The Museum of Unworkable Devices

نوشته شده در موضوع تولید انرژی رایگان در 06 مه 2017

This museum is a jubilee of fascinating inclination that
don’t work. It houses opposite examples of a impolite talent of inventors
who refused to let their meditative be intimidated by a laws of nature, remaining
optimistic in a face of plain failures. Watch and be vacant as we bring
to life individualist and even perplexing incessant fit machines that have
remained resolutely idle given their inception. Marvel during a ingenuity
of a tellurian mind, as it reinvents a block circle in all of a possible
variations. Exercise your mind to nonplus out accurately given they don’t work
as a inventors intended.

This, like many pages during this site, is a work in progress. Expect revisions
and serve of new material. Since these pages are created in pieces and pieces
over a prolonged duration of time, there’s firm to be some use of ideas.
This competence be irritating to those who review from commencement to end, and competence be
just glorious for those who review these pages in pieces and pieces.


  • The Physics Gallery, an educational tour. The production of infeasible inclination and a production of a genuine world.
  • The Annex for even some-more implausible and infeasible machines.
  • Advanced Concepts Gallery where crafty inventors go over a exemplary overbalanced wheels.
  • New Acquisitions. We’re not certain where to put these.
  • Will They Work? These ideas don’t explain incessant fit or
    over-unity performance, nor do they explain to violate physics. But will they work?
  • Whatever Were They Thinking?
    The ground behind customary forms of incessant fit devices.
  • The Gallery of Ingenious, nonetheless Impractical Devices. Not incessant fit nonetheless positively ill conceived.
  • The Basement Mechanic’s Guide to Building Perpetual Motion Machines.
  • The Basement Mechanic’s Guide to Testing Perpetual Motion Machines.
  • Fake Perpetual Motion Machines You Can Build.
  • Perpetual Futility, A brief story of a hunt for incessant motion.
  • The John Worrell Keely Memorial Gallery.
  • Hall of Machinery. Watch these machines spin forever.
  • Unworkable Devices as Fine Art. Special vaunt now open.
  • Themed Galleries: The expansion and diligence of infeasible concepts.
  • The Reading Room.
    • Nature’s impossibilities.
    • Why won’t my incessant fit appurtenance work? For
      those who wish discerning answers.
    • Things to cruise before we rewrite exemplary physics.
    • Basic concepts of exemplary physics.
    • Are production laws universal?
    • Violating Newton’s Laws.
    • On a frictionless spin plane, will a cylinder
      hurl forever?
      No, nonetheless a reasons are interesting.
    • A invulnerability of a query for incessant motion. by Ken Amis.
    • Letters to Ken Amis.
    • Patents for infeasible devices.
    • Physics 101 for incessant fit appurtenance inventors.
    • What is Energy?
    • The psychology of incessant fit appurtenance inventors.

    Related Galleries.

    • Gallery of artistic impossibilities.
    • Gallery of 3d stereo artistic impossibilities.

    • Donald Simanek’s Front Page.

    Web resources.

    • Deceptions by Peter Parsons. We don’t speak many about counsel contemporary scams and deceptions on these pages. We don’t have to, for this glorious site debunks them thoroughly. Click on a “scams” add-on for more. The site also has information on both genuine and fake appetite saving strategies.

    The Main Gallery

    • It’ll never work!
    • Overbalanced wheels.
    • Stevin’s problem.
    • More on Stevin’s Principle.
    • Friction and idealizations.
    • Tapping quantum weirdness. NEW!
    • What about giveaway energy?
    • Buoyancy engine 1.

    • Buoyancy engine 2.
    • Buoyancy engine 3.
    • Buoyancy engine 4.
    • Capillary motor.
    • Capillary wheels.
    • George Sinclair’s siphon.
    • The Schadewald sobriety engine.
    • Simanek’s bouncing spin engine.
    • Gravity defense engine.
    • The Classic captivating defense engine.
    • Links to other sites.
    • Bibliography.

    It’ll never work!

    Closed-cycle mill, 17th century.

    The tenure “perpetual fit machine” has several definitions.

    1. Any device that continues a fit forever, nonetheless any speed reduction. This is
      a verbatim interpretation of a words.
    2. Any device whose operation would violate determined laws of physics, or would count on quite suppositional laws opposite to physics. This is a local usage.
    3. A appurtenance that eternally puts out some-more appetite than it takes in. Nowadays this is
      called an “over-unity machine” given a appetite potency would be incomparable than one.

    I will embody a final dual of these underneath a tenure “unworkable devices”. The initial one
    does not violate any elemental physics, nonetheless it does not start in large-scale structures given of dual contribution of nature: (1) no materials are ideally firm bodies and (2) attrition and other energy-dissipative processes are always present. The customarily systems we know of, such as atoms, that seem to vaunt consistent appetite and transformation eternally (if undisturbed) are such a inlet that we can't directly establish presumably there’s unequivocally any motion going on within them. Our regard is not with these, nonetheless with systems that would appear to violate production laws on a perceivable scale—machines that have intermittent operation and could be finished to furnish useful work forever, nonetheless appetite input.

    Perpetual fit appurtenance proposals are mostly discharged by scientists in a demeanour that
    appears to a layperson as reckless rejecting regulating peremptory assertions that
    such machines are taboo from operative by a “laws of thermodynamics”.
    This does not infer a chairman who “knows” a little physics, nonetheless considers
    the laws of thermodynamics a bit mysterious. The unequivocally impression of such laws
    is off-putting to a normal person, given they have an atmosphere of finality
    and negativity.

    Thermodynamics laws and charge laws have good appetite given they allow
    us to envision certain things about a complement nonetheless examining all aspects
    of a mechanism. They even concede assured predictions in provoke of a ignorance
    of some sum or initial problems in examining them. The experienced
    scientist will use these to import a due device, that seems to a non-scientist
    to be a disaster to cruise all a details.

    Of march physicists don’t explain that any production laws paint final and
    unalterable truth. The incessant fit (PM) appurtenance contriver pounces on
    this and says “Such laws would have us give adult perplexing to learn anything
    new! What if there were a smirch in these laws, a smirch that we could learn and

    It’s a chronological fact that a laws of thermodynamics were essentially proposed
    to report a fact that all prior attempts to grasp incessant motion
    had failed. We’ve schooled some-more about these laws given then, and have a much
    better bargain of them and given they are so absolute in describing what
    can and can’t start in nature.

    Any sold exemplary automatic PM appurtenance can be shown to be unsound in concept
    or execution by distant easier and decisive means. The apparent approach is to simply exam a appurtenance to see if it lives adult to a inventor’s claims. Fraudulent claims
    may infrequently be unprotected this way. But a inventor’s common greeting to a disaster of his device is to say, “It customarily needs a bit some-more work to labour and urge a pattern or revoke a friction.”

    On another spin are proposals that haven’t nonetheless been built. Such
    proposals competence come from honest (though maybe misguided) people who know
    some production or engineering (but not enough). How can we establish whether
    these are value a time and difficulty to develop? We competence not have to go to the
    trouble and responsibility of building them. Perpetual fit proposals can
    be shown to be formed on unsound reasoning, or on disagreement or
    misapplication of apparent and well-tested facile laws and beliefs of

    This can be a useful use for meddlesome laypersons, and for high school
    and beginner college students holding physics, even before they have been
    exposed to a laws of thermodynamics. My purpose, in this document, is to
    subject some of a exemplary incessant fit appurtenance proposals to such analysis. In the
    process we will come to improved know a facile production laws, and understand
    how they can be misunderstood, misinterpreted and misapplied. This use can
    strengthen one’s bargain of physics.

