A perpetual motion machine that actually works?

a reply to: DexterRiley


That one is a beauty, I might try and make one of those. Did he have a circuit between the two pointed electrodes and the strip?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

False. The pendulum/magnet is the motor.

The pendulum would be the equivalent of the piston in an IC engine. It converts gravity, as the fuel, into usable motion. The magnets function as a supply for magnetic energy. The mechanical movements of the machine converts that energy into a mechanical boost, working in concert with the gravity powered mechanics. Again these are components in a motor. These pieces are not the motor itself.

The ball that rolls along the track is more akin to a flywheel and timing system. It simultaneously synchronizes all of these disparate components, and it benefits from the mechanical boost provided by these gravitational and magnetic drives.

So the useful work performed by the machine is embodied in the ball's motion as it functions in the capacity of an idling flywheel. This motion is the complex interaction of a number of components that must be properly synchronized. This is an example of a motor, much like an internal combustion engine.

The inventor spoke of harnessing the energy embodied in the steel ball to drive a paddlewheel connected to a shaft. That was his proposal, not mine.

I couldn't follow the link you provided, but I was able to get the following information from this link.

The inventor is currently displaying the device in his art gallery. It is open for the public. He seems very open about his 'moving sculpture'. He has no formal training in mechanics or physics. The ball has at present been in constant motion on the track for about one month.

An estimate of the power: If we assume the ball would come to a complete stop after 30 seconds with a starting velocity of 1 m/s without the magnets, the energy of the ball: E = 0.5 * m * V * V = 5 Joule would be spent.

Since P= E/t this gives a power loss along the track of P = 5 / 30 = 0.16 Watt.

This is well below Dr. Hal Puthoffs' '1 Watt Challenge'. BUT, the total ENERGY that the device has already produced is:
Etot = P * t , taking t = 1 month Etot = 0.16 * 2 592 000 s = 414 720 Joules

This implies to me that if the system is functioning as advertised, the only energy imparted into the machine is when the ball is first started around the track. There should be no additional drive other than what is produced from the magnets and gravity. If there is, that invalidates all claims and makes this conversation moot.

The author of this article states the starting velocity of the ball is 1 m/s, and it would be expected to travel for 30 seconds under that initial application. That represents a power loss of 5 Joules, or 0.16 watts.

Now if the machine runs for 2 weeks without any intervention, the actual amount of energy spent is 1,209,600 Joules. This is a lot more energy out than the initial amount of energy input to the machine.

However, because the ball does eventually stop, the amount of energy produced by the machine per unit time is still slightly less than what is needed for perpetual motion. Therefore this machine provides no additional power above what is required to keep the machine itself active over an extended time period.

I assume that the initial amount of energy provided to start the machine is being used to compensate for the difference in what is produced by the machine and what is necessary to keep the ball moving.

The provided link also indicates that the machine in its current configuration is not useful for anything other than what it does. However they believe that with more tinkering it could be made to do useful work. I think that may be possible by sacrificing runtime for actual useful work. Much like a battery, if it hangs around on a shelf for any length of time it will eventually discharge on its own. However a battery that is in use will discharge must faster. This is something for them to figure out. However, it seems to me this is an appropriate metaphor for how a device like this could work.

My interrogative concerning why he has not patented the device has been answered. I proposed it because I questioned the efficiency numbers they were claiming. Any machine that claims that level of efficiency should be worthy of a patent.

Do you know how efficient high-efficient electric motors are?

That would be 80%-90%. Approximately what they were claiming as the total efficiency of the machine. However, if this machine were a patentable invention, the fact that it's efficiency does not exceed that of other motors is not relevant. If for no other reason because it uses a different power source.

This is a work of art, there is no revolutionary motor breakthrough here.

I do not disagree with that. In fact, it has been my contention all along that what they are claiming is difficult to believe. I asked a few questions which I felt needed to be answered before their claims could be accepted.

Which has literally nothing to do with patenting the machine as a revolutionary motor.

I think you misunderstood the comment I made. The comment had nothing to do a patentable device, it was an explanation of why I ever proposed that a patent should be sought if the device is truly working as claimed. Others have indicated they believe there is another drive hidden in the base.

Other than our differences in defining what a motor is, we don't actually disagree on the usefulness of this machine. A thought experiment that I posted earlier was based on the notion that the paddlewheel, proposed by the inventor, would be able to harness some energy from the ball to do useful work. In that thought experiment I surmised that the amount of energy that could be harvested would be small.

In any event, this is as straightforward as I can explain my thought process. Take it or leave it.

I'm sure there will be elements of this post with which you will strongly disagree. In those cases, consider yourself the winner of the debate.


-dex

originally posted by: DexterRileyI'm sure there will be elements of this post with which you will strongly disagree. In those cases, consider yourself the winner of the debate.

I think we agree on more than we disagree. I also think I am sick of people taking the mundane and claiming it is fantastical, such as the people claiming this is a Perpetual Motion Machine. The person who brought up patents was implying he can't patent this device because they don't allow revolutionary perpetual motion machine devices like this one to be patented.

Perhaps some of that frustration found it's way to you, due to misunderstandings, when it should not have.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I thought it was funny that the writeup for the video itself said that perpetual motion machines are not possible, though the video itself purported to demonstrate just such a device. So it was evident that this was by no means a PMM, but I was curious how they may have pulled off this subterfuge.

I read through a lot of those comments, but there were too many to read them all. There were a lot of theories that were plausible. Some people thought that he was using air to move it. And he edited the sound to remove the noise from the video.

