# Moved from "Over Balanced Wheel - Perpetual Motion"

35 replies to this topic

### #1 Sir Isaac Einstein

Sir Isaac Einstein

Thinking

• Members
• 19 posts

Posted 05 October 2009 - 12:40 AM

Moderation note: the first 32 posts of this thread were moved from the Engineering and Applied Science thread “Over Balanced Wheel - Perpetual Motion”, because the strange claim they discuss isn’t up to the standard of an engineering forum thread. When it improves, new posts will be moved back.

I agree with TEguy,
I myself, have designed an overbalancing wheel that has LESS weights
on the 'turning' side than on the 'opposing' side. The difference here being, the TOTAL
distance of all weights (added up), is less on the 'opposing' side, than on the turning
side ----- this is what causes the imbalance ----- NOT the number of weights!
For example; if the total distance, on one side of the hub, equals 50cms for 5 weights,
and each weight equals 10kgs, it is the same as placing one (1) weight (at 10kgs), at
the 'total distance' of ALL the weights ----- 50cms!
If, on the 'turning' side, the total distance is 100cms (even though there may well be less
weights), the wheel WILL overbalance.

Sir Isaac Einstein.

### #2 Moontanman

Moontanman

Unobtainium...

• Members
• 9029 posts

Posted 05 October 2009 - 08:22 AM

I agree with TEguy,
I myself, have designed an overbalancing wheel that has LESS weights
on the 'turning' side than on the 'opposing' side. The difference here being, the TOTAL
distance of all weights (added up), is less on the 'opposing' side, than on the turning
side ----- this is what causes the imbalance ----- NOT the number of weights!
For example; if the total distance, on one side of the hub, equals 50cms for 5 weights,
and each weight equals 10kgs, it is the same as placing one (1) weight (at 10kgs), at
the 'total distance' of ALL the weights ----- 50cms!
If, on the 'turning' side, the total distance is 100cms (even though there may well be less
weights), the wheel WILL overbalance.

Sir Isaac Einstein.

Sir Isaac Einstein, yes it will be over balanced but No it will not move of it's own accord. I suggest you do more than design and actually build a few of these devices. They do not work, friction always wins.

### #3 Sir Isaac Einstein

Sir Isaac Einstein

Thinking

• Members
• 19 posts

Posted 05 October 2009 - 10:57 AM

And Einstein is GOD is he?
Let me remind you, Einstein is 'brown-bread' ----- GOD is NOT!
Sir Isaac Einstein

### #4 freeztar

freeztar

Pondering

• Members
• 8445 posts

Posted 05 October 2009 - 01:45 PM

And Einstein is GOD is he?
Let me remind you, Einstein is 'brown-bread' ----- GOD is NOT!
Sir Isaac Einstein

I'm not sure what that means, but I'm quite sure it is not on topic.

As Moontanman said, friction will win. I'm curious though. With the devices you have built, Sir Isaac, how have you tested them? What were your results? Are they still spinning?

### #5 Sir Isaac Einstein

Sir Isaac Einstein

Thinking

• Members
• 19 posts

Posted 05 October 2009 - 09:46 PM

With regard to 'freeztars' question; are my machines still spinning ----- the answer
is ----- I said I DESIGNED them ----- not built them!
I'm actualy incapable of building such devices, because of my medical condition.
I'm a pensioner, with bundles of problems.

Sir Isaac Einstein

### #6 freeztar

freeztar

Pondering

• Members
• 8445 posts

Posted 05 October 2009 - 11:00 PM

With regard to 'freeztars' question; are my machines still spinning ----- the answer
is ----- I said I DESIGNED them ----- not built them!
I'm actualy incapable of building such devices, because of my medical condition.
I'm a pensioner, with bundles of problems.

Sir Isaac Einstein

If you have not built and tested one, then how are you so sure it works?

### #7 Sir Isaac Einstein

Sir Isaac Einstein

Thinking

• Members
• 19 posts

Posted 06 October 2009 - 12:28 AM

In reply to friction being one of the main causes of perpetual motion machines being unable to work,
then I ask these questions:- what amount of friction is required to stop an overbalanced wheel from
working?Is it just the 'right amount'? What amount?
If two identical coins (weight, size etc..), are placed at different distances ----- on a ruler, for example,
the ruler having first been balanced, giving it a 'pivoting' point ----- will it overbalance? Of course it
will! If friction were to stop this happening, no object, EVER, could overbalance. I don't think that's
right, do you?
The ONLY time friction could possibly stop overbalancing, would be if the two forces involved were
close together!
As an answer to 'freeztar', my answer is; have YOU ever built an overbalancing machine? I already
know the answer to this ----- NO!
Therefore sir, your question is invald!
But to be fair to you ----- no, I haven't built one -------------------- neither have you!