    I will be meddlesome in examining examples of these classes of proposals
    and claims:

    (1) Devices that are claimed to sojourn in continual fit nonetheless input
    of appetite and nonetheless producing outlay work.
    Obviously such inclination would require
    energy to get them moving, nonetheless 0 thereafter. This outline is nothing
    more than a matter of what perpetual motion means. These inclination (if they indeed worked)
    would have no purpose other than to dazzle onlookers and provoke physicists and engineers.
    Such inclination would not indispensably violate any elemental production laws or principles. Stable
    atoms are earthy objects whose inner processes continue eternally without
    loss of energy, if a atom is not disturbed. So they are examples of “perpetual
    motion” (moving forever), nonetheless in a production novel these aren’t called
    “perpetual fit machines”. That tenure is indifferent for a device that would
    violate one or some-more of a laws of thermodynamics. This is given a word
    “machine” is indifferent for inclination that furnish an outlay of useful work, while these
    continually branch systems don’t outlay any work and therefore aren’t machines.

    Some folks bring a fit of planets around a vigilant as an instance of incessant motion. On a perceivable scale we can uncover that incessant fit isn’t happening, even nonetheless watchful around for an eternity. If a fit of a complement is celebrated for a calculable time and found to be dwindling in speed,
    then clearly it is losing appetite continually, and can’t pierce perpetually. This is a box even
    for a solar system, as automatic appetite and tidal deformations waste automatic appetite into thermal energy. There are no perceivable (large scale) mechanisms famous that pierce nonetheless negligence down, and it is customarily due to those
    ever-present appetite dissipative processes such as friction. The
    fact that these dissipative processes are always benefaction is a fact of nature, nonetheless we don’t usually
    elevate that fact to a standing of a “law of nature”. This fact, however, is not a solitary means of
    failure of all incessant fit appurtenance proposals, as we will see.

    (2) Devices that are claimed to sojourn in fit nonetheless appetite submit while still
    producing outlay energy.
    Such due inclination competence need a pull to get
    them started, nonetheless no submit appetite thereafter. This is a kind of machine
    inventors seek. Sometimes a contriver refuses to undo a starter
    battery after a appurtenance is moving. This is suspicious.

    (3) Devices that need appetite submit to sojourn in motion, nonetheless are claimed
    to furnish outlay appetite incomparable than a submit energy.
    These days some folks
    call these “over-unity” machines, given their inventors explain they have
    energy efficiencies incomparable than one. Clearly such a appurtenance (if it existed) could
    be engineered to be a category (2) appurtenance by simply ludicrous partial of a output
    energy and feeding it behind to a submit to expostulate a machine. Curiously,
    inventors who explain to have finished an over-unity appurtenance conflict any suggestions
    that they do this in sequence to conclusively infer their claims for a machine.
    This is also suspicious.

    (4) Devices that daub some suppositious concept all-pervasive “free energy”
    that a inventors suppose fills all of space.
    Back in a 19th century
    it used to be a energy
    of a luminiferous sky that was presumably being tapped. Now that we
    no longer take a existence of a sky severely these folks claim
    to be drumming some arrange of “energy
    of a vacuum.” Anyway, they claim, it’s “out there” and giveaway for a taking.
    If there unequivocally were such an appetite source, these machines wouldn’t be violating
    any earthy laws. Unfortunately a presumed source of appetite is mostly concocted just
    to fit a functions of a inventor, and is wholly a product of a inventor’s
    imagination, unsupported by any other individualist evidence. So, to a objective
    observer, these machines are experimentally and theoretically indistinguishable
    from form (3).

    Since inventors (seekers) of giveaway appetite inclination explain that such machines do have
    appetite input, they reject a tag of “perpetual-motion machines”. They
    also reject any suspicion that they could divert
    some outlay appetite to a yield a compulsory input, on a forgive that a machines are only
    means of holding in appetite from a “free energy” source, or that a “free
    energy” is of a subtly opposite impression from typical energy.

    Scientists systematise PM machines by anxiety to a thermodynamics laws
    they would violate.

    • Perpetual fit machines of a initial kind violate a initial law of thermodynamics. They furnish some-more appetite outlay than input, that is, they have an potency incomparable than one.
    • Perpetual fit machines of a second kind violate a second law of thermodynamics. They would engage 0 or disastrous changes of entropy.

    I won’t use this sequence much, for we wish to equivocate any interest to the
    laws of thermodynamics in this document. My vigilant is to uncover that all unworkable
    devices violate some-more elemental laws, laws that have been well-tested,
    and well-integrated into earthy theory. Usually these are laws presented in undergraduate
    physics textbooks. But a examples we intend to analyze
    are those that are given unsound investigate in customary books and articles.
    Many were creatively due not as germane machines, nonetheless as crafty challenge
    puzzles and paradoxes to exam bargain of earthy principles.


    Overbalanced wheels.

    The overbalanced circle incessant fit suspicion apparently originated in India,
    in a 8th century CE. In his Sysyadhivrddhida Tantra (748 CE) a Indian astronomer Lalla described a self-rotating circle driven by mercury relocating along a winding spokes.

    A transformation of this suspicion was described by a Indian
    author Bhaskara (c. 1159). It was a circle with containers of mercury
    around a rim. As a circle turned, a mercury was ostensible to pierce within
    the containers in such a approach that a circle would always be heavier on one
    side of a axle. [GIF by Hans-Peter Gramatke, used with permission.]

    This suspicion appears again in Europe in a year 1235 when a French architect
    Villard de Honnecourt described an overbalanced circle with hinged hammers
    equally spaced around a rim. The pattern displays obscure perspective.
    The circle is indeed ostensible to be perpendicular to a support and to the
    horizontal axle. Villard’s outline (translated) is:

    Many a time have crafty workmen attempted to plan a circle that should
    spin of itself; here is a approach to make such a one, by means of an disproportionate number
    of mallets, or by quicksilver.

    The anxiety to quicksilver (the potion member mercury) indicates that Villard
    was informed with a Bhaskara device, whose pattern had reached Europe by approach of Arabia. Villard claimed his appurtenance would be useful for sawing timber and
    raising weights.

    Villard’s blueprint shows 7 hammers, and he insisted
    on an peculiar (uneven) array of hammers, explaining

    …there will always be 4 on a downward side of a circle and customarily 3 on
    the roof side; so a racket or bag will always tumble over to a left
    as it reaches a top, ad infinitum.

    But, presumably a array of hammers is peculiar or even, such a circle comes to
    rest unequivocally soon. You have to give it a forceful pull to make it govern even one revolution.

    This “overbalanced
    wheel” suspicion reappeared in an strange accumulation of forms over a centuries.
    We uncover a improved blueprint from a after time. A complement of pegs or stops was
    required to reason a hammers during a vast stretch from a spindle after they
    flipped over a tip and concede them to hang openly as they came around the
    other side. Perhaps a ground was that a balls had some-more impulse (of
    inertia) on one side due to a incomparable pull arms (even nonetheless a principles
    of torque hadn’t nonetheless been formalized during this time).

    Even nonetheless there are fewer balls on one side of a spindle during any given position,
    these have incomparable pull arms and therefore incomparable torque. As a produce swings
    and falls nearby a tip of a wheel, a circle slows during a produce fall,
    then gains some speed when a produce hits a peg. There’s no net benefit in
    speed, and there’s irrevocable appetite detriment when hammers strike pegs. If given
    a push, a circle will spin jerkily for a while. If it were given a very
    forceful initial push, a hammers would assume radial positions and the
    wheel would spin many some-more uniformly and efficiently, nonetheless would gradually
    lose speed and rotational appetite given of atmosphere drag and temperament friction,
    just as any spinning circle would.

    We have mostly used accounts of Villard’s bargain of a principles
    of this machine. However, we do not consider that a folks who were fascinated
    with this suspicion were unknowingly of a immobile change condition of a wheel.
    I assume that they ostensible a circle would customarily work after it was manually
    set in motion, with a hammers giving it additional boost as they discerning flipped
    across a top, maybe (they competence have thought) this was due to some “advantage”
    obtained from a fit of any weight flipping to a position with a larger
    lever arm.

