simple claimed exponential increase.

Dwayne, you are acting like a typical A-hole troll. Grow up. You don't belong here if you keep make person attacks.

Image
User avatar
ME
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3512
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:37 pm
Location: Netherlands

Post by ME »

For a first model: As long as it is able to speed up and able to counteract friction, then who cares what kind of curve (even linear would be nice).

But while talking 'curve' anyway: I'm actually expecting some sort of inverse-tangent or logistic-kind of growth on any type of perpetual motion... as in: until some limiting/maximum amount.
User avatar
daxwc
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7330
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:35 am

re: Perpetual Motion is Impossible

Post by daxwc »

Jim Quotes:
Dwayne, you are acting like a typical A-hole troll. Grow up. You don't belong here if you keep make person attacks.
I could care less about the personal attacks, but if you make them you then should be able to take them Jim.

OK, what we have here is the Master Word Twister Dwayne.
Well Jim isn’t that cute coming from you; endearing just tickles the cockles of ones heart. I guess on the bright side at least Dwayne isn't trying to manipulate everything.
What goes around, comes around.
User avatar
daxwc
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7330
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:35 am

re: Perpetual Motion is Impossible

Post by daxwc »

Me:
But while talking 'curve' anyway: I'm actually expecting some sort of inverse-tangent or logistic-kind of growth on any type of perpetual motion... as in: until some limiting/maximum amount.
My feeling is the limiting amount will be CF or in Jim’s case defined in time of action needed for internal mechanisms to operate.
What goes around, comes around.
Post Reply