Australian man claims perpetual motion machine

For the discussion of the sciences. Physics problems, chemistry equations, biology weirdness, it all goes here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

Micron
Posts: 319
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 1:03 am UTC

Re: Australian man claims perpetual motion machine

Postby Micron » Fri May 02, 2008 4:17 pm UTC

zealo wrote:
I don't think you can use the coriolis effect as a power source because it is not a real force, it only appears when you are in a rotating reference frame.

the earth's surface is not a rotating reference frame?

Sure it can be but the appearance of a force doesn't necessarily mean we can use it.
Suppose you were standing at some arbitrary reference point where you can see the Earth's rotation and I stand on the north pole and throw a baseball into orbit. From your perspective you can see the ball make a polar orbit around the earth while the Earth rotates underneath it. From my perspective standing on the surface however it looks like the ball curves away to one side as if there is some other force acting on it. No such force actually exists, it is just an artifact of the reference frame I happen to be using.
If you want to get really carried away you could use a satellite in a polar orbit as your reference and then the Earth would appear to turn underneath it and change speed, rotating quickly as you pass over the equator and slowly as you cross the poles but no actual force is accelerating and decelerating the planet's rotation.
Sometimes it is easier to use such a force than to actually account for the movement of my reference frame and the math will still work out if I account for all such virtual forces correctly but I can't immediately think of a way you could use that to actually harness power from the rotation which produces it. I could however be ignoring something.

Kachi
Publicly Posts Private Messages
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:53 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere except SB.

Re: Australian man claims perpetual motion machine

Postby Kachi » Fri May 02, 2008 5:17 pm UTC

No, it's perfectly analogous. A sphere is *locally* flat. As well, there's no 'slope'. (Assuming a perfect uniform sphere) gravity is always perpendicular to the surface, so that no matter where you are, gravity is just pushing you toward the center of the ball, not to one side.


Ok, I thought that might be the case. Basically what you're saying is that gravity doesn't contribute energy to moving the ball because it's applied uniformly. In other words, the ball isn't rolling in this case due to gravity at all, only to the initial energy. Makes sense.

No, it's not equidistant. You're on the ball. You are exactly r meters from the center, where r is the radius of the ball. You move in a perfectly straight line tangent to the surface. You are now floating above the surface of the ball, and are r+x meters from the center.


I guess I'm missing something here. If one sphere rolls around another sphere, it's always equidistant from the center. That's all I was saying. I assumed that when you said "up" you were referring to some example where one sphere could roll around another and actually gain distance from the center. I never meant that it would actually be rolling down in the first place-- just that it would be as if it were continually rolling downward from its relative position.

Essentially you're saying that the ball doesn't gain energy in this example because even if in motion, the downward gravity on the front of the rolling ball (the "down" side) is counteracted by the equal gravity applied to the back (the "up" side). That's all I was trying to figure out.

User avatar
jmorgan3
Posts: 710
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 12:22 am UTC
Location: Pasadena, CA

Re: Australian man claims perpetual motion machine

Postby jmorgan3 » Sat May 03, 2008 3:46 pm UTC

Kachi wrote: Basically what you're saying is that gravity doesn't contribute energy to moving the ball because it's applied uniformly. In other words, the ball isn't rolling in this case due to gravity at all, only to the initial energy. Makes sense.


Uniformity is irrelevant. Gravity doesn't contribute energy to the ball because gravity is always applied to the ball in a direction perpendicular to the ball's movement.
This signature is Y2K compliant.
Last updated 6/29/108

Kachi
Publicly Posts Private Messages
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:53 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere except SB.

Re: Australian man claims perpetual motion machine

Postby Kachi » Mon May 05, 2008 5:45 am UTC

Isn't the gravity applied uniformly because it's perpendicular? I think we're saying the same thing in different ways.

Mettra
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 1:37 am UTC

Re: Australian man claims perpetual motion machine

Postby Mettra » Tue May 06, 2008 1:29 am UTC

jmorgan3 wrote:Uniformity is irrelevant. Gravity doesn't contribute energy to the ball because gravity is always applied to the ball in a direction perpendicular to the ball's movement.


If I may, this isn't QUITE right. Gravity doesn't contribute any NET force to the ball. There is the matter of the sides of the smaller sphere (rolling atop the larger sphere) having some components pulling it in opposing directions. They all just happen to add to 0 when talking about spheres, and when you draw the FBD the net mg component is perpendicular to the motion.

I THINK that's what Kachi was trying to get at, but yes, you are correct.