    This flipping transformation is much
    like that of a wire that gives a chairman a ability to chuck a indent a greater
    distance, or a wire encircle engine mortar famous as a Trebuchet. Honnecort
    wrote about these machines of war, describing one with an 8x12x12 feet box
    of silt as counterweight (which could import 80 tons). Some had arms 50 feet
    long and were means of slinging a 300 bruise indent 300 yards. This connection
    to a overhanging hammers of Honnecort’s circle and Trebuchets is conjecture on my part, unsupported by any chronological investigate I’ve seen.

    Even nonetheless a wire transformation of a Trebuchet allows a incomparable potency of
    energy acclimatisation compared to a rigid-arm catapult, a appurtenance still puts
    out no some-more appetite than that of a descending weight that drives it. Modern
    Trebuchets (built by hobbyists) have achieved appetite acclimatisation efficiencies
    of incomparable than 65%.

    The overbalanced circle suspicion was re-invented many times over a centuries,
    sometimes in fantastically elaborate variations. None ever worked as
    their inventors intended. But wish never dies. I’ve seen examples made
    by nation blacksmiths and groundwork tinkerers. The exemplary mechanics necessary
    to investigate automatic systems is now good known, and when one takes a trouble
    to do this there’s no poser during all given they don’t spin forever, and no
    reason given they should.


    Simon Stevin’s problem

    Simon Stevin (1548-1620)
    Stevin’s ball-ramp experiment,
    a “clootcrans” (chain of balls).

    Flemish mathematician and operative Simon Stevin (1548-1620) formidable the
    principles of mechanisms and machines. He was a forceful censor of many of
    Aristotle’s mechanics; his possess studies were some-more in a Archimedian tradition.

    One of Stevin’s many acclaimed contributions to mechanics was his use of a
    chain of balls (clootcrans) on dual prone ramps as a means for developing
    a routine of what we would now call a force parallelogram.

    Stevin finished use of this ball-chain in a artistic way. He forthrightly asserted
    that any suspicion that a sequence competence pierce of a possess settle was apparently absurd. He
    gives no reason for this, maybe presumption that 0 was necessary. Perhaps
    underlying this was a fact that if a sequence were to pierce a stretch equal to
    the subdivision of a balls (in presumably direction), a new position would be
    identical to a prior one. In effect, no earthy change had occurred, therefore
    it won’t start nonetheless outmost influence. If so, this is an early use of what is today
    known as a “principle of practical work”, or infrequently “Stevin’s principle.”

    Taking his starting indicate as a fact that a sequence does not pierce perpetually,
    Stevin subsequent a allied of a formidable law of combination of forces.
    Stevin deliberate this to be so critical that this pattern of a ball-chain appears
    on a pretension page of Stevin’s book on mechanics, as his “trademark”.

    Stevin’s feat was an early instance of how one can delicately analyze
    a automatic complement to establish presumably (and how) it works. Stevin accomplished
    this prolonged before a matrix methods of force investigate was understood, and before plan of charge of appetite and a laws of thermodynamics. Stevin also adopted a useful tactic of examining mechanisms in a “ideal” box where attrition is insincere absent.

    Some books bring this as Stevin’s explanation of a stupidity of incessant motion. That
    was not a case, for Stevin simply assumed a stupidity of incessant motion,
    at slightest in this situation.


    More on Stevin’s principle

    Stevin’s element is useful for problems in equilibrium, and is mathematically
    equivalent to force analysis. In a automatic complement where things are free
    to move, will they? One approach to find out is to mathematically investigate a sum of forces
    on any partial of a complement (and also do a same for torques). If they supplement to zero, a tools won’t accelerate.

    Stevin’s element allows us to do this in an swap (yet equivalent)
    way. The routine starts by devising a “virtual displacement” of a system,
    then calculate a net work during this “virtual”
    motion. This is called a “virtual work”. If a net practical work is zero,
    the complement is in equilibrium, and will not
    accelerate. In use a investigate is customarily carried out by imagining
    very little displacements.

    [The practical displacements need not be tangible or even approaching ones. For example,
    to calculate a tragedy force in a overpass girder, one competence suppose a girder
    being damaged or cut and a pieces that are authorised to move.]

    This routine is quite useful for systems that are frictionless or
    nearly so. This is ideal for examining incessant fit appurtenance proposals. It’s a Gedanken
    (thought) experiment, nonetheless when no operative indication of a appurtenance is supplied,
    that’s all we have to work with. We suppose a complement to be frictionless
    (giving a contriver a advantage) afterwards if we can uncover that even with this
    advantage a appurtenance still can’t work as claimed, we can consign
    the offer to a Museum of Unworkable Devices.

    Before we
    return to Stevin’s problem of a double ramp and sequence let’s initial consider
    the associated problem of a double ramp of tallness z and ramp lengths
    x and y. Let’s contend that x y. A weight
    A is on a x ramp and a weight B is on the
    y ramp. They are connected by a wire flitting over a pulley during the

    Reminder: Work is finished on a physique when it moves underneath a transformation of a force.
    Work is a product of a force member in a instruction of fit and
    a stretch a physique moves.

    Imagine a fit of A adult a ramp length x that moves
    mass A a straight stretch z. This causes B to
    move a same stretch x down a ramp, or a fragment x/y
    of a length of that ramp, and therefore a straight stretch (x/y)z
    down. We interpretation that for balance these weights and distances contingency satisfy
    Ay = Bx, or A/B = x/y.

    Returning to Stevin’s problem, regulating a same ramp, a apportionment of chain
    on ramp x has length x. The apportionment on y has length
    y. The weights of sequence are in suit to a lengths, so A/B
    = x/y
    automatically satisfies a condition for equilibrium. Therefore
    the complement will not pierce on a possess initiative. The reduce loop of sequence obviously
    contributes 0 that would disquiet equilibrium.

    The element of practical work can be extended to torques, and in formidable form

    If a practical work finished by all outmost army behaving on a
    particle, a firm body, or a complement of connected firm bodies with ideal
    (frictionless) connectors and supports, is 0 for all practical displacements
    of a system, afterwards a complement is in equilibrium.

    Let’s not boot that reduce loop so casually, for it is doing something
    very critical here. During any practical (imagined) motion, it is supplying
    new mass to a apportionment of sequence fibbing on one side of a ramp accurately as
    fast as a apportionment of sequence on a other side of a ramp loses mass. It
    is provision transformation to one shred of sequence during a same rate
    as momentum
    is mislaid from a other segment. This, however, does 0 to urge the
    PM machine’s chances of working. It is a apparatus that keeps a ramp portion
    of a complement unvaried over time, even during practical motion. We will see
    this routine during work (virtual work, of course) in many other incessant machine

    We competence reiterate Stevin’s element in a form some-more directly germane to devices
    claimed to be incessant fit machines:

    If an insincere (virtual) fit of a appurtenance formula in a final state of
    a complement (the appurtenance and a interactive environment) indistinguishable
    from a initial state, and 0 net work is finished on a complement during this
    fit (no work in; no work out) afterwards that insincere fit will not occur.

    Stevin’s element is a quite suitable initial step in examining intermittent and
    wheel-type machines where a calculable array of a circle changes 0 nonetheless its
    position. It is quite useful when examining those machines for that the
    inventor’s initial infrequent investigate (usually containing a smirch of physics
    or reasoning) leads us to consider “That appurtenance will positively turn.” It immediately discredits a Honnecort circle and also Stevin’s strange problem of a ball-chain on ramps. Most
    of a content examples of Stevin’s element uncover customarily cases where the
    initial and final states of a complement are unequivocally apparently opposite (things
    are in opposite places). But a genuine appetite of a element is that it
    can also be practical to cases where a final state “looks customarily like” the
    initial state.

    For machines that have a “cyclic” function (most do) a investigate contingency be
    carried out over a finish cycle, for appetite competence be stored during partial of
    a cycle and expelled during another part.

    Refer behind to a double ramp picture. If a sequence is illusory to undergo
    a practical fit carrying any spin to a position assigned by a next
    one, afterwards a initial and final states are identical. Stevin’s principle
    then says that a sequence will not of itself bear this motion.


