Perpetua... I mean... Interesting motion machine.

in the words of Homer Simpson:

"In my house we obey the Laws of Physics!"

:)

kinda hard to make a determination on if it really works or not based on a 4 minute youtube video
 
Well from the vid he seems to have eliminated or compensated for losses in the system, reducing them apparently to 0, allowing the system to continue operating.

VERY impressive.

Now the question is, can he draw power from it some other way and have it keep running?
 
AdamZ said:
In English someone?
Click to expand...

All I really got from it was:

"Magnets" "Unexplainable" and "Even if it's not perpetual, it could still increase the efficiency of motors"

That last part is a good thing, no matter what.
 
I would have an easier time believing he had built a machine that captured the Force than a perpetual motion machine. The laws of physics are not negotiable.
 
steingar said:
I would have an easier time believing he had built a machine that captured the Force than a perpetual motion machine. The laws of physics are not negotiable.
Click to expand...

The Laws of Physics get revisions all the time, there are no absolutes, only what we currently know...until we know more. It's not a point of negotiation, it's a point of discovery, there is still much we don't know, to believe we know an immutable set of "Laws" as pertains to a universe barely understood is not only arrogant, it is assinine and makes as much sense as the church burning early scientists for questioning and disproving Biblical "truths". Never close your mind because you know something can't be done, because there are no "can'ts", just "haven't yets".
 
wbarnhill said:
All I really got from it was:

"Magnets" "Unexplainable" and "Even if it's not perpetual, it could still increase the efficiency of motors"

That last part is a good thing, no matter what.
Click to expand...

Here's the deal, he was rotating a flywheel with magnets and a rather interesting coil set. With the coil set producing no electricity the rotor was turning at 51 rpm. When the coil loop set was closed, there was energy being produced, yet there was no loss of energy(rpm) from the flywheel as would be required under Lens' law. Now, this was a one out video from a set and didn't answer a couple of questions I have, but given that he demonstrated this at MIT (and I'm sure that my questions would have been asked and answered by that crowd since most of them are smarter than me) and they were surprised by the result, I'm willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt at the moment.
 
I've mentioned this before, but I honestly believe that the laws of physics are just plain wrong and misunderstood. I don't know the right answer, but I think we've got a lot of stuff wrong so far.
 
And physics, like math, is INVENTED to describe observed events. It comes AFTER the event, not before it. It may be useful to predict future things, but like any other forecast, it's not a guarantee.

And, just to REALLY stir the pot, the only difference between science and religion is that science has rigorous methods and doesn't claim to be infallible.
 
"Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."
-- J.B.S. Haldane
 
Henning said:
The Laws of Physics get revisions all the time, there are no absolutes, only what we currently know...until we know more. It's not a point of negotiation, it's a point of discovery, there is still much we don't know, to believe we know an immutable set of "Laws" as pertains to a universe barely understood is not only arrogant, it is assinine and makes as much sense as the church burning early scientists for questioning and disproving Biblical "truths". Never close your mind because you know something can't be done, because there are no "can'ts", just "haven't yets".
Click to expand...

There are many laws of physics that are absolute in the sense that they predict the outcome of experiments accurately. The law of energy conservation is one of the most fundamental ones and therefore least likely to ever be "disproven". In any case, I can tell you that it's far easier to demonstrate a "perpetual motion machine" by trickery than it is to show why a specific attempt is flawed. Also FWIW there is such a thing as perpetual motion, at least in the time frames we tend to consider "forever". The Moon orbiting the Earth is a very observable example as is the electron flow in a superconductor. The difference is that to be of any value a "perpetual motion machine" needs to perform work without any decrease in it's energy state and that ain't gonna happen, trust me.
 
lancefisher said:
The difference is that to be of any value a "perpetual motion machine" needs to perform work without any decrease in it's energy state and that ain't gonna happen, trust me.
Click to expand...

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe that is what he was demonstrating....
 