Sir Isaac Einstein

### #8 Buffy

Buffy

Resident Slayer

• 8946 posts

Posted 06 October 2009 - 12:49 AM

In reply to friction being one of the main causes of perpetual motion machines being unable to work, then I ask these questions:- what amount of friction is required to stop an overbalanced wheel from working? Is it just the 'right amount'? What amount?

Well, actually it's any amount.

Interestingly, an extremely large version of an overbalanced wheel is the Sun Wheel ride at Disney's California Adventure, which my daughter and I go on frequently:

I can assure you that it does require quite a bit of power, because the cars that slide back and forth between the center and the outer wheel--no matter how well greased and ball-bearinged--do induce friction. Even if you were to add the additional weight of magnets to make the sliding "frictionless" in fact, there is friction between magnets even if there is no contact.

If two identical coins (weight, size etc..), are placed at different distances ----- on a ruler, for example, the ruler having first been balanced, giving it a 'pivoting' point ----- will it overbalance? Of course it will!

Well, actually they'll just sit there if you balance them. "overbalancing" will require the initial input of an external force to the system. Of course a balanced ruler cannot have continuous motion because it will either stay balanced or it will fall to one side or the other: there are only brief periods of motion for a ruler, and all require application of outside force to cause that motion.

I'd encourage you to get a ruler out and try your own experiment.

have YOU ever built an overbalancing machine? I already know the answer to this ----- NO!

I loved to play with magnets when I was a kid. Trying to get them to levitate by inhibiting lateral motion, or inducing motion is really cool.

Such experimentation will also show that most of the time after any initial induced motion, the system comes to rest: set up a series of magnets that "levitate" and give the "car" a push and it slows to a stop even with no contact.

You should try it! It would be quite enlightening!

We are more ready to try the untried when what we do is inconsequential. Hence the fact that many inventions had their birth as toys,
Buffy

### #9 Sir Isaac Einstein

Sir Isaac Einstein

Thinking

• Members
• 19 posts

Posted 06 October 2009 - 03:26 AM

With the ruler experiment ----- I'm affraid you've missunderstood what was written.
I said, I said the coins were to be placed at DIFFERENT DISTANCES ----- then they would
overbalance ----- not at the same distance, where they WOULD balance.
You keep making the same mistake.
Read the book ----- not the cover!

Sir Isaac Einstein

### #10 freeztar

freeztar

Pondering

• Members
• 8445 posts

Posted 06 October 2009 - 04:04 AM

As an answer to 'freeztar', my answer is; have YOU ever built an overbalancing machine? I already
know the answer to this ----- NO!
Therefore sir, your question is invald!
But to be fair to you ----- no, I haven't built one -------------------- neither have you!

Nor will I likely ever build one. Though if I did, I would need your design. Care to share it?

You made the claim. The onus of proof is on you.
Lots of things look good on paper, but the proof is in the pudding.

### #11 Sir Isaac Einstein

Sir Isaac Einstein

Thinking

• Members
• 19 posts

Posted 06 October 2009 - 05:39 AM

Why would you need MY design, for a device you will never build?
It would be nice, to read some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism from some of you ----- but I guess that's
asking too much! It seems to me, that most ----- if not ALL ----- of you, rellish in putting people
down. After all, NOBODY EVER, has seen, (or asked to see), any of my designs ----- so how would you know if I'm right, or wrong?
Read the book ----- not the cover.

Sir Isaac Einstein

### #12 jab2

jab2

Thinking

• Members
• 140 posts

Posted 06 October 2009 - 06:14 AM

Why would you need MY design, for a device you will never build?
It would be nice, to read some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism from some of you ----- but I guess that's
asking too much! It seems to me, that most ----- if not ALL ----- of you, rellish in putting people
down. After all, NOBODY EVER, has seen, (or asked to see), any of my designs ----- so how would you know if I'm right, or wrong?
Read the book ----- not the cover.

Sir Isaac Einstein

Sir, may I ask you why you have not patented your design and found a financial backer to build it? With the current energy crisis the world faces, your machine will be accepted with open arms. Since you hinted of financial pressures, I am sure you are open to some extra money.

I find it rather peculiar that you, as a newbie, marches in here and start accusing the forum members, people you do not even know on a forum level, of putting people down. You made a statement that is against the laws of nature, and you substantiate that statement with nothing other than your believe that you are right. Sir, in science one's believe is no prove at all, so as Freeztar has said, you made the claim, you prove it. What do you expect that people say to you? Surely they cannot be expected to lie to themselves and about the laws of nature just to spare your feelings?

You mentioned you have a bunch of problems. From the way you communicate, it might just be obvious why.

### #13 Sir Isaac Einstein

Sir Isaac Einstein

Thinking

• Members
• 19 posts

Posted 06 October 2009 - 07:34 AM

Dear Jab2,
I find it difficult to believe, that you are confusing the belief, that the 'laws of nature', are correct. Did it ever occur to you, that this so - called 'law of nature' could in fact, be incorrect?
I am of course, refering to the 'law' that says perpetual motion is impossible. I honestly don't know if
I'M correct , or not ----- but I'm betting it's incorrect! Once again, read the book and not its cover!
With regard to you saying I'm accusing people of putting me down ----- I have NOT accused anyone
at all. What I actualy said was; it 'seems' to be that way! Even yourself! No disrespect meant!
I did NOT 'come in here' to cause ANYONE any problems. I simply answered a 'thread 'on this forum.
Ever since I answered that 'thread', I've become the center (or 'seem' to be) , of a systematic 'attempt'
(is that the right word?) to be 'put down' for my beliefs. After all said and done, am I not entitled to
my opinion? You (and others), are most certainly entitled to yours ----- even if I ,disagree.

Sir Isaac Einstein

### #14 jab2

jab2

Thinking

• Members
• 140 posts

Posted 06 October 2009 - 08:59 AM

deleted: duplicate post

### #15 jab2

jab2

Thinking

• Members
• 140 posts

Posted 06 October 2009 - 09:05 AM

I find it difficult to believe, that you are confusing the belief, that the 'laws of nature', are correct. Did it ever occur to you, that this so - called 'law of nature' could in fact, be incorrect?

No, it did not and neither would it. The fact that I can calculate the time of tomorrow's sunrise at my house, the fact that I know for sure that the water would run into my bath and not wet the ceiling when I open the tap, the fact that I get water when I burn Hydrogen in an Oxygen environment, all these things show me that the laws as formulated is sound, so I have no reason to disbelieve them. But then as I said, believe is of no value in science. One needs proof. For me the proof is that nature adhere to the laws as formulated. Do you perhaps have a proof to the contrary?

I am of course, refering to the 'law' that says perpetual motion is impossible. I honestly don't know if
I'M correct , or not ----- but I'm betting it's incorrect!

It is actually the law of conservation of energy which state that energy in a closed system will remain constant. You can read about it on the NASA site Conservation of Energy To thus create a perpetual motion machine, no energy can be given off to the environment and there can thus be no energy to draw off to power off system needs. Even the mere conversion of friction into heat is an energy loss to the system thus BUffy and Moontanman's reference to friction.

Ever since I answered that 'thread', I've become the center (or 'seem' to be) , of a systematic 'attempt'
(is that the right word?) to be 'put down' for my beliefs. After all said and done, am I not entitled to
my opinion? You (and others), are most certainly entitled to yours ----- even if I ,disagree.

Sir Isaac Einstein

You are most certainly entitled to your own opinion, but to steadfastly cling to a flawed opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence that you are wrong would most definitely attract attention. People has give adequate info against your opinion, yet you have not given one single bit of info to prove your side. The way how you sidestep direct questions which would cast a shadow on your opinion are also noted. For instance my question why, if you are so sure that perpetual motion is fact and the law of conservation of energy is wrong, do you not embark on a surely needed source of clean energy remains unanswered.

Oh, I nearly forgot. Please do read on perpetual motion at Perpetual motion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , http://www.lhup.edu/...ople/people.htm and BBC NEWS | Technology | The perpetual myth of free energy

### #16 CraigD

CraigD

Creating

• 8034 posts

Posted 06 October 2009 - 09:45 AM

After all said and done, am I not entitled to
my opinion? You (and others), are most certainly entitled to yours ----- even if I ,disagree.

Actually, SIE, you’re not entitled to express your opinion at hypography unless you follow the site rules when doing so. Following the rules is a condition of your being allowed to post here.

Please, before posting again, carefully read these rules. If you have any questions about them, ask them any moderator or administrator by clicking on his or her member name where it appears to the left of a post and clicking “send a private message to ...” to send a PM, or starting a thread in the Q & A or User feedback forums.

We worked out a pretty good mechanical treatment of the overbalanced wheel class of proposed perpetual motion machines earlier this year, toward the last posts in the “Magical Machines” thread. ( kudos/props to ozi-rocks, who started the approach on his personal website)

If you clearly and carefully consider the mechanics of them (the sketches in that thread and webpages linked to from it are a great help in keeping things clear), their motion is very predictable. In the ideal, zero-friction/useful work case, they’re not, as most people guess, perpetually spinning wheels, but oscillating pendulums.

Though actually building these machines is a good way to convince yourself they can’t run perpetually or generate useful power, not to mention a good exercise in scientific model building, I think modeling their behavior using mathematical mechanics is important, as without it, one’s tempted to think that if one can just make a better, lower friction machine, it might work. A mathematical approach allows one to answer the question “how would this machine behave if it was perfectly frictionless?”

### #17 Sir Isaac Einstein

Sir Isaac Einstein

Thinking

• Members
• 19 posts

Posted 06 October 2009 - 09:50 AM

My best bet, would be to show a video on you-tube then? And it never dawned on you then that
maybe ALL of you are wrong?
Thanks for your vote of no confidence!

Sir Isaac Einstein