    Friction and idealizations.

    To explain that a device “Will not work because of friction”
    diverts a courtesy from distant some-more elemental flaws of a proposal.
    Friction is ever-present in nature. Yet, in examining PM proposals, it is
    useful to assume frictionless components, for in all non-trivial PM proposals,
    friction is never a solitary problem. Remove all dissipative routine such as
    friction, use idealized components, and during best a inclination will be only
    our form (1). They cycle uselessly eternally nonetheless additional submit or output

    Frictionless components do not violate elemental perceivable principles
    of physics. If removal
    of all dissipative processes formula in a incessant fit device of type
    (1), we know you’ve substantially finished a investigate correctly, creation no blunders.

    But other idealizations do violate elemental macroscopic classical
    physics principles. Remember that we are vocalization now of a perceivable (large scale)
    physics processes, not those during a tiny scale of atoms or smaller.

    • Massless components that are means of exerting army on other components
      would violate Newton’s second law.
    • Components that strive army nonetheless concomitant greeting army would
      violate Newton’s third law.
    • Perfectly firm bodies means of exerting army on other such bodies violate
      Newton’s laws also. All matter can be dense or stretched, giving rise
      to effervescent forces. If bodies were ideally firm we’d have gigantic forces
      behaving for tiny times. We can't assume such things in a real
    • A member perceivable physique can't be celebrated in dual places simultaneously.
    • No information can transport between dual distant points instantaneously. This
      is another reason given ideally firm bodies can’t exist. If we pushed on
      one finish of a ideally firm stick, a other finish would pierce instantaneously.
      But that’s not possible, for it would meant a other finish perceived information about
      a pull instantaneously.
    • Mass can't disappear from one place and time and reappear at
      another place and time.


    Tapping quantum weirdness

    Nature’s prohibitions listed in a final territory request to perceivable (large scale) earthy objects. Is it illusive that these can be disregarded on a tiny (small scale) star of atoms and smaller entities? Certain now renouned suppositional fanciful ideas advise that.

    Nature does not demarcate incessant motion. No laws of inlet would be disregarded by something existent eternally in a non-zero appetite state. Presumably composed atoms can do that. Whatever is “going on” within an atom continues undivided eternally if a atom is left undisturbed. What inlet does seem to demarcate is a complement that produces useful work in volume incomparable than a appetite input.

    In these pages we have indeed neglected tide speculations in production such as fibre theory, opening energy, black holes, wormholes, dim energy, dim matter, together universes, etc. I’m substantially not amply associating about these matters to plead them effectively. we do note that many of these concepts are “virtual” entities that are partial of a mathematical theory, nonetheless are not directly observable. And when these do have understandable (experimentally measurable) consequences, inlet seems to demarcate them being converted to continual outlay of useful work on a perceivable scale. So a hopes of creation a perceivable incessant fit device formed on them is apparently futile. The some-more we learn about nature, a some-more justification we amass that “Nature abhors perceivable incessant motion.”

    A unequivocally engaging book deliberating these matters is “How to Build a Time Machine” by Paul Davies. It is now out in paperback from Penguin Books during $13.00. The cover content says “A quick…lucid frisk [through] wormholes, exposed singularities, choice universe, vast strings, outlandish matter, disastrous energy, hypothetical mass, gravitational time dilation, rising entropy and descending information” —San Francisco Chronicle. Davies’ book concludes that inlet does have taboos: “No time machines, no incessant fit machines, no exposed singularities! Etc.”


    What about “free energy”?

    When examining PM proposals, one contingency watch out for “hidden” appetite sources.
    If a sequence of a Stevin appurtenance consisted of interlinked cylindrical rollers,
    it competence be finished to pierce if there were a little battery and a engine within
    each cylinder. Many exemplary incessant fit appurtenance scams are finished this
    way. But in this case, a initial and final states are not identical, for
    the state of a batteries changes as appetite is drawn from them. Some of the
    early fake demos of PM machines competence good have been driven by hidden
    internal stored energy, permitting a massive, well-balanced and low friction
    wheel to spin for a unequivocally prolonged time before negligence perceptibly.

    “Free-energy” enthusiasts explain that if a appurtenance were drumming some invisible
    energy source that fills all of space, that appetite would, like a hidden
    motors, keep a appurtenance going, even nonetheless we could not detect a free
    energy source by any other initial means. In effect, a appurtenance itself
    would be a “free appetite detector”. They remind us that physicists once
    ridiculed a suspicion of appetite stored in atoms. Yes, they did, as these quotes

    There is no odds male can ever daub a appetite of a atom. The glib
    conjecture of utilizing atomic appetite when a spark has run out is a completely
    unscientific Utopian dream, a childish bug-a-boo. Nature has introduced a
    few fool-proof inclination into a good infancy of elements that constitute
    a bulk of a world, and they have no appetite to give adult in a process
    of disintegration.

    – Robert A. Millikan (1863-1953) [1928 debate to a Chemists’ Club (New

    …any one who expects a source of appetite from a mutation of these
    atoms is articulate moonshine…

    – Ernest Rutherford (1871-1937) [1933]

    So, do a “free-energy” proponents have a current indicate here? Are they justified
    in devoting their time to seeking a “free-energy” or “over-unity” systems?
    Should mainstream scientists take adult such investigate to solve a appetite problems?
    I consider not. Scientists generally pursue something customarily when there’s clear
    evidence indicating to a need for extending, clarifying or differently changing earthy theory. So
    far, not one throw of convincing or even revealing justification for a existence
    of this “free-energy” has been seen. To lapse to a comparison with atomic
    energy, a initial doubt of Millikan, Rutherford, and Einstein was
    well justified. But they altered their opinions as new justification came in.
    Their initial doubt did not in any approach retard a swell toward discovery
    and function of atomic energy. My camber is that if there is anything like
    “free-energy” anywhere in a universe, it will not be detected by the
    kind of people now creation furious and ungrounded claims about it, nor by the
    methods they are regulating to try to daub it. It helps to have justification for,
    and know something about,
    a source of appetite before one attempts to figure out how to implement it. All
    the skill in a star can’t remove appetite from something that isn’t there, has no appetite to extract, or no approach to modify it to useful work.

    What about illusive “accidental” find of giveaway appetite by some basement
    PM tinkerer? Weren’t X-rays detected accidentally, when no one even suspected
    their existence and positively had no suspicion what they were? Yes, that’s one
    of a (very few) examples of a truly random critical find in physics.
    Quite a array of people stumbled on justification for X-rays before Röntgen
    but unsuccessful to follow adult with experiments to see what was going on.
    Anti-serendipity? But during that same duration of story we have a interesting
    phenomena of other people “discovering” things that did not exist,
    such as N-rays, and after M-rays (mitogenetic radiation). So in that category
    will “free energy” fall, if and when someone claims to have found initial justification for it? Only time will tell.

    On a whole, systematic discoveries, even random ones, are many likely
    to be made, investigated, and exploited by folks who have a unequivocally good
    understanding of a applicable beliefs of existent science. Ignorance of
    well determined scholarship causes many frank and dedicated people to waste
    lives and careers chasing moonbeams. The frank PM proposals of a past
    illustrate a fact that their inventors did not have sufficient understanding.
    Many of them believed that such bargain wasn’t necessary,
    or they deserted it out of hand.


    Buoyancy engine #1

    John Phin describes
    this one in his exemplary book Seven Follies of Science (Van Nostrand,
    1906), attributing it to a match named “Power”.

    A J-shaped tube A, Fig. 14, is open during both ends nonetheless tapers during a lower
    end, as shown. A well-greased string wire C passes over a circle B and through
    a little opening of a tube with little or no friction, and also without
    leakage. The tube is afterwards filled with water. The wire above a line WX balances
    over a pulley, and so does that subsequent a line YZ. The wire in a tube
    between these lines is carried by a water, while a wire on a other side
    of a pulley between these lines is pulled downward by gravity.

