belovelife Posted July 16, 2012 Report Share Posted July 16, 2012 i am, there was someone here that did one, joseph newman i heard about this years ago, i also saw something simlar in nature built with legos cool stuff , cool topic, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aemilius Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 I remember looking into The Newman Machine, it was more of a "motor running the generator that powers the motor" thing though rather than a gravity driven mechanism. Also, he was so secretive about how it worked no one could ever really tell what it was about. It seems ultimately it was discredited, from Wikipedia.... Newman's Energy Machine is a DC motor which the inventor, Joseph Newman, claims will produce mechanical power exceeding the electrical power being supplied to it. In 1979, Newman attempted to patent the device, but was rejected by the United States Patent Office. When the rejection was later appealed, the United States district court requested that Newman's machine be tested by the National Bureau of Standards (NBS). The NBS concluded in June 1986 that output power was not greater than the input, and it was not a perpetual motion machine. Thus, the patent was again denied. Newman's ideas about electricity and magnetism have been described as pseudoscientific and his claims false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belovelife Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 cool, do you have one that works? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aemilius Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 Well, I do have a mechanism I've been working on for about the last fifteen years. It does seem to commutate the gravitational force in the same way a DC motor does, though not by periodically reversing the force of gravity itself, but rather by periodically reversing the effect gravity has on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belovelife Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 do you have a picture? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aemilius Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 I'm just finishing this model (it's been redesigned and rebuilt several times). I'll be back in about two hours and post a picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigD Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 Welcome to hypography, Aemilius! :) Not ready to give up, I wondered whether there might be some way of applying direct current electric motor theory with its accompanying periodic reversal of electromagnetic polarity to the gravitational force in the sense of finding some way of mechanically "commutating" it (the gravitational force) in order to achieve the desired result. That's where I'm at now and I think I may finally be on to something.... probably not, but that's what I'm here to find out.I don’t think this is a very promising pursuit, Aemilius. Although, alone among the fundamental forces, gravity is arguably the least fundamentally understood, having not been successfully incorporated into quantum mechanics, it’s been well understood for about 300 years as empirical physical law. Among these laws are conservation of energy. It’s well known that the gravitational force cannot violate this law, and thus can’t be used to make engines that produce more energy than they use – what are more commonly called “perpetual motion”, “over unity”, or “something for nothing” machines. Storing energy as gravitational potential energy – for example, by raising the weights in a weight-driven clock – is not essentially different than storing it in other forms, such as compressing or twisting a spring. Because gravitational force resembles electrostatic force ([math]\text{F}=k_e \frac{|q_1 q_2|}{r^2}[/math] for electrostatic force, vs[math]\text{F}=G \frac{|m_1 m_2|}{r^2}[/math] for gravity) it’s tempting to think that it can be used in a way similar to electrostatic and dynamic force in an electric motor. The killer problem with this is that, unlike electrically induced magnetic force, it can’t be switched on and off or reversed. Were it possible – for example, if there exited a material that, when placed between two bodies, increased, reduced, or reversed their gravitational attraction – it would be easy to “get something for nothing” by switching the gravitation force. Though such a technology has made for some entertaining space opera SF (for example, Piers Anthony’s Bio of a Space Tyrant series, in which interplanetary spacecraft were propelled by “gravity lenses”), there’s no theoretical basis or experimental evidence suggesting its possible. Were it possible, classical physics would need to be rewritten, as violations of conservation of energy would be possible. In my experience, all imaginative, mechanically-minded people think a lot about and entertain hunches about successfully designing, “something for nothing” engines. My advice to you would be to stay away from schemes that physics can clearly prove impossible, and focus on one it can conclusively show is possible. The Casimir effect is a theoretically (quantum mechanics) predicted, experimentally confirmed force. As with any force, it has the potential to perform physical work. Unlike classical mechanical effects, such work does not require, in the classical mechanical sense, energy. In practice, much more energy is required, in the form of