Can you disprove this perpetual motion concept?

Question

If you agree with the ennumerated statement, go to the next. If you agree with every statement it seems that I've proven perpetual motion.

1. Consider two unsupported weights of equal mass connected by cord. The cord runs over a pulley. They balance, no? There is no movement.

2. Now one weight rolls on a horizontal track leading up to the pulley. The free falling weight should be sufficient to move it the full length of the track, unless there is an obstruction to either of the weights. My experimentation confirms this.

3. Now the tracked weight runs up at a 45 degree angle, leading to the pulley. Since the tracked weight is partially supported by the track, the falling weight still should be sufficient to move it.

4. Now both weights are set on arced tracks fixed on top of see-saws. When one weight is pushed to the opposite end of its see-saw, a cord attached to the end of the see-saw running over a pulley should be sufficent to pull another tracked weight. Horiz --> Vert.

------------------------------------------------------
When the see-saws are implemented in a looping series, it seems that the last might activate the first. That would be equivalent to over-unity.

Then the pulleys can be arranged in such a way that the last see-saw toggles the first, and each see-saw tilts the next in a different direction depending on the direction of the mobile weight.

Of course, it all depends on whether the above statements are incorrect.

To see my webpage on perpetual motion machines, follow the link below:

Nathan Coppedge's Perpetual Motion Page

The website link is actually:
http://www.nathancoppedge.com/Perpetual_Motion.html

ASIDE:

Once upon a time arguments were about affirmation. The above is really a condensed way of eliminating the necessity of arguing in the form that it "does not not work", which I believe to be the only form I could reach by consulting physics as opposed to the more flexible situational argument.

What would impress me is if someone could state their own principled reason why this machine does not work: for example, is the weight not sufficient to move the next weight? Is the mass of the next weight less due to the fact that it is not moved manually? Would one weight partially activate the next before it is receiving full force from the previous weight?

My arguments should place the burden of proof temporarily on physics. I'm explaining my design in terms of known physical principles, and yet there is the suggestion that it does something that has been seen as a violation.

The impression I get is that my readers are just giving a sophisticated front for "I don't know".

Addendum 1

Arguably a true perpetual motion machine would produce enough energy to compete with friction. To assume that friction loss is sufficient to stop it is to assume that it is not a perpetual motion machine. Its circular reasoning.

Sources: I'm a philosophy dropout.

Perhaps now you understand why we must see this in positive terms?

I do plan to build the machine, and the fact that I haven't built it yet may be proof that it is non-functional. In a way its sort of despicable to nurse something that has for so long been a non-issue for technologists.

I have been experimenting, and it appears that the effective leverage tranferred from one weight to the next is always less than the amount needed, due to the fact that the height of the see-saw is less than the hypotenuse.

Or something like that. At least my latest model doesn't work.

Answer 1

If you are so sure, build that contraption, and see what happens.

Answer 2

The Solar Systems is a good enough approximation of Perpetual motion. My question is, are you trying to demonstrate the ability to do "Work" indefinitely?

I agree with a previous answer, crack a book on Classical Mechanics.

If you make it through that, try Thermodynamics.

Also, keep this important concept in mind.

Using the Scientific method the burden of proof lies with the "proof positive," not the "negative." That is, science requires conjectures and principals be proved, not dis-proved.

After reading your addendums after my initials post, let me address some of your points you made.

You may have some grasp of formal Logic and Philosophy, but clearly very little, if any, of the most elementary aspects of Newton's mechanics. This is most evidenced in your statement,

"Arguably a true perpetual motion machine would produce enough energy to compete with friction. To assume that friction loss is sufficient to stop it is to assume that it is not a perpetual motion machine. Its circular reasoning."

There are 2 main principals in Physics which render making a "Perpetual Motion" machine difficult, if not impossible. They are the first and second laws of Thermodynamics. The first law is just a restatement of Conservation of Energy, the second is a statement about the tendency of Entropy.

Your statement that I highlighted only serves to validate the Conservation of Energy. It would only truly be perpetual motion if there is no explanation of how the machine produces the Energy to overcome friction.

There are many machine as you've described for sale at novelty gift shops. I have several in my office. They all have a source for their Energy.

Your statement,

"My arguments should place the burden of proof temporarily on physics. I'm explaining my design in terms of known physical principles, and yet there is the suggestion that it does something that has been seen as a violation."

NO, THEY DON'T!!! The burden of proof, as I stated above, is on YOU to demonstrate you've created apparatus that seems to violate the principals that have been verified through the collection of evidence. IN FACT, you've done nothing more than construct a FALSIFIABILITY argument Mr. Popper. But, not a very good one...

Answer 3

Too many weights and see saws for my comprehension.

But I do know that sooner or later, without adding any outside influence, that this contraption will seek equilibrium and become a nice, quiet, motionless sculpture.

This will take place even if the pulleys, tracks and cords are frictionless - it just comes to rest a little sooner in the real world.

Answer 4

I don't have to disprove it, you have to prove it. Build it and connect it to a generator to illuminate a light bulb for a few days. If it works but still nobody will believe you, just build a big one and sell the electricity on the spot market in a deregulated area and laugh all the way to the bank. Or start small and make one just big enough to power your house and turn off the man breaker at the meter. The machine does not sound expensive to build. What have you got to loose?

Answer 5

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you will lose energy to friction between your weights and the track and friction in your pulley. If your pulley and track could be made completely frictionless, which is impossible, you are correct.

Answer 6

All of that sounds accurate... but the bottom line is that the Law of Conservation of Energy only makes perpetual motion possible in theory.

Answer 7

:-) IN AMERICA WE FOLLOW THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS!!! :-) sorry

Well, there are a number of things that I would point out:
1) Friction exists
2) Gravity exists
3) Newton observed some pretty interesting laws
4) I'm out of printing paper, and
5) I have to go to the store.

Have a great day!!!

Answer 8

The skill had to generate the hydrogen and oxygen will exceed the output of the turbines. each and every time the ignitor works, very almost all the hydrogen and oxygen will react fairly than in elementary words the stuff on the right. also an skill source for the spark ignitor is critical.

Answer 9

Study Newton's laws.

Answer 10

.i won't waste my time with weights, perpetual motion is easily done without weights or pulleys

Answer 11

Uh... Friction?