A Pseudo Perpetual motion device to tear apart...

[quantum quack]

I thought I'd post this animation just to see why it shouldn't work. I am unaware of the designers name and I assume it fails to function as we would have heard all about it by now if it had.

 

 

If you can imagine that the moving chambers are connected by hoses and the weights inside suck and push depending on which side of the verticle it's on.

 

I look forward to your assessments?

[bumab]

Friction on the pulley's, first off. The weight of the whole system is causing friction around the top pulley especially.

[UncleAl]

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

Perpetual motion machines

 

Diamond has a negative work function into vacuum. Take a metal plate covered with boron-doped diamond whiskers or tips, aim it at a collection plate, put it all in vacuum tube, and get an infinite source of [(current)(voltage)]. Now, show us why this is also a load of crap.

[Qfwfq]

If you can imagine that the moving chambers are connected by hoses and the weights inside suck and push depending on which side of the verticle it's on.

I suppose the designer aims to make a pump that needs no energy supply. The design is typical, based on the "brilliant idea" that the weights going up are equal to the weights going down, right?

 

But, every time a pair of cylinders goes arond the top and bottom pulleys the weights inside these go down the cylinders, therefore supplying the pumping power but at a price: the brilliant idea is incorrect. In fact the weight that has just gone over the top pulley is descending more than the cylinder, so not all it's decreasing potential energy is work being done on the belt, it is instead work done for pumping, while the other weight is gaining less potential energy than work done by the belt, this difference also being work done for pumping. Claro, no?

 

In UA's example the work function is also a potential energy, it doesn't matter if the potential inside the diamond is greater or less than in the vacuum, around the complete circuit the ups and downs must match up.

[quantum quack]

Qfwfq,

You may be very well correct in your assessment, however let me argue from an PPM enthusiasts POV as an excersise.

 

I would ask why would a chamber going down weigh any differently to a chamber going up?

 

Whether the piston is falling faster than the chamber or not should not effect the overall weight of the chamber?

 

I use the following diagram to support the device:

 

 

 

1] If we assume that the connecting hoses are blocked the device would settle into a state of balance as shown.

 

 

Can we agree on this point?

 

2] If we then release the hose block the following should happen

 

 

Can we agree on this point?

 

Can we agree that there would be a shift in weight from the right side of the verticle to the left side.?

 

3] If this weight shift is achieved wouldn't the conveyor be forced to seek balance again, and if we block the hoses would it not settle at the position shown in the frst diagram and the cycle can be repeated by simply blocking and unblocking the hoses?

 

Can we agree to this point?

[Qfwfq]

I would ask why would a chamber going down weigh any differently to a chamber going up?

The weight isn't different, I talked about the work done by the weight. Work is equal to force times distance, when these have the same direction.

 

1)Fair enough.

 

2)40 kg descending a little raise 10 kg of fluid. By how much should the fluid be raised? Certainly not more than 4 times the distance that the 40 kg descend. But in your picture the distance is a bit more than 4 times.

 

3)If you work it out considering pressure and Pascal's law you will see there won't be an output of mechanical power.

[quantum quack]

Qf,

if we extend our imaginations a little and think of the weghts as being 1 metric ton.

And the fluid to support and shift is no more than say 100 kgs, how would that effect our balancing.

 

the thing is any imbalance in the weght left to right would impart movement, abeit slow or small but it seems to me that it would.......i'm still trying to figure out why it fails in principle........

[C1ay]

Qf,

if we extend our imaginations a little and think of the weghts as being 1 metric ton.

And the fluid to support and shift is no more than say 100 kgs, how would that effect our balancing.

So you would have a total of 10 metric tons hanging on the axle of the top pulley. Moving a little bit of fluid from one side to the other is not going to overcome the friction that axle would see from that magnitude of weight.

[quantum quack]

the point of my post was to show that if we take the principles involved the weight of the fluid is not a terminal issue.

 

If the weights where a mere 1kg and the fluid supported and to be sucked and pushed was only say 200 grams would we not have the same result with out the friction issue.....

[C1ay]

the point of my post was to show that if we take the principles involved the weight of the fluid is not a terminal issue.

 

If the weights where a mere 1kg and the fluid supported and to be sucked and pushed was only say 200 grams would we not have the same result with out the friction issue.....

You still have the whole assembly hanging on one axle and you're trying to overcome that friction and the sliding friction of the weights with a proportionately small amount of fluid.

[quantum quack]

C1ay, You are probably correct as I can;t see any other reason for this not to work. The friction must be enough to stop it's rotation.

[Qfwfq]

No, I would leave friction out of it altogether. It won't be a PMM even is absence of friction. Work it out considering that pressure increases with depth, also in proportion to the liquid's density. Maybe it's called Stevin's law and not Pascal's, I'm not sure, but that's what's behind the trick.

[quantum quack]

No, I would leave friction out of it altogether. It won't be a PMM even is absence of friction. Work it out considering that pressure increases with depth, also in proportion to the liquid's density. Maybe it's called Stevin's law and not Pascal's, I'm not sure, but that's what's behind the trick.

 

i was thinking about it last night and I think the reason it fails is more to do with how each pair of chambers is a system in itself that seeks to balance. the end result would be a state of balance between the chambers and not the imbalance as the diagram suggests.

in other words the pistons would only lower to a point were both chambers were balanced in weight thus no movement would occur.

The total weight including the weight of fluid in the hoses woudl balance left and right of the systems Center of gravity.

 

the weights are fluid locked to each other. thus both pistions will only move to a central position......

 

Even if we used a fluid reservoir in between the two chambers the result would be the same. Thus conservation laws are fully maintained and no free lunch is available.....ha

 

note : qf , you proabably have been saying the above all along and I have just arrived at the same conclusion my own way....

[Qfwfq]

you proabably have been saying the above all along and I have just arrived at the same conclusion my own way....

Quite likely, yeah. :friday:

 

You might get a clearer picture by looking up the vis vivae theorem for static equilibrium and consider also the increasing pressure with depth.

 

As a simple example, consider a pair of vertical hydraulic cylinders, of equal cross sections and connected by a tube, with pistons of different weights, each riding atop the oil of a given density. What will the equilibrium be? With a heavy enough oil there will not be much difference between their heights at equilibrium.

[blazer2000x]

I don't understand why it's supposed to work in the first place. Is it a bunch of tubes with movable weights inside them and attached by tubes? Because if it is, then it dosn't work because the weights on one side push in one direction, but they also pull in the other direction. This weakens the force of the weights on the other side that are pulling and likewise for the others, allowing it to balance and stopping the motion. If the entire machine is submerged in water, and the tubes are sealed (with an air hose inserted to allow movement of the weights) on one end but open on the other, then it would work until a balance could be created between the water and air pressure on both sides that was equal. I suppose you could use two, small curved boards and two springs on each tube to keep the weights from stopping in the middle, but that would create too much friction to keep the machine running no matter what the scale. So I'm pretty sure it dosn't work.

[blazer2000x]

Why dosn't this one work?

 

http://digitonblaze.cjb.cc/

[Qfwfq]

How are the two wheels constrained to have the weights always to the right side? This constraint will defeat the rightward position of the weights, they might as well be in the centre of each wheel.