building large, very precise machines, to produce the Casimir effect than is “gotten for nothing” from it. In principle, however, this energy requirement can be made arbitrarily small. If it can be made smaller than the “free work” the effect produces, the device would be, without violating physical law, a perpetual motion machine – what we might call “of the fourth kind”. One attempt to do this involved speculation that some of the light energy released via sonoluminescence is not due to the commonly believed chemical effects, but to the Casimir effect. (See the “exotic proposals” section of the wikipedia article sonoluminescence for a short synopsis and some links, or Nesterenko and Pirozhenko’s 1988 paper Is the Casimir effect relevant to sonoluminescence?) Because of the technical, quantum mechanical description of the Casimir and similar effects, such energy is sometime called “zero point”. It is staple of recent SF stories. Among my favorite are the novels of Steven Baxter’s Xeelee Sequence. Turtle and JMJones0424 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belovelife Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 well the one i posted at the beginning of this thread seems to work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigD Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 well the one i posted at the beginning of this thread seems to workBL, I think you need to read the full thread you linked to, This Is Cool. Is It For Real. It shows, then debunks, several video-promoted perpetual motion machine scams/jokes. One needs to be very careful counting youtube videos as credible evidence of anything, because they can easily and very often are faked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 ...Turtle "no; we're not moving on until you acknowledge your errors. might as well spill your agenda while you're at it; i have little doubt it is propounded on error as well." Alright Turtle.... I'll accept your version of how and why locks work. I didn't come here to argue with you, I came here because I'm running out of time and I need your help. I can see now from your posts over the years that you're very knowledgable, which makes you (and the others here) a valuable asset I would be foolish to ignore. If you read my introduction you know I dropped out of school at an early age, but that doesn't mean I have'nt continued to try and learn. ... well, it's not a "version" of how locks work, it is the facts of the matter. i think you knew you would get an argument with the crux of your investigation, which is why you started by greasing the ways as it were. (ways being the means by which many boats are lauched; another gravity driven mechanism for you. ;)) i'm all for genuine curiosity and experimentation with their accompanying mistakes through simple ignorance, particularly when it involves experimenting with mechanisms. i am however all against willful ignorance in the face of facts. craig has graciously laid out a gentle correction for you and i urge you to study it until you understand its factuality. surely you have time for that. a stitch in time saves nine, as the saying goes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aemilius Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) CraigD "Welcome to hypography, Aemilius!" Thanks CraigD, nice to meet you! CraigD "I don’t think this is a very promising pursuit, Aemilius." Hah! I can see already that you have an extraordinary gift for understatement! This is just a hobby of mine, I have no illusions of grandeur. CraigD "Although, alone among the fundamental forces, gravity is arguably the least fundamentally understood, having not been successfully incorporated into quantum mechanics, it’s been well understood for about 300 years as empirical physical law. Among these laws are conservation of energy. It’s well known that the gravitational force cannot violate this law, and thus can’t be used to make engines that produce more energy than they use – what are more commonly called “perpetual motion”, “over unity”, or “something for nothing” machines."Agreed, and well put. CraigD "The killer problem with this is that, unlike electrically induced magnetic force, it can’t be switched on and off or reversed."Right.... so far. However, though the gravitational force itself can't be switched on and off or reversed, it's quite possible (theoretically) that the influence it has on a mechanism can be switched on and off or reversed. CraigD "Were it possible, classical physics would need to be rewritten, as violations of conservation of energy would be possible."Not necessarily. CraigD "In my experience, all imaginative, mechanically-minded people think a lot about and entertain hunches about successfully designing, “something for nothing” engines. My advice to you would be to stay away from schemes that physics can clearly prove impossible, and focus on one it can conclusively show is possible." Agreed, generally, but mine is no hunch. I have devised and constructed a well balanced mechanism that immediately begins to rotate (in either direction) with an imbalancing displacement of as little as one degree (even with no bearings). With a repeated periodic displacement of as little as three to five degrees its rate of rotation rapidly approaches 70 to 80 rotations per minute over the course of just eight to ten repetitions, all while overcoming only frictional mechanical