    Phin says that a “inventor offers this device as a kind of nonplus rather
    than as a solemn try to solve a famous problem,” and Phin concludes by
    asking given it will not work.

    As usual, Phin misses a indicate (and a fun) of a plea in his analysis
    of this puzzle. He trots out a common sore dismissals such as temperament friction,
    work compulsory to hook a rope, and attrition of a wire during a water-seals,
    then, assuming a box is closed, moves on to something else.

    we paraphrase the
    challenge, and uncover a easier picture. The well-spoken wire passes by a container
    of liquid, with an inviolable frictionless sign in a bottom.

    I also set a belligerent order to inhibit irrelevant responses: Assume everything
    is perfect. No friction, leakless seals, ideally stretchable inviolable rope,
    no gelatinous drag between wire and liquid. Even with these ideal conditions
    we can simply and simply uncover that this appurtenance will not work as claimed.
    Why did a contriver of this problem consider it should charm us into thinking
    it competence work? It’s his word “lifted by a water”. He is, of march referring
    to a expansive force of Archimedes’ principle: “A physique enthralled in liquid
    experiences and roof expansive force equal to a weight of a displaced
    liquid.” This element is found in any facile production textbook, but
    seldom accepted by students. They use it blindly, not meaningful given it is
    true nor underneath what conditions it is true, and they haven’t paid attention
    to how it is derived.

    The explain is that a roof expansive force on a apportionment of a wire in
    the potion causes a wire to pierce roof there. This explain is false. Why?


    There is no expansive force on a rope. This dishonesty is a formed on a common
    misunderstanding of Archimedes’ principle. The element requires that the
    submerged physique have potion underneath it so that a net force due to a liquid
    acting on a physique has nonzero roof component. The element also works
    if a physique is totally immersed, with H2O above and below, or floating, with
    water customarily below. After all, what is a source of a expansive force?
    It is a vigour disproportion between tip and reduce surfaces. Consider
    a totally enthralled cylinder with a pivot straight (very suitable in this
    case). Pressure on a sides of a cylinder provides customarily craft forces
    that also supplement to zero, and some-more importantly, have no straight components.
    Only army due to vigour on tip and bottom surfaces have straight components.
    The vigour on a bottom is incomparable than that on tip by amount
    r gh, where
    is a potion density. So there’s a net upward
    force on a cylinder.

    In this PM puzzle, there’s no potion above or subsequent a wire means of providing
    an roof member of force. All a army on a wire due to a liquid
    are quite horizontal, and given these army are symmetrically distributed
    around a edge of a rope, they supplement to zero.

    An shrewd match records that my evidence here lacks generality. He
    proposes a various in that a wire passes by a potion during an angle,
    say creation an angle of 45° to a vertical. Now there is liquid
    above and subsequent a rope. And if there’s now a expansive force on a rope,
    it positively has an roof member in a instruction of a rope, and therefore
    this chronicle of a appurtenance should work. Why doesn’t it?

    Solution left as use for a student. The resolution competence require
    calculus. Here’s a useful hint. That Buoyant force mentioned in Archimedes’
    principle is not some new “magic” force that arises when a physique is immersed.
    The expansive force is a following (sum) of vigour army behaving on a immersed
    body. Archimedes’ element is merely an countenance of a useful relation
    between a densities of a bodies involved, ensuing from geometric laws
    and a fact that vigour exerts force normal to a surface.


    Buoyancy engine #2

    Here’s yet
    another PM appurtenance claiming support in Archimedes’ principle. Poor misunderstood
    Archie unequivocally takes a beating.


    A circle in a form of a ideal globe or cylinder rotates about a frictionless
    horizontal shaft. The left side is in a cover filled with water, perfect
    (frictionless and leak-proof) seals around a rotating circle forestall the
    liquid from escaping. The left side of a circle therefore practice an
    upward expansive force due to a potion it displaces. So that side will rise,
    and a circle rotates clockwise.


    All army exerted by a potion on a edge of a wheel
    are normal to a wheel’s surface, and therefore pass by a wheel’s
    rotation axis. All of these army have 0 pull arm with honour to this
    axis. The potion therefore provides no torque about a circle pivot and the
    wheel won’t turn.

    Stevin’s element of practical work demolishes this PM device neatly. We know
    the circle will have no focussed to stagger given if we suppose a virtual
    displacement of a circle by any angle, a complement would still be just
    the approach it was before, with no change in a appetite and no change in
    configuration. No work is finished in a process.

    Richard G. Clegg’s
    Motion Page
    has a crafty various of this expansive motor. Instead of a
    wheel it has a torus (doughnut-shaped ring) flitting by dual seals separating
    two chambers carrying liquids of opposite density. There is no axle. One half
    of a ring is surrounded by liquid, inside and outside. The seals are of
    course frictionless and leak-proof. There’s no spindle to yield greeting forces.
    Here a army on a ring due to vigour do have roof components. Why
    won’t this one work? [Picture used with accede of Richard G. Clegg.]

    Answer left as use for a student.


    Buoyancy engine #3

    This perpetual
    motion appurtenance substantially dates from a midst 1800’s. The categorical drum is filled
    with a liquid. In it are spin chambers filled with atmosphere (or a vacuum) and
    connected by rods to a weights outside. The rods slip in frictionless
    leak-proof seals, of course. As with many such due mechanisms, this picture
    is some-more formidable than compulsory to illustrate a element on which
    it is ostensible to work. The drawings subsequent uncover customarily one weight and one air
    chamber enthralled in liquid.

    When in position 1, a irresolution of a reduce globe is adequate to lift the
    weight to a tip position. If a drum is now pushed so it moves counter
    clockwise, a weight stays during this vast radial stretch during slightest until
    it has rotated 90°.

    During a subsequent entertain spin a weight has a vast pull arm. At a end
    of this entertain turn, position 3, a atmosphere cover rises to a tip of the
    drum, and a weight is now is during a smallest radial distance, (and smallest
    lever arm) where it stays for a subsequent entertain turn. During a final quarter
    turn a atmosphere chamber’s irresolution causes a weight to arise until it is at
    its largest radius.

    Since a torque during a second entertain spin is incomparable than during the
    third entertain turn, a circle will benefit some-more appetite there than it needs to
    move roof during a fourth quarter-turn.

    The beliefs that are ostensible to make this thing work concede a machine
    to be started by a pull in presumably direction, and it would work customarily as well
    clockwise as counterclockwise. That’s a bit suspicious, isn’t it? Also, if
    we suppose fit of this circle by a full cycle, a final and initial
    states are indistinguishable, so Stevin’s element tells us that it won’t
    turn. Yet we’d still like to investigate a sum to see accurately where the
    inventor went astray.

    We’ll give we a extend to buy frictionless bearings, a potion with zero
    viscosity, and leak-proof frictionless seals for a mobile rods. With all
    of this advantage, given will it still not work?

    Solution by Ben Mitch.


    Buoyancy engine #4

    Here’s a new serve to a museum, contributed by Dave Carvell. This one
    has some innovative sum to plea your bargain of physics.

    The sealed
    container has dual straight tubes. The right one contains a potion (cyan)
    such as water, and a unequivocally light spin (red), many lighter than a liquid.
    As common we’ll let we use a potion with 0 viscosity. (We are generous
    about these sum that don’t matter anyway.)

    Two “gates” G1 and G2 are finished like iris diaphragms that can open and close
    quickly. They are, of course, watertight when closed.

    Now we all know that when a light object, like a cork, is underwater, then
    released, it pops to a aspect and can even cocktail above a surface. We take
    advantage of that fact. Our machine, with a viscosity-free liquid, should
    allow even incomparable speed during a top. The appurtenance is started with a ball
    at a bottom. As it rises, a high-tech sensor discerning opens embankment G1 to let
    it through, shutting a embankment immediately, and then opening embankment G2
    in time for a spin to pass through.