Kachi: an easy way to examine this is to think about work. Since work is a measure of energy transferred by an existing force, it should answer your question. Work, mathematically, is a dot product between two vectors F (the force) and l (the displacement). Now with dot products, you can rewrite [F]dot[l] as (F)(l)(cos[a]) where a is the angle between F and l (in whichever dimensions you are considering). If the F and l are at 90 degrees (pi/2 radians), then cos[a] is 0, so [F]dot[l] is 0, so the work done is 0 -> so 0 energy is transferred to the object by that particular force.

For an easy and intuitive example, if you think of a simple x-y coord. system:

Spoiler:
consider a force in the positive y direction (up, in other words) and a displacement l in the positive x direction. It would be totally NONSENSICAL to say that the Fy contributed in any way to lx.

A physical example of something like this is the classic person carrying a box across a room. The Fy in this case would be from his arms pushing up against the weight of the box. The Fx required to move the box a displacement l would be, for example, from his legs. The legs (pushing the torso [pushing the arms]) do the work in this case. They are the thing transferring energy. The arms (if the height of the box stays constant or the ups and downs add to 0) do no work at all.

In the case of the force of gravity acting on the small sphere - it IS GOOD to realize that gravity does not emanate from some single point somewhere, it's coming from every single atom in the larger sphere and acting on every single atom in the smaller sphere. It all gets very complicated when you look at this way, but in the end after doing all the work, you find that there are some x and y components (if you think of z as vertical) - BUT THEY ADD UP TO 0 - that's the whole reason we bring vectors into this stuff. So yeah, you may have horizontal forces, but their net effect (the vector you get when you add all of them up together) is 0. This is equivalent to having no forces acting on the sphere (in the dimensions we're talking about).

If you consider the larger sphere to be perfectly shaped and having no dents or hills, and if you consider both spheres to be rigid bodies, then you cannot have any acceleration in the y direction. If ay = 0 then (F = ma ;)) the net force must equal 0, so any dot product with that will also yield 0 - so no work can be done in that way either - no energy is transferred.


Hopefully, that clears up any lingering questions you might have.
zenten wrote:Maybe I can find a colouring book to explain it to you or something.

slig
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 2:18 am UTC
Location: .au

kook alert!

Postby slig » Tue May 06, 2008 10:46 pm UTC

Warning on that original link (via the construction page), Godwins law is realised shortly after the assertion "The greatest bullshit theory ever presented to the world was by Tesla".

On behalf of Australia, I'd like to apologise. We're not all like this. Consider him an existential instantiation.

User avatar
4=5
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:02 am UTC

Re: Australian man claims perpetual motion machine

Postby 4=5 » Wed May 07, 2008 3:19 am UTC

I"ve got a 100% efficient water powered car, hundreds of miles to the gallon,
unfortunantly it only works downstream

User avatar
quintopia
Posts: 2906
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:53 am UTC
Location: atlanta, ga

Re: Australian man claims perpetual motion machine

Postby quintopia » Mon May 19, 2008 4:19 am UTC

Xanthir wrote:
quintopia wrote:
Bassoon wrote:
CivilDefense700 wrote:
BlackSails wrote:
Kdz wrote:Just curious as to whether I should be hopeful of free energy or not. :)


You should not be.

To put it simply, if free energy is possible then every single thing we know about physics is wrong. Everything.


What are you talking about? We already have free energy! It's called SOLAR POWER !!

Although you have to initially invest a lot of money.


That's not free. Current panels are very inefficient, not to mention to energy needed to create a star far outweighs the amount of energy the star ends up putting out. Even if we were to trap all the energy the star puts out, we'd still lose to entropy.

Always remember: you can't beat entropy.


You forgot to mention that panels for converting solar energy to electricity are so inefficient that you actually lose money by buying one. You end up saving money by paying your local EMC for the entire expected lifetime of the panel you don't buy.

Interesting, then, that there are entire (largish) businesses built around providing solar power. Perhaps you should go tell them that their business plan is doomed to near-immediate failure?


these companies do not typically use photovoltaic panels. the most efficient and cost-effective methods involve concentrating sunlight using mirrors in order to heat fluids and thus power turbine generators. Read more here

On the other hand, if you see your city trying to get solar panels installed on streetlights and stuff like that, be sure to advise against it and get your tax dollars better spent.

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Australian man claims perpetual motion machine

Postby Hawknc » Mon May 19, 2008 4:49 am UTC

That might have been true 10 years ago, but PV cells have come down in $/W over the last few years, making it a viable option in some areas. Not all, for sure, and I've seen plenty of places that put solar panels up for the feel-good PR rather than for any actual energy saving, but you can't just write the entire industry off as unviable.