resistance. Perpetual motion? Probably not.... but it's a lot of fun! Edited July 17, 2012 by Aemilius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aemilius Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 Turtle "well, it's not a "version" of how locks work, it is the facts of the matter. i think you knew you would get an argument with the crux of your investigation, which is why you started by greasing the ways as it were. (ways being the means by which many boats are lauched; another gravity driven mechanism for you. ) i'm all for genuine curiosity and experimentation with their accompanying mistakes through simple ignorance, particularly when it involves experimenting with mechanisms. i am however all against willful ignorance in the face of facts. craig has graciously laid out a gentle correction for you and i urge you to study it until you understand its factuality. surely you have time for that. a stitch in time saves nine, as the saying goes." If you want to keep talking about locks and paper airplanes in outer space start your own thread.... piss off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 ...If you want to keep talking about locks and paper airplanes in outer space start your own thread.... piss off. the flush toilet is a gravity driven mechanism. JMJones0424 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belovelife Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 CraigD "Welcome to hypography, Aemilius!" Thanks CraigD, nice to meet you! CraigD "I don’t think this is a very promising pursuit, Aemilius." Hah! I can see already that you have an extraordinary gift for understatement! This is just a hobby of mine, I have no illusions of grandeur. CraigD "Although, alone among the fundamental forces, gravity is arguably the least fundamentally understood, having not been successfully incorporated into quantum mechanics, it’s been well understood for about 300 years as empirical physical law. Among these laws are conservation of energy. It’s well known that the gravitational force cannot violate this law, and thus can’t be used to make engines that produce more energy than they use – what are more commonly called “perpetual motion”, “over unity”, or “something for nothing” machines."Agreed, and well put. CraigD "The killer problem with this is that, unlike electrically induced magnetic force, it can’t be switched on and off or reversed."Right.... so far. However, though the gravitational force itself can't be switched on and off or reversed, it's quite possible (theoretically) that the influence it has on a mechanism can be switched on and off or reversed. CraigD "Were it possible, classical physics would need to be rewritten, as violations of conservation of energy would be possible."Not necessarily. CraigD "In my experience, all imaginative, mechanically-minded people think a lot about and entertain hunches about successfully designing, “something for nothing” engines. My advice to you would be to stay away from schemes that physics can clearly prove impossible, and focus on one it can conclusively show is possible." Agreed, generally, but mine is no hunch. I have devised and constructed a well balanced mechanism that immediately begins to rotate (in either direction) with an imbalancing displacement of as little as one degree (even with no bearings). With a repeated periodic displacement of as little as three to five degrees its rate of rotation rapidly approaches 70 to 80 rotations per minute over the course of just eight to ten repetitions, all while overcoming only frictional mechanical resistance. Perpetual motion? Probably not.... but it's a lot of fun! i wish i had an animation to view this put together, does it work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) Hey belovelife, I'd just like to clarify something here.... CraigD "Among these laws are conservation of energy. It’s well known that the gravitational force cannot violate this law, and thus can’t be used to make engines that produce more energy than they use – what are more commonly called “perpetual motion”, “over unity”, or “something for nothing” machines." This mechanism was never intended to be a “perpetual motion”, “over unity”, “something for nothing” or "zero point energy" machine/device. It's just an experimental research mechanism, nothing more.... and I've never claimed it was. Ultimately though, if it should turn out that it works as intended if/when completed, it will work for all the same well known reasons a water wheel or weight driven clock works, differing only in the way it responds to the force of gravity acting on it. ... At this point I would say yes, it does "work", at least in the narrow sense that it demonstrates the feasability of mecahanical commutation of the gravitational force. I'll keep you posted.... Emile i'm anxious to see the device operating as well. your theoretical opinion and verbiage such as "commutation of gravitational force" and "piss off" aside, you may have designed and built a new type of escapement. if this is the case, it would not be the first gravity escapement but a laudible accomplishment nonetheless. here's some info for you to ignore at your leisure. i have quoted just a bit and left out the illustrations and animations. i have also attached a tooyube video of a fascinating escapement that employs a unique reversal of direction. enjoy...or not. :shrug: escapement @ wiccan pediacAn