    Since one of a gates is sealed during all times a H2O levels are maintained.
    The spin pops above a aspect with some momentum, and a winding tip of
    the apparatus deflects it to a other tube, where it falls, gaining speed
    and transformation in a fall, adequate so that it goes underneath a potion surface
    there and is bumped over into a right tube, where, of course, it begins
    to rise. This should go on forever, gaining speed any cycle.

    Surface tragedy and flexibility benefaction genuine problems here. But before we go
    to a difficulty to find a ideal potion for this device, we should demeanour for
    even some-more elemental flaws.



    Capillary motor


    This is one of my favorite PM proposals for severe tyro understanding.
    Most students know that liquids will arise in a unequivocally slight tube, a process
    being called “capillary action”. Suppose we have such a tube means of lifting
    the potion to a tallness h. Now reduce a tube to a tallness reduction than
    h. Or make a hole in a side subsequent a tip of a potion column.
    The liquid, perplexing to arise to tallness h will afterwards brief out a top
    of a tube, where a unequivocally little waterwheel can constraint a appetite as it falls.


    This is customarily approaching to fool
    people who haven’t deliberate why capillary transformation occurs. The usual
    textbook blueprint is shown during a left. Surface tragedy acts during a liquid
    surface where it contacts a walls of a tube. These intermolecular forces
    between potion and potion are incomparable than those between a potion molecules
    themselves. This gives arise to a winding “meniscus” figure of a tip liquid
    surface. The army around this interface act during an angle with a significant
    upward member that can reason a H2O mainstay in immobile equilibrium.

    The vigour of a H2O during a aspect of a fountainhead is windy pressure,
    both external and inside a capillary tube. This is due to Pascal’s principle
    that a vigour during all points during a given tallness within a liquid is a same.
    Also, by a same principle, a vigour within a capillary tube, customarily subsequent a meniscus,
    is less than windy vigour by volume rgh.
    This accounts for a vigour disproportion opposite a meniscus that in spin accounts for
    its shape. The atmosphere is pulling down on a meniscus, nonetheless molecular adhesion forces
    around a dilemma conflict that. It acts like an effervescent piece calm during a edges.

    If one now gradually lowers a tube, a upheld mainstay of potion stays a same length. The tip of a tube moves down to accommodate a meniscus. Continue to reduce a tube and finally a potion mainstay reaches a tip of a tube. But, remember, a vigour customarily subsequent a meniscus is still lower than windy pressure, so a meniscus still bulges downward. It does not brief over a tip of a tube. The potion aspect always contacts
    the tip dilemma of a tube, and as a tube is lowered even more, a meniscus follows
    it down.

    This picture
    shows situations we competence have illusory possible. The version
    shown in a second figure, with a hole in a side, is simply discredited. The hole
    must be smaller than a tube diameter, so it, too will vaunt aspect tension
    forces. The vigour customarily inside this hole is still reduce than windy pressure, so a H2O will gush inward, not outward, and no potion will pass by it.

    Pressure increases downward in a liquid, by a law
    ρgh where ρ is a potion density. The vigour during the
    liquid aspect external a capillary tube is atmospheric. So a pressure
    within a tube contingency diminution with tallness adult to a meniscus. It’s a pressure
    difference opposite a meniscus that is obliged for a winding shape.
    The second figure depicts an outcome that customarily can’t happen.


    Capillary wheels


    This suspicion seemed in a association mainstay of the
    April 22, 1911 emanate of Scientific American.
    The editor invited readers to “search out a misconception of this inventive device.”

    Imagine dual unequivocally delicately machined wheels with together axes on frictionless
    bearings. They are partly enthralled in a liquid. There’s a very narrow
    space between a prosaic portions of a wheels, causing potion to be drawn
    up between, by capillary action. The weight of this piece of potion exerts
    downward army on both wheels; therefore they should stagger in opposite
    directions as shown by a arrows. Since a force is small, a speed will
    be low also, giving a capillary mainstay copiousness of time to arise to compensate
    for this motion, progressing a plain height.

    As usual, ignore
    friction and viscosity. The mainstay of potion is positively being supported
    by an roof force supposing by a wheels. Newton’s third law requires that
    the mainstay of potion exerts a downward force on a wheels. This positively provides
    a torque on both wheels. So given don’t they move?

    Another version, regulating crane and belts is shown during a left. The principle
    is a same, so we pattern this to work customarily as good as a circle version.

    This is another box where uncelebrated initial and final states and
    Stevin’s element should have aborted this plan during a unpractical stage.

    Answer and discussion.


    George Sinclair’s siphon.

    This curious
    device appears in a 1669 book on pneumatics (in Latin) by truth professor
    George Sinclair of Glasgow University. Dircks mentions it in his 1870 book
    Perpetuum Mobile (p. 42) from that we took this picture.

    Apparently a tip tuber has reduced vigour of atmosphere within it, sustaining
    the potion drawn adult from a dish. One finish of a siphon transfers potion from
    this tuber adult by a focussed rod and behind to a dish. This detriment of liquid
    from a tuber is transposed by some-more potion drawn from a dish, due to the
    low atmosphere vigour in a bulb. Result: an unconstrained dissemination of liquid. A
    little H2O circle competence be run by a H2O exiting from a siphon into
    the dish. Well, maybe not.

    Sinclair contingency have suspicion this device flattering neat, for he clinging 18 pages
    to contention of a merits. You, dear reader, should simply explode it
    in a few paragraphs.

    Answer and discussion.


    Bob Schadewald’s sobriety engine.

    Artist’s source of a sobriety engine appetite station. The engine is
    an overbalanced circle or off-axis weight with (of course) frictionless bearings.
    Based on a arrogance that a concept gravitational consistent is continually
    decreasing this engine exploits a little appetite that can be gained from
    this during any revolution. In gripping with a truth of a engine
    itself, appetite is eliminated to a electric generator by a linkage of devious
    pulleys and belts.
    [Drawing © 1992 by Donald E. Simanek.]

    First, let’s be unequivocally transparent that Bob’s BS Gravity
    is a parody, a joke. His vigilant was to tease, and amuse, and to
    tweak physicists and engineers whose bargain of production was shaky.
    It was a plea to readers to uncover conclusively presumably or not it could
    work, given a “decreasing gravity” assumption. He was crafty never to
    fully answer that doubt or to explain a joke.

    The suspicion that a concept gravitational consistent competence be declining
    came out of suppositional fanciful work of Paul A. M. Dirac. In 1937 he
    suggested that a concept gravitational consistent G competence be
    weakening, proportional to a age of a universe. He even likely that
    in 10 billion years it competence be customarily half what it is today. Since afterwards the
    suspicion that elemental constants, including a speed of light, competence change
    over time has preoccupied suppositional theorists. It has also preoccupied new-age
    wackos, who shamelessly adjust and debase a suspicion to fit their possess agendas.

    Obviously a BS engine falls into my category (2) and presumably (4).

    Stevin’s element does not kill this proposal, for a initial and final
    states of a complement (including a environment) after any cycle are not
    identical. This circle would work equally good in presumably direction, however,
    that is always suspicious.

    Scott Morris discussed some PM machines in OMNI repository in 1990 (July, p.
    98 and 99; Aug p. ?), and quotes Bob Schadewald as observant “My description
    is a pointed deception. The quickness of a relocating weight will never exceed
    what it was when it upheld a bottom, passed center, a initial time, even
    if there is no friction. The weight competence collect adult speed during a top, nonetheless never
    at a bottom, so there is never any genuine speedup in a wheel.”

    How does Bob arrive during that conclusion? Can this astonishing outcome be justified
    by facile physics? And given does Bob contend “the weight may pick
    up speed during a top, nonetheless never during a bottom”?

    Answer and discussion.


    Simanek’s bouncing spin engine

    This PM offer works customarily as good during Bob Schadewald’s Gravity Engine (SGE)
    and it competence be easier to analyze. Doing so competence strew some light on the
    principles behind a SGE.