User avatar
meat.paste
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 3:08 pm UTC

Re: Australian man claims perpetual motion machine

Postby meat.paste » Tue May 20, 2008 3:47 am UTC

4=5 wrote:I’ve got a 100% efficient water powered car, hundreds of miles to the gallon, unfortunately it only works downstream


I was wondering if anyone would mention the water powered car (even if your context is not what I was expecting.) I've been seeing a variant of perpetual motion where you add a tank of water to your car. The water is split into H2 and O2, which are then burned to increase your gas mileage. I just want to shake people by the scruff of their necks when they propose this stuff. WHERE DOES THE ENERGY TO SPLIT THE WATER COME FROM??!?!?!? Ugh.

Okay, I'll climb down off of my soapbox.
Huh? What?

User avatar
markfiend
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:59 am UTC
Location: UK (Leeds)

Re: Australian man claims perpetual motion machine

Postby markfiend » Tue May 20, 2008 4:20 pm UTC

meat.paste wrote:I've been seeing a variant of perpetual motion where you add a tank of water to your car. The water is split into H2 and O2, which are then burned to increase your gas mileage. I just want to shake people by the scruff of their necks when they propose this stuff. WHERE DOES THE ENERGY TO SPLIT THE WATER COME FROM??!?!?!? Ugh.

Okay, I'll climb down off of my soapbox.

Mark Chu-Carroll has blogged about this. It's not quite as bad as you think. Basically, the idea is that electricity is drawn off to electrolyse water to H2 and O2; the H2 is added to the gas/air mix which increases the efficiency of burning the gas. So it's not free energy, it's (I suppose) a catalytic process to increase the engine efficiency.

Now I'm not at all convinced it will work, but the scheme is definitely not claiming to be a free-energy device.
advanced, forthright, signifficant
pronouns: he/him

brook_88
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 12:41 pm UTC
Location: Cambridge, UK (Most of the time..)

Re: Australian man claims perpetual motion machine

Postby brook_88 » Sat May 24, 2008 11:43 pm UTC

That was awesome.. I read through this guys webpage (procrastination from revision).. and I was amazed by his arguments. It was so... completely... awful. Yet somehow very amusing, and slightly scary that people out there who really think like this. Who have no grasp on the concepts of Physics or indeed Maths. I also have problems accepting the words of anyone who fails to use correct punctuation and grammar.


Who needs education right?

Mettra
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 1:37 am UTC

Re: Australian man claims perpetual motion machine

Postby Mettra » Sat May 24, 2008 11:51 pm UTC

brook_88 wrote:That was awesome.. I read through this guys webpage (procrastination from revision).. and I was amazed by his arguments. It was so... completely... awful. Yet somehow very amusing, and slightly scary that people out there who really think like this. Who have no grasp on the concepts of Physics or indeed Maths. I also have problems accepting the words of anyone who fails to use correct punctuation and grammar.


Who needs education right?


Of course. With all these elitists mucking about arguing over the meaning of words and inane inconsequential politics, the only people who are in a position to save us are the dangerous rebel-mavericks. These guys don't need degrees - in fact, they don't even want them. They piss on your little paper proof of years of systematic brainwashing. All the while they were taking the world by the horns, getting their hands dirty and doing some real work - real work that gave them the experience and knowledge needed to understand that everything you've been taught is wrong. And where will you be in 5 years? Grading a bunch of snot-nosed brats' papers hoping to get an even fancier piece of paper while they're sitting in their ivory towers, money flowing from the innovations and revolutions made available purely by the sweat of their brow.

Indeed.
zenten wrote:Maybe I can find a colouring book to explain it to you or something.

troyp
Posts: 557
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 9:20 pm UTC
Location: Lismore, NSW

Re: Australian man claims perpetual motion machine

Postby troyp » Sun May 25, 2008 2:21 am UTC

zealo wrote:
I don't think you can use the coriolis effect as a power source because it is not a real force, it only appears when you are in a rotating reference frame.

the earth's surface is not a rotating reference frame?


He's saying that the coriolis force is only an "apparent" force. My understanding is that really, it's just how inertia looks in a rotating reference frame. So an object "subject" to the coriolis force appears to be pushed to one side, but is actually just travelling in a straight line.

Zeltrix
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:37 am UTC
Location: Just beyond your field of vision, and closing in.

Re: Australian man claims perpetual motion machine

Postby Zeltrix » Tue Jun 03, 2008 4:54 pm UTC

Micron wrote:
Kachi wrote:This is a ludicrous example, I realize, but let's say that there were a perfectly circular path around the world. Setting aside for a moment that given the volume of the Earth, it would essentially be the same as a completely flat surface on any reasonable scale, could gravitational energy keep a wheel along this path in constant motion, theoretically?