Other folks thought he was using a very tiny electric wire to run an electrostatic motor. And, as you saw, that would be consistent with some of those devices documented at my link.

The electrostatic motor theory was the most plausible to me. After looking at some of those diagrams, it seemed to me that it would be possible to make something look like a PMM by using that device. And those designs looked quite similar to the device demonstrated in the video.

I looked fairly closely and I couldn't see any wires. So I figure he may have used a large static electricity source off screen. Another thing occurred to me was perhaps he used concealed capacitors to serve the same purpose as the Leyden Jars in Ben Franklin's design. The limited capacity of those capacitors could account for the small amount of time the motor was shown in operation.

That was my thinking. It's definitely not a PMM. But a cleverly designed electrostatic motor could appear to be one.

-dex

a reply to: anonentity

It is pretty cool looking. I hit on some of my thoughts about this in this post.

If you are interested in building something like the man in the video, I'd suggest looking at this link. You might be able to take those designs and adapt them to the format he used.

Have fun!

-dex

Here is a guy who really went off the deep end.
His machine is a beautiful example of craftsmanship.
But it just ain't over unity.

originally posted by: DexterRiley
Some people thought that he was using air to move it. And he edited the sound to remove the noise from the video.

I noticed what looks like it could be a small opening in one of the two pieces of metal that don't touch the wheel, on the top, which would blow the wheel in the direction shown if air was coming out of it, did you see that?

That would also explain why the wheel moves in the direction it does. If you just follow his explanation of how/why it works, there doesn't seem to be any particular reason it would have any preference to rotate in one direction versus the other.

originally posted by: samkent
Here is a guy who really went off the deep end.
His machine is a beautiful example of craftsmanship.
But it just ain't over unity.

I wonder how many watts he's using just to make all that noise?

And that poor innocent pool table, why did he have to sacrifice that?

a reply to: DexterRiley


Thanks for that Dex. I'll have a go at the design that he used, I remember a while ago floating a bit of aluminium foil in a metal bowl with a capful of vinegar in the water, then placing the multimeter to the foil and the side of the bowl, the small charge it put out was interesting but as soon as the sun hit it, the reading went off the scale then down again as the clouds went over. I think the photons hitting the surface, pushed more electrons out. I might have a play on this theme.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I looked at the video a couple more times. I think I see what you are talking about. However, it looks to me like he puts the wheel on the pedestal both ways at one time or another throughout the video. But it always rotates in the same direction.

I also noticed that there is a small hole in the black painted side of the wheel. But the hole doesn't go all the way through the metal coating on the other side. Though I believe I can see a raised bump on the other side in approximately the same area.

At one point I was also watching the hair on his arm move slightly. That may indicate a breeze blowing, or a high voltage static electric field.

-dex

a reply to: anonentity

Sounds like an interesting experiment. Of course the foil in the acidic solution was a simple chemical battery. However, I'm not sure where the photoelectric effect came into play.

Sounds you like have an approach in mind that you want to take to the experiment. I encourage you to go for it. Just make sure to take lots of notes. It's always annoying when you make a discovery and there's no information about how you arrived at the solution.

Good luck and have fun!

-dex

a reply to: DexterRiley


Well the wheel and the basic assembly is made, I'm just turning the bearings up in brass, which should fit in the middle of the wheel which has a brass rod glued in with araldite with a couple of centre drill pips in its middle. With any luck it should be fairly frictionless. I'll pick up some foil tomorrow. I'll keep you posted.

Simply amazing craftsmanship
a reply to: introvert

That's really one mother of a contraption
a reply to: samkent

a reply to: DexterRiley,



So he claims that the foil strip is positively charged, and the " two pointy contacts" leach electrons by the way they are shaped, so you have an aluminium plate with random circuits, who's electrons migrate to the two pointed contacts . He says it acts like a capacitor, where the conductive aluminium plate, is attached to a polystyrene, non conductor. Which is a worry as their would be no capacitance in that set up. I think it might be a good hoax , as he doesn't seem to have a name or another explanatory vid. If it worked as stated the Chinese would be flooding the market with this cheaply made novelty. Unless theirs something he hasn't told us.
I made one up , "and so far the dog don't hunt" but the wheel is heavier than his, but the bearings have virtually no drag, so if it was, producing anything something should have happened.

,

a reply to: anonentity
It should work fine once you make the air hole in the top of the charge concentrating point and hook it up to a compressed air supply. In the video it looks like there's a hole there on the one on the right side.

a reply to: Arbitrageur


I think somebody worked out he was using a static field from a source nearby.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Arbitrageur


I think somebody worked out he was using a static field from a source nearby.

I don't know who worked that out, but I said before it's one possibility. This video on how to fake it at the end also mentions that possibility, but it shows another method of faking it with invisible wires connected to a 6000V power supply, but as the first comment I see asks, why do all this when you can use air? So that's at least 3 ways it can be easily faked:

Faked Perpetual Motion Machine -- my replication


There are also a number of ways to fake the machine in the OP video.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Hey very cool video! This guy said pretty much the same thing you said in an earlier post. #42 gauge wire is extremely fine and easily concealed by the random background pattern. Otherwise a high-voltage static generator offscreen could provide the energy, and the magician can use his finger as a ground.

Thanks for posting the video.

-dex

a reply to: Arbitrageur


Even a graphite pencil line makes a good circuit for high voltage transmission.

a reply to: anonentity

Even a graphite pencil line makes a good circuit for high voltage transmission

Interesting. Sounds like a circuit board trace. Something like that could be easily concealed by drawing the line on a black background.

Have you experimented with that?

-dex