    Bob expel his SGE in a form of a wheel. This introduces a underline of rotation
    that is a “red herring” for some people. They consider that a antithesis somehow
    depends on array or requires care of centrifugal effects. It
    doesn’t, as this non-rotating bouncing spin engine illustrates.

    Inventor reads by light powered by
    electricity supposing by a roof transducer of
    a bouncing spin engine. He’s wearing earplugs.

    A spin bounces adult and down between building and ceiling, both firm and massive.
    The bounces are insincere elastic, that is, a ball’s quickness after impact
    is a same as before impact, nonetheless with topsy-turvy direction.

    Now suppose that a gravitational consistent g is solemnly nonetheless steadily
    decreasing. The spin is expelled during rest from a ceiling. The spin attains
    a certain speed when it reaches a floor, and rebounds with that same speed.
    But given g is now smaller, a spin still has a little velocity
    when it hits a ceiling. Clearly this means that on execution of this
    ceiling-to-floor-to-ceiling cycle it has gained a little volume of kinetic
    energy, that we could remove with a somewhat fragile roof panel. The
    panel would take customarily that additional volume of energy, bringing a spin to
    rest there momentarily. The spin would afterwards start a subsequent cycle with zero
    speed, as in a prior cycle. The gravitational force, nonetheless slightly
    smaller than before, would means a spin to tumble to a building and bounce
    back to a ceiling, where we again take a additional appetite gained in this
    cycle, and so on forever, or until sobriety runs out, whichever comes first.

    The assumptions of ideally effervescent impact and gigantic mass building are no
    more irrational in posing this apparent antithesis than a arrogance of
    frictionless orientation in a wheel. Given these assumptions we still ought
    to be means to investigate a appurtenance and uncover presumably it could work as claimed.

    Answer and discussion.

    The Gravity defense engine


    This offer is during slightest a century old. Classic simplicity! A circle has
    a frictionless axle. Now customarily insert a sobriety defense underneath one side, making
    that side lighter and this will trigger and say rotation. Indeed, you’d
    better remove appetite from it continually, or put a stop on it, or it will
    spin so discerning it will rip itself apart.

    I’ve mostly seen this nonetheless anxiety to a inventor. If anyone knows who a contriver is, greatfully let me know. Nicola Tesla described it,
    in his essay
    “The Problem of Increasing Human Energy” in Century Illustrated Magazine, Jun 1900.

    It is possible, and even probable, that there will be, in time, other resources of appetite non-stop up, of that we have no believe now. We competence even find ways of requesting army such as draw or sobriety for pushing appurtenance nonetheless regulating any other means. Such realizations, nonetheless rarely improbable, are not impossible. An instance will best communicate an suspicion of what we can wish to achieve and what we can never attain. Imagine a hoop of some allied member incited ideally loyal and organised to spin in frictionless orientation on a craft missile above a ground. This disk, being underneath a above conditions ideally balanced, would rest in any position. Now, it is illusive that we competence learn how to make such a hoop stagger invariably and perform work by a force of sobriety nonetheless any serve bid on a part; nonetheless it is ideally unfit for a hoop to spin and to do work nonetheless any force from a outside. If it could do so, it would be what is designated scientifically as a “perpetuum mobile,” a appurtenance formulating a possess ground power. To make a hoop stagger by a force of sobriety we have customarily to invent a shade opposite this force. By such a shade we could forestall this force from behaving on one half of a disk, and a array of a latter would follow. At least, we can't repudiate such a probability until we know accurately a inlet of a force of gravity. Suppose that this force were due to a transformation allied to that of a tide of atmosphere flitting from above toward a core of a earth. The outcome of such a tide on both halves of a hoop would be equal, and a latter would not stagger ordinarily; nonetheless if one half should be rhythmical by a image impediment a movement, afterwards it would turn.

    Critics will be discerning to observe that if one imagines a practical rotation
    through a little angle, a circle is physically a same as before. The small
    portion during a bottom that was in a gravitational margin becomes weightless
    over a sobriety shield, nonetheless during a same time an equal shred of a wheel
    moves from easy condition behind into a gravitational field. They therefore
    argue that 0 has changed, and there is no reason there should be such
    motion. This is a good focus of Stevin’s element of practical work.

    The opposite contriver competence disagree thusly: Remove a sobriety shield. Imagine an equivalent:
    a half-wheel. It would stagger underneath a transformation of sobriety and afterwards continue
    to pitch like a pendulum. You can frequency repudiate that if one half of a wheel
    suddenly had no gravitational force on it, a other half would pierce due
    to a lunatic torque.

    This suggests
    a improved design. Don’t use a wheel. Use an lunatic weight as in a SGE
    (see prior item). Start a appurtenance with a weight during a tip of its
    range. Give it a slight poke toward a unshielded side, and it will fall,
    gaining kinetic energy. This kinetic appetite during a bottom stays unchanged
    during a roof fit over a shield, and is still there when a weight
    reaches a top, carrying it into a unshielded side where it picks adult still
    more energy, and so on forever.
    What prevents that?

    There’s always a probability that we competence assume some partial of a machine
    that is itself physically impossible. If one too straightforwardly grants a possibility,
    much time can be squandered examining a other tools of a machine. Here the
    suspect partial is a sobriety shield. Can we simply and conclusively uncover that
    a sobriety defense is or is not possible? Can we uncover that a unequivocally existence
    would violate some elemental law?

    This nonplus doesn’t need a ideal shield. A defense that reduces the
    gravitational force by customarily a few percent would seem to accommodate a requirements
    of a incessant fit machine. We need to show, by facile production that (1)
    the unequivocally existence of such a defense would violate elemental laws of physics,
    or (2) even with such a shield, a circle would not spin eternally and
    would not benefit speed or (3) some elemental law of production is wrong, and
    so is Stevin’s element and a laws of thermodynamics.

    The ground for this circle says that it will customarily benefit speed in one direction.
    If incited in a other instruction it would remove speed. This competence be a clue.
    Stevin’s element demolishes a chronicle with a uniform wheel, for a initial
    and final states of a complement and sourroundings are matching for any virtual
    displacement of a wheel. Therefore a circle can't pierce on a own. So
    why did we incorrectly consider that it should spin by itself? Stevin’s
    principle also discredits a individualist weight version, for a virtual
    displacement of one array earnings a circle an matching state. But that
    doesn’t assistance us know what’s going on during any cycle.

    Discussion and answer.


    The Classic captivating defense engine

    A reader informs us that a device of this arrange was given as an additional credit
    homework problem by an MIT highbrow behind in 1985.
    Chris Cheng, a high propagandize tyro from Sydney, Australia, sent us a simple
    version, from that this one developed by a routine of tinkering.

    How it’s ostensible to work.

    Magnetic helmet materials are available. They aren’t ideal shields,
    but for a functions of this engine they don’t need to be perfect.

    A openly rotatable armature in a core consists of a permanent magnet
    partly lonesome with a captivating defense (solid black). The defense has openings
    at a right, nearby a poles. An outdoor ring has magnets in a radial array
    with their north poles inside, resolutely fixed to a firm frame. These magnets
    are long, so a south poles are during a extremely incomparable radius than the
    north poles. The captivating margin from a magnet stick decreases in strength
    with distance.

    The defense apertures assent any armature stick to “see” customarily a integrate of
    the magnets of a outdoor ring. Each armature stick is influenced essentially by
    the north poles of a ring, those being nearest. Therefore, in a position
    shown in a picture, a N stick of a armature is repelled, experiencing
    a force to a left. The S stick of a armature is attracted, experiencing
    a force to a right. These dual army make a couple, that rotates a armature

    Classic simplicity! If we wanted to urge it, those outdoor magnets could
    be swung adult or down so they were in a cylindrical array of magnets with their
    axes parallel. Then a identical armature could be placed in a craft of the
    S poles, handling on a same spindle as a armature in a craft of a N
    poles. This should double a appetite output!

    We counsel a reader that this appurtenance has sum that could be subtle
    and formidable to investigate in detail. Gauss’s and Stokes’ laws in matrix calculus
    form competence be compulsory for a full analysis. However, this appurtenance has a simple
    and elemental smirch that can be appreciated even during a rudimentary physics

    Answer and discussion.


    Re: Answers left as use for a student. Send your answers to a address
    shown during a right. The
    earliest good answer(s) that arrive competence be posted here, with credit to author.
    I will post (at my discretion) answers that are facile to explain, clear,
    correct, perceptive, and that kindle meditative and serve discussion.
    Posted answers, presumably created by me or by others, do not always represent
    the final word on a given proposal. On several occasions keen readers
    have beheld things we missed, or suggested easier ways to explain something.
    So don’t demur to skeptically rethink given “answers”.

    While we acquire acquiescence of new or innovative incessant fit puzzles,
    I assume no requirement to respond in fact to all of them. In particular,
    I can't be approaching to investigate deceptive proposals, overly and
    complicated designs, nor ideas that are simply variations of classics found
    in a literature. I’ve already perceived proposals that destroy for a same
    reasons already discussed above, indicating that a chairman proposing the
    idea hadn’t entirely accepted this document. Also, we select not to include
    devices that would require modernized arithmetic or production for detailed
    analysis. we don’t like to post puzzles unless we am pretty assured what
    the smirch is, and that a smirch can be explained regulating facile physics

    To those inventors whose creations we select not to embody in a museum
    collection, we offer this criticism and consolation:

    “It competence be incessant motion, nonetheless it will take eternally to exam it.”
    Cartoon by Donald Simanek.





    When we initial gathered this bibliography, many of these references were rare, tough to find books. we was advantageous to have copies of them. Now [2012] many of them are accessible as giveaway ebooks. Others competence be had in unequivocally inexpensive reprint editions. There’s now no forgive for any carefree incessant fit appurtenance contriver to be ignorant of a prolonged story of this subject.

    1. Angrist, Stanley W. “Perpetual Motion Machines” in Scientific American,
      Jan 1968. This essay is also in a Sci. Amer. reprint book.

    2. Angrist, Stanley W. and Loren G. Hepler. Order and Chaos. Basic Books,
      1967. [QC311.A5]

    3. Collins, John. Perpetual Motion: An Ancient Mystery Solved?
      Permo Publications, 1997-2005.
      A story of Johann Bessler, gathered from strange sources.

    4. Dircks, Henry. (1806-1873) Perpetuum Mobile, or a hunt for self-motive
      appetite during a 17th 18th and 19th centuries
      . London, E. F. Spon,
      16 Bucklersbury, 1861. Rogers and Hall Co., 1916.

    5. Dircks, Henry. (1806-1873) Perpetuum Mobile, or a story of a search
      for self-motive appetite from a 13th to a 19th century
      . London, E.
      F. Spon, 48 Charing Cross, 1870.

    6. Dircks, Henry. (1806-1873) Scientific Studies or Practical, in Contrast
      With Chimerical Pursuits, Exemplified in Two Popular Lectures
      . I. The Life
      of Edward Somerset, Second Marquis of Worcester, Inventor of a Steam Engine.
      II. Chimeras of Science: Astrology, Alchemy, Squaring a Circle, Perpetuum
      Mobile, Etc. London, E. F. N. Spon, 48 Charing Cross, S. W. 1869.

    7. Gardner, Martin Fads and Fallacies in a Name of Science. Dover, 1952, 1957. This is a classic. This book has no section on incessant motion, nonetheless Gardner’s comments on a psychology of pseudoscientists and cranks relates equally good to many incessant motionists. See a subsequent anxiety for his comments on incessant motion.

    8. Gardner, Martin. Perpetual Motion: Illusion and Reality, Foote Prints,
      (house repository of Foote Mineral Co., Exton, Pennsylvania.) Vol. 47, No. 2, 1984, p. 21-35.

    9. Herring, Daniel Webster, Ph.D (1850-1938) Foibles and Fallacies of Science. Van Nostrand, 1924.

    10. Hiscox, Gardner D., M.E.
      Mechanical Appliances and Novelties of Construction.
      Normal W. Henley Publ. Co., 1927.
      Chapter23, accessible online, is a miraculous apparatus of about 60 unsuccessful automatic devices, with pictures. Inventors’ names, dates, and apparent numbers are customarily not given, nor does this source give reasons given a inclination don’t work. Hiscox’s preliminary suggests that systematic opinion is divided on a probability of incessant motion. But his outline of many of these inclination reveals that he has no doubt about their impossibility, and he seems to be observant “Of march we can see given these apparently won’t work, so we don’t need to spell it out.” Alas, that
      is not during all apparent to many inventors, even today, who peddle teenager variations of these aged and discredited ideas, entirely assured that they must work. If we have customarily invented a clearly miraculous incessant fit machine, you’d improved demeanour here to see presumably it has been finished before. If it has, we can be certain it doesn’t work.

    11. Jastrow, Joseph. The Story of Human Error. D. Appleton- Century Company,
      1936. Chapter on “Error in Physics,” by W. F. G. Swann. Books for Libraries.

    12. Moore, Clara Bloomfield. Keely and His Discoveries. (Reprint edition, with foreword by Leslie Shepard, University Books, 1972?. Original edition, 1893(?).)
      Mrs. Moore was one of Keely’s many true supporters. Keely’s explanations of his theories were unintelligible even to those sensitive to his work, and this book provides many examples of this.

    13. Ord-Hume, Arthur W. J. G. Perpetual Motion. St Martins, 1978. Ord-Hume is an engineer, and has created extensively on antique clocks and other mechanisms. But his arrogant “refutations” of many of a incessant fit machines are pardonable and misleading. Some parts, quite section 6, are formidable to follow. But, a book has a trait of still being in print, in paperback, and as a chronological consult of a theme it is good value owning. However, a drawings in a Barnes and Noble reprint book are not scarcely so clear.

    14. Phin, John. The Seven Follies of Science. D. Van Nostrand, 1906. The line drawings are unequivocally clearly reproduced. The explanations mostly skip a mark.

    15. Scientific American, 1884, has references to J. W. Keely, generally derogative and even sarcastic. Mar 19, p. 196. Apr 5, p. 213. Oct 11, p. 230.

    16. Verance, Percy (Pseudonym!). Perpetual Motion. 20th Century Enlightenment
      Specialty Co., 1916. This is a compliance and precipitation of member from Dircks’
      books, “for a ubiquitous reader”, and has many of a strange illustrations. It is apparently a Rosicrucian publication, partial of a array called: History, Explanation and Prophecy Illustrated. Warning: The crafty pseudonym has been appropriated by several people recently, who have no tie with a unknown author of this book.

    Some textbooks discuss incessant fit machines, or poise problems about

    1. Gettys, W. Edward, Keller and Skove. Classical and Modern Physics,
      McGraw-Hill, 1989. End of section problems about a Escher “Waterfall” (p.
      347), expansive force antithesis (p. 348), and a weighted piston device (p.

    2. Hudson, Alvin and Rex Nelson. University Physics, Harcourt Brace
      Jovanovich, Inc. 1982. Section 21.7 discusses incessant fit devices, with
      cinema of an overbalanced wheel, a irresolution motor, a 1618 closed-cycle
      mill, a ammonia engine, and a pattern of a Escher waterfall, all on p.

    3. O’Hanian, Hans C. Physics, W. W. Norton, 1985. Short outline of
      a dual kinds of incessant fit machines, with a sketch of the
      articulated-hammer overbalanced circle (p. 508).

    All member in this museum is © 2002, 2003 by Donald E. Simanek,
    with a difference of content and materials indicated as from
    other sources. Latest revision, Jan 2006.

    Return to front page.
    Return to Bob Schadewald’s corner.
    Return to a tip of this document.

  • Article source:

    دیدگاهتان را بنویسید

    نشانی ایمیل شما منتشر نخواهد شد. بخش‌های موردنیاز علامت‌گذاری شده‌اند *