How about we simplify that a little bit. Gravity can keep a satellite in motion around the Earth as it is perpetually "falling" but traveling laterally at the same rate the curvature of the Earth drops off below it. However this still does not give you a power source. If anything slows down the satellite then it will "fall" into a lower and lower orbit.
[\quote]
For talking about the Earth and the Moon you forget the fact that the Moon is being pushed away from us by our oceans. So if you someone did find a way to harness the power of gravity with the moon, it would only stop the moon from flying away, not make it crash into us.
Using that concept, you could make a couple hundred gravity generators out in space, and if we worked it right we could make generators that last for a long, long, time (until some unknown, to me, law stops it).
Behold, the unimaginable power of pi

[imath]\pi[/imath]i

I am the pessimistic optimist: the glass is half full...
Spoiler:
...but I'm still going to die of dehydration in this freaking desert.

kevbrown
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 5:23 pm UTC

Re: Australian man claims perpetual motion machine

Postby kevbrown » Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:17 pm UTC

The first sentence on his homepage:



"I have come to the true understanding there is more bad than good on this monkey covered rock. you can have the wheel that's it. Nothing else.

Those who sit and watch evil are as bad as those who do it.

I am only giving you this becuase you already know how to build it. but don't ever speak to me."


Hell yes.
"In short, I'm afraid it's not a very surprising or useful thing that you've discovered. Better luck next time!"

heydonms
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:54 am UTC

Re: Australian man claims perpetual motion machine

Postby heydonms » Wed Jun 04, 2008 3:23 am UTC

markfiend wrote:So it's not free energy, it's (I suppose) a catalytic process to increase the engine efficiency.

Now I'm not at all convinced it will work, but the scheme is definitely not claiming to be a free-energy device.


I've seen various people saying this, but those same people when trying to explain the details of how and why it works invariably say "It is well documented on <insert website>! Go do some reading!" and the website they link to invariably leads back to one of about 2-3 pages that claim to be free energy. There is one about a water powered beach buggy, another one about a water/flywheel setup that some guy is using to power his house and one or two others that I don't recall and can't be bothered to search for.

A lot of the benefits come not from the device itself but from the installation procedure, they say the hydrogen burns in place of fuel so you need to adjust the car to run lean, it changes octane ratings so you have to shift your timing, some people recommend other changes as well. People fit the device, make all these changes and find they are spending less on fuel. What they happily ignore is that the same effect could be achieved simply by messing with the mixture and timing on their own.

I also suspect that after fitting one of these devices people will be more aware of their fuel economy and subconsciously adjust their driving practices to further improve the devices apparent performance.

User avatar
z4lis
Posts: 767
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:59 pm UTC

Re: Australian man claims perpetual motion machine

Postby z4lis » Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:28 am UTC

Perhaps my knowledge of thermo sucks, but any of these "perpetual motion devices" would have just be systems undergoing reversible processes, which is all fine and dandy. I've built my perpetual, irreversibility-free machine. But now I hook it up to my car for some free power. Gas is expensive, yeah? Problem is, my car contains *numerous* irreversibilities (as do all known systems), so my perpetual motion device now goes from a reversible cycle to an irreversible cycle because I included it in a system with irreversibilities. There goes my perpetual motion device.
What they (mathematicians) define as interesting depends on their particular field of study; mathematical anaylsts find pain and extreme confusion interesting, whereas geometers are interested in beauty.

User avatar
markfiend
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:59 am UTC
Location: UK (Leeds)

Re: Australian man claims perpetual motion machine

Postby markfiend » Tue Jun 10, 2008 8:17 am UTC

heydonms wrote:I've seen various people saying this, but those same people when trying to explain the details of how and why it works invariably say "It is well documented on <insert website>! Go do some reading!" and the website they link to invariably leads back to one of about 2-3 pages that claim to be free energy. There is one about a water powered beach buggy, another one about a water/flywheel setup that some guy is using to power his house and one or two others that I don't recall and can't be bothered to search for.

A lot of the benefits come not from the device itself but from the installation procedure, they say the hydrogen burns in place of fuel so you need to adjust the car to run lean, it changes octane ratings so you have to shift your timing, some people recommend other changes as well. People fit the device, make all these changes and find they are spending less on fuel. What they happily ignore is that the same effect could be achieved simply by messing with the mixture and timing on their own.

I also suspect that after fitting one of these devices people will be more aware of their fuel economy and subconsciously adjust their driving practices to further improve the devices apparent performance.

Having looked into this a bit more since my last post, I think that I agree with you. :D
advanced, forthright, signifficant
pronouns: he/him


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests