I’d like to note a few observations about the later half of this vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqG-TL0WnjE
- As far as I can tell, there are an equal number of magnets on each
side of the circumference of the drum. Each one looks to be the same size
magnet. There are only two differences as far as I can see:
o The spacing between the two magnets which are at the same location on the
circumference, and
o There is one location where there are 4 magnets in-line at a given location
on the circumference.
- At 2:02 one can see that the two widely-spaced magnets and the two
narrowly-spaced ones are in-line, so you have double the weight at that
location on the circumference of the drum (the drum is not circumferentially
uniform as far as rotating mass).
- It is not clear from the vid, but would help to know if the entire
drum assembly is balanced. At 2:14 one can see what looks to be the head of a
brass screw just inside the circumferential plate near the bottom of the drum.
It is approximately opposite the 4 in-line magnets. Perhaps this is a
‘balance’ weight, and at 2:22 one can see what looks like a hole drilled thru
the inner structure; again something that might indicate an attempt to balance
the drum assembly.
- There are at least 6 places of energy-robbing friction:
o 2 Drum bearings, (don’t see bearings per se, but can see what looks like a
brass plate embedded in each wooden structural post)
o White oblong wheel rubbing against metal (bearing?) on wooden top bar,
o Top bar’s vertical post rubbing in its guide on the side of the structural
post
o The top bar’s loose end rubbing against the groove in the wooden vertical
structural post
o White oblong wheel pushing on the metal arm at the bottom to raise the
‘teeter-totter’ looking assembly mounted to clear plastic base.
- If unbalanced, and the larger circumferential mass is where the 4
in-line magnets are, then this increased mass is placed at the top, so it will
provide an initial force when the pin is pulled; it will fall due to gravity.
However, would not that force be counteracted after half a revolution when that
weight is now going up against gravity???
I.e., if you eliminated the cross-bar above the drum, and whatever is under the
drum, and just pulled the pin, I seriously doubt if the drum would even make it
past one full revolution; it would go up almost to its starting position, and
then reverse direction and basically oscillate back and forth until it came to
a stop. This would be a simple way to prove that the unequal circumferential
mass is NOT the cause for continuous motion.
- The device accelerates for at least 2 or 3 revolutions after he
pulls the pin to enable rotation to start. Where is the force coming from to
accelerate the drum, especially taking into consideration that it might not be
mass-balanced?
If real, I doubt if this concept is going to generate serious energy, however,
I’d like to see this unit put inside a locked clear display case and allowed to
run continuously to see how long it will run.
-Mark
From: Jouni Valkonen [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 11:31 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine
There is interesting thing to note, that the rotation of the wheel is
oscillating. This probably means that the oscillation is chaotic and is
governed by nonlinear dynamics. This also means that system is not freely
rotating, but there are significant friction forces that resist the rotation of
wheel. But magnetic pushing forces in the track are stronger than resisting
magnetic forces. Thus the work needed to be done to lift the driving magnet is
probably not the strongest force that is acting against the rotation.
Therefore this is not only very good proof of concept for perpetual motion
machine, but it is also very educational demonstration of chaotic oscillation
of rotation. Nonlinear dynamics in chaos theory is probably even more
interesting and more revolutionary idea to classical physics than perpetual
motion machine is.
This is indeed very interesting idea, because it shows, that the concept of
work in classical mechanics is ill-defined. Quantum mechanics is way more
interesting. Also QM does not comment on energy conservation of macroscopic
systems. It just states that energy is conserved in quantum systems. Why this
energy conservation principle cannot be applied to macroscopic system is
evident if we understand the concept of emergence.
Other interesting example for similar phenomenon is the formation of spiral
galaxies. It is needed huge amount of work to form spiral galaxy, but gravity
can still do it without consuming energy. Conservation of energy is failing at
macroscopic systems also if we look expanding universe as whole. Photons are
losing their energy but on the other hand, the amount of vacuum energy is
increasing exponentially while universe is expanding.
This is very interesting idea indeed, but this particular perpetual motion
machine can be understood well if we just understand what is the underlying
reason behind electromagnetism. The concept behind is no more problematic than
refrigerator magnet.
We live in nonlinear quantum universe. There is very little room for classical
mechanics!
James, I have not done the arithmetics, but it is important to understand that
permanent magnets do not store 'magnetic energy', but magnetism emerges from
the proper order of magnetic dipoles. Therefore magnetism is just information
and it can violate as a macroscopic system the conservation of energy
principles and QM has nothing to complain, because QM does not comment on
macroscopic systems.
—Jouni
On Sep 4, 2012, at 8:33 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote:
Has anyone tried to do any arithmetic here?
I mean to even an order of magnitude?
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Harry Veeder <[email protected]> wrote:
Assuming no hidden power sources, the assumption is the work done
repeatedly lifting the magnets (and the rod at the side) will
eventually exceed the energy required to place the magnets in their
starting position.
Harry
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:31 AM, Teslaalset <[email protected]> wrote:
> This stuff is quite misleading.
> One has to put energy in first to get the moving magnet into its starting
> position.
> So there is no energy gain.
>