Henning said:
The Laws of Physics get revisions all the time, there are no absolutes, only what we currently know...until we know more. It's not a point of negotiation, it's a point of discovery, there is still much we don't know, to believe we know an immutable set of "Laws" as pertains to a universe barely understood is not only arrogant, it is assinine and makes as much sense as the church burning early scientists for questioning and disproving Biblical "truths". Never close your mind because you know something can't be done, because there are no "can'ts", just "haven't yets".
Click to expand...
I'm a day late and a dollar short. Steingar, what Henning said.... Specifically that point about arrogance.
 
Bullhockey. There are no exceptions to the laws of conservation of momentum. None, and never will be. I could not rule out that the dude's dohickey somehow tapped into some heretofore unknown source of energy (hence my comment about the Force). There could easily be sources of energy unknown to us at present that could be harnessed by some unconventional mechanism. But not a perpetual motion machine. Even the moon will eventually run down in its orbit when its hit enough hydrogen and meteors and whatnot. It probably has already.

Think about it for two seconds. We've been in a energy crisis for the last 30 years, with energy prices increasing on a regular basis. If even one of these crackpots were for real (and there's been a lot of them), you'd be running a perpetual motion generator in your Buick. All I see is a video which would be easy enough to gimmic. Seriously, if the guy is for real he's the next big thing, there will be power stations and such, he'll have more money than the House of Saud, and I'll be happily eating crow. Gosh perpetual energy with no fossil fuels, nuclear waste, or environmental contamination. Who wouldn't want that? But I'm honestly not worried about violating my vegetarian regimen just yet.
 
Steingar just made my point, being as fanatical about the "laws" of physics as any other person might be about their religion.

Now, if I had to bet, I'd bet with Steingar. But I'd know it was still a bet, and that I might (however unlikely) lose.
 
If it can spin a propeller and power the radios just by hand-propping, it's a good invention.
 
TMetzinger said:
Steingar just made my point, being as fanatical about the "laws" of physics as any other person might be about their religion.
Click to expand...

Am I a fanatic for insisting that 2+2=4? Same kinda thing. Don't mistake ignorance for wisdom.
 
Anyone else catch that he hand spools the wheel up while flipping a switch with his left hand that sounds suspiciously like an electric motor coming on? Just saying...

Now if that's true, using that motor as a base speed control, I can see the magnets affecting the speed to some extent (depending on the motor power and magnet strength) which is exactly what he appears to be trying to disprove.


"To my mind this is unexpected and new, and it's worth exploring all the possible advantages once you're convinced it's a real effect."
That comment would have got you backhanded by the professor in my undergraduate physics classes.
How about "...worth exploring all the possible advantages once you PROVE it's a real effect."

Based on the information available, I'm not buying it.

Cold Fusion anyone?
 
steingar said:
Bullhockey. There are no exceptions to the laws of conservation of momentum. None, and never will be. I could not rule out that the dude's dohickey somehow tapped into some heretofore unknown source of energy (hence my comment about the Force). There could easily be sources of energy unknown to us at present that could be harnessed by some unconventional mechanism. But not a perpetual motion machine. Even the moon will eventually run down in its orbit when its hit enough hydrogen and meteors and whatnot. It probably has already.

Think about it for two seconds. We've been in a energy crisis for the last 30 years, with energy prices increasing on a regular basis. If even one of these crackpots were for real (and there's been a lot of them), you'd be running a perpetual motion generator in your Buick. All I see is a video which would be easy enough to gimmic. Seriously, if the guy is for real he's the next big thing, there will be power stations and such, he'll have more money than the House of Saud, and I'll be happily eating crow. Gosh perpetual energy with no fossil fuels, nuclear waste, or environmental contamination. Who wouldn't want that? But I'm honestly not worried about violating my vegetarian regimen just yet.
Click to expand...

You are the reason people cannot understand the difference between Religion and Science. Just stop talking, it works better that way for everyone (especially your own self image).

If that seems rude, go read some basic science book, and find how many times the words "irrefutible" or "fact" appears. Then come back and tell me that there is ANY part of Science that is not open to change.

The sun goes around the Earth, Steingar. :rolleyes:
 
steingar said:
Am I a fanatic for insisting that 2+2=4? Same kinda thing. Don't mistake ignorance for wisdom.
Click to expand...

Well, like I mentioned in another thread, 2+2 can equal 5 (for extremely large values of 2 or extremely small values of 5), so.... :dunno:


:D
 
ReverendSlappy said:
Well, like I mentioned in another thread, 2+2 can equal 5 (for extremely large values of 2 or extremely small values of 5), so.... :dunno:
Click to expand...

2=1 but that doesn't mean the math used to prove it is right.
 

Attachments

  • 2is1-einstein.jpg
    2is1-einstein.jpg
    33.5 KB · Views: 10
SkyHog said:
You are the reason people cannot understand the difference between Religion and Science. Just stop talking, it works better that way for everyone (especially your own self image).

If that seems rude, go read some basic science book, and find how many times the words "irrefutible" or "fact" appears. Then come back and tell me that there is ANY part of Science that is not open to change.

The sun goes around the Earth, Steingar. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The Sun and Earth rotate around a point in space where their gravitational pulls are at equilibrium with their rotational energies. I reference my earlier post. 2+2 does equal 4.
 
SkyHog said:
You are the reason people cannot understand the difference between Religion and Science. Just stop talking, it works better that way for everyone (especially your own self image).

If that seems rude, go read some basic science book, and find how many times the words "irrefutible" or "fact" appears. Then come back and tell me that there is ANY part of Science that is not open to change.

The sun goes around the Earth, Steingar. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The Sun and Earth rotate around a point in space where their gravitational pulls are at equilibrium with their orbital energies. I reference my earlier post. 2+2 does equal 4.
 
There are three types of mathematicians - those who can count and those who can't!
 
ReverendSlappy said:
Or it means that you're a physics geek, and you're measuring something. Or you're telling a math joke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_plus_two_equals_five#Science
Click to expand...

Looks like theoretical interpretation of facts not supplied in real world applications.
2+2=4 +- 1.0
Therefore:
2+2=4 -1.0=3
AND
2+2=4 +1.0=5
Thus 3=5 for very large values of 3, or small values of 5 for an error of +-25% for a total potential of 50% error.
That doesn't change the fact that you still can't put 62.5 gallons in a 50 gallon tank without making a mess. (Trust me, I've tried it several times with my RV fresh water tank and all you get if you're standing anywhere near the inlet every single time without fail is a bath)
Think about it.

IIRC rounding is commonly done to significant digits given, not beyond the last digit supplied. Also for (statistical?) averaging of data points to avoid tolerance stacking you could so something like 2+0.5 then 2-0.5 to get an average between the data points.
IOW, round 2 to no decimal and/or statistically = 2.0


Integer 2 + Integer 2 = Integer 4
Anything else will put you in the trees at the end of the runway.
 
Last edited:
steingar said:
The Sun and Earth rotate around a point in space where their gravitational pulls are at equilibrium with their orbital energies.
Click to expand...

Ooh, is that another one of Science's irrefutible facts? Or possibly a Scientific theory?

I reference my earlier post. 2+2 does equal 4.
Click to expand...

Unless somehow the value of 2 is changed. Not likely, but not impossible, I suppose.
 
fgcason said:
Looks like theoretical interpretation of facts not supplied in real world applications.
2+2=4 +- 1.0
Therefore:
2+2=4 -1.0=3
AND
2+2=4 +1.0=5
Thus 3=5 for very large values of 3, or small values of 5 for an error of +-25% for a total potential of 50% error.
That doesn't change the fact that you still can't put 62.5 gallons in a 50 gallon tank without making a mess. (Trust me, I've tried it several times with my RV fresh water tank and all you get if you're standing anywhere near the inlet every single time without fail is a bath)
Think about it.

IIRC rounding is commonly done to significant digits given, not beyond the last digit supplied. Also for (statistical?) averaging of data points to avoid tolerance stacking you could so something like 2+0.5 then 2-0.5 to get an average between the data points.
IOW, round 2 to no decimal and/or statistically = 2.0


Integer 2 + Integer 2 = Integer 4
Anything else will put you in the trees at the end of the runway.
Click to expand...

All very true. But the point is that that's all dependent on the precision of the measurement... 50 gallons is 50 gallons. Unless it's actually 50.000000001 gallons. Not so important, perhaps, for filling your RV. For filling 100s of thousands of vehicles though, well, then it's a little more important.

So, to the average person, to the question "If I have 2 apples and you have 2 apples, how many apples do we have total?" the answer is, simply, 4. To a geek (or a freak, depends on how you look at it :D ), the answer is, "It depends on how precisely we can define and subsequently measure 'apple'."

But in the end, it's just a thought exercise with little meaning in the real world. And, as it happens, a fun way to annoy people who use "2 plus 2 equals 4" in their arguments.
 
ReverendSlappy said:
"It depends on how precisely we can define and subsequently measure 'apple'."
Click to expand...

What was the old equality phrase for that?
Correct within an order of magnitude = WRONG!
:D

ReverendSlappy said:
But in the end, it's just a thought exercise with little meaning in the real world. And, as it happens, a fun way to annoy people who use "2 plus 2 equals 4" in their arguments.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Just fun and games...Unless it's -15F outside while putting 35F water in the tank without a jacket on. BTW, any victi,um,volunteers for a first hand practical application experiment of 2+2=5 thus 5=4 being correct during the next cold spell? ;) :rofl:
 
fgcason said:
Agreed. Just fun and games...Unless it's -15F outside while putting 35F water in the tank without a jacket on. BTW, any victi,um,volunteers for a first hand practical application experiment of 2+2=5 thus 5=4 being correct during the next cold spell? ;) :rofl:
Click to expand...

Hmm... Nah, I'll go ahead and assume that the margin of error in that case is more than sufficiently tolerable for the application. I like having all my fingers, toes, and other appendages intact and frostbite-free. :D
 
I absolutely hate discussions in which both religion and science get discussed at the same time. They are not comparable at all, and do not belong in the same sentence. Yes, the "laws" of science have undergone revisions over the years. Sometimes drastic revisions. Any scientist who doesn't admit the possibility of this happening can hardly call themselves a scientist. Evidence accumulates, that's how it works. I teach my students about conservation of energy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics... I am not teaching them a "religion", I am teaching them a model of the universe which has held up under detailed and precise scrutiny for over 100 years, a model upon which we all place our trust every single day. A major pet peeve of mine is those who know enough about the scientific method to say, "I think the laws of physics might be wrong!" but then they happily step into an airplane, turn on a computer, microwave their food, etc... which is implicitly placing your trust in these laws, many of which are even *newer* than 100 years.

(end of rant)
--Kath

P.S. Try teaching students science without using words like "we know..." or "it's a fact that...". It is nearly impossible. There is simply not time enough in the semester to begin every such sentence with "to this date, overwhelming evidence supports the conclusion that..." instead.
 
Kate, by the time a student gets to one of your classes, they should already know that anytime a true scientist says "we know" it means "to this date, overwhelming evidence supports the conclusion that..."

As I said, science tells you which way to bet on an outcome (like getting on an airplane), and often tells you how confident you should be on that bet. That's as good as it gets in life, in my opinion.
 
SkyHog said:
If that seems rude, go read some basic science book, and find how many times the words "irrefutible" or "fact" appears. Then come back and tell me that there is ANY part of Science that is not open to change.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what "basic science books" you've read, but well documented "scientific methods" involve developing theories and devising experiments (thought or laboratory) and determining whether or not the results support the theory. Granted that some so called "scientists" have jumped to conclusions without following scientific methods and others have by mistake found "evidence" that their flawed theories were valid, but most of the high impact changes in "scientific knowledge" have been the result of a combination of refined measurement capabilities coupled with innovative, open minded thinking.

That said, there are several troublesome aspects of this "revelation" about "magnetic energy":

First, the time tested proper forum for introducing a revision in any accepted scientific principle is to provide a detailed description of an experiment in a respected scientific publication that others can use to duplicate the result. Then after said experiments have been found to produce similar answers, and domain knowledge experts have had the opportunity to scrutinize the methods of the experiments for flaws the new "knowledge" will become accepted by growing numbers of those with enough understanding to have a valid opinion.

Almost universally, when the introduction of "evidence" that refutes commonly accepted "knowledge" (aka scientific opinion) is via "demonstrations" to the public without sufficient detail to allow such repetitions by others and expert scrutiny of the methods the "evidence" turns out to have either been deliberately falsified or simply in error due to improper experimental techniques (see the part about scrutiny of methods above). And generally such an introduction is deemed necessary to protect the intellectual property of the "inventor" although what's more often than not at stake is the ability to dupe willing investors into throwing their money away on the "invention".

Until this "perpetual motion machine" passes the proper rigor of a peer review I have absolutely no faith in the accuracy of any of the claims involving a "free source of energy". And I know enough about magnetics to lead me to doubt that any application of electromagnets and permanent magnets could ever yield such a breakthrough, even though I am willing to consider that there are untapped sources of energy yet to be revealed in the universe.
 
lancefisher said:
I'm not sure what "basic science books" you've read, but well documented "scientific methods" involve developing theories and devising experiments (thought or laboratory) and determining whether or not the results support the theory. Granted that some so called "scientists" have jumped to conclusions without following scientific methods and others have by mistake found "evidence" that their flawed theories were valid, but most of the high impact changes in "scientific knowledge" have been the result of a combination of refined measurement capabilities coupled with innovative, open minded thinking.
Click to expand...

You're arguing the same point I am. To say that anything in science is irrefutible is narrow sighted and wrong.
 
kath said:
I absolutely hate discussions in which both religion and science get discussed at the same time. They are not comparable at all, and do not belong in the same sentence.
Click to expand...

Yes, and when idiot statements like Steingar's come around like "God hath said that the Conservation of Momentum is defined and undeniable" I get offended and jump to the religion card, because there's not much difference between "Evolution cannot happen" and "Conservation of Energy is fact!"

Yes, the "laws" of science have undergone revisions over the years. Sometimes drastic revisions. Any scientist who doesn't admit the possibility of this happening can hardly call themselves a scientist. Evidence accumulates, that's how it works. I teach my students about conservation of energy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics... I am not teaching them a "religion", I am teaching them a model of the universe which has held up under detailed and precise scrutiny for over 100 years, a model upon which we all place our trust every single day.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And Steingar is making your work look silly and pointless by saying that these laws are unchangeable.

A major pet peeve of mine is those who know enough about the scientific method to say, "I think the laws of physics might be wrong!" but then they happily step into an airplane, turn on a computer, microwave their food, etc... which is implicitly placing your trust in these laws, many of which are even *newer* than 100 years.
Click to expand...

Right, because blindly following any scientific theory/law is much smarter than the "trust but verify method."

Not sure if this was directed at me or not, but if it was, you misunderstand me, and I'm not gonna sit back and have a bunch of "scientists" claim that their work is definite and cannot be disproven. That's not science. That's bullheadedness.

BTW, Kath, I have massive amounts of respect for you and what you do, and I'm praying that you are not one of those scientists that believes the bull that Steingar is spewing. That would be a big hurt to me to learn that someone I respected so hard has fallen to the dark side of science.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top