escapement is a device in mechanical watches and clocks that transfers energy to the timekeeping element (the "impulse action") and allows the number of its oscillations to be counted (the "locking action"). The impulse action transfers energy to the clock's timekeeping element (usually a pendulum or balance wheel) to replace the energy lost to friction during its cycle, to keep the timekeeper oscillating. The escapement is driven by force from a coiled spring or a suspended weight, transmitted through the timepiece's gear train. The amount of stored energy, energy loss and efficiency of transfer to the timekeeping element determines the time a clock will run after it has been wound....Gravity escapement A gravity escapement uses a small weight or a weak spring to give an impulse directly to the pendulum....The design was developed steadily from the middle of the 18th century to the middle of the 19th century. It eventually became the escapement of choice for turret clocks and has recently[when?] been perfected in the inertially-detached gravity escapement invented by James Arnfield. This frees the pendulum from any part in unlocking the clock train; all it does is lift a gravity arm and then later on part company from it at a lower point. They part company because the gravity arm comes into contact with, and unlocks, the mechanism which re-sets the gravity arm in its raised position. ... Edited July 18, 2012 by Turtle JMJones0424 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aemilius Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) Turtle "i'm anxious to see the device operating as well. your theoretical opinion and verbeage (verbeage? Is that some kind of vegetable?) such as "commutation of gravitational force" and "piss off" aside, you may have designed and built a new type of escapement. if this is the case, it would not be the first gravity escapement but a laudible accomplishment nonetheless." Right.... So, I may have designed and built a new type of escapement, but even if that's the case, it wouldn't really be the first time, so it wouldn't really be new, but a laudable accomplishment nonetheless.... talk about verbeage! I can't explain it Turtle, but there's something so refreshingly irritating about your way of thinking that I genuinely hope you continue to participate in this thread (as if I had a choice). Turtle "here's some info for you to ignore at your leisure. i have quoted just a bit and left out the illustrations and animations (and sources). i have also attached a tooyube (tooyube?) video of a fascinating escapement that employs a unique reversal of direction. enjoy...or not." Right, you're very foresightful.... I'll gleefully accept your invitation to ignore it at my leisure, repeatedly, and will most probably not enjoy it if I don't. The mechanism (once you see its characteristics and range of motion) doesn't resemble any known form of escapement. I've been at this a while now and I'm fairly familiar with many forms of escapements going all the way back to the demise of the water clock.... this mechanism isn't even loosely based on any of those configurations. Thanks for the "info".... Emile (Edited to add - Sorry Turtle, a bit of a rant there.... I really do look forward to your input. I understand your reference to the escapement. Most people who see it for the first time (stationary) describe it as looking like a clock or metronome. I even got stopped once by a policeman years ago who thought it might be some kind of "firing mechanism"! Edited July 19, 2012 by Aemilius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Turtle "i'm anxious to see the device operating as well. your theoretical opinion and verbeage (verbeage? Is that some kind of vegetable?) such as "commutation of gravitational force" and "piss off" aside, you may have designed and built a new type of escapement. if this is the case, it would not be the first gravity escapement but a laudible accomplishment nonetheless." i have corekted my mispeeling of 'verbiage'; yes,it's a vegetable emile. Right.... So, I may have designed and built a new type of escapement, but even if that's the case, it wouldn't really be the first time, so it wouldn't really be new, but a laudable accomplishment nonetheless.... talk about verbeage! I can't explain it Turtle, but there's something so refreshingly irritating about your way of thinking that I genuinely hope you continue to participate in this thread (as if I had a choice). roger, i recognize your difficulty in explaining things. "here's some info for you to ignore at your leisure. i have quoted just a bit and left out the illustrations and animations[/i] (and sources). i have also attached a tooyube (tooyube?) video of a fascinating escapement that employs a unique reversal of direction. enjoy...or not." Right, you're very foresightful.... I'll gleefully accept your invitation to ignore it at my leisure, repeatedly, and will most probably not enjoy it if I don't. The mechanism (once you see its characteristics and range of motion) doesn't resemble any known form of escapement. I've been at this a while now and I'm fairly familiar with many forms of escapements going all the way back to the demise of the water clock.... this mechanism isn't even loosely based on any of those configurations. Thanks for the "info".... Emile looking forward to your video. :clock: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.