Disprove Motive Mass Perpetual Motion, Part II?

Question

In my previous question http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsHKwJRcx.7FuFV._U.6FlAjzKIX?qid=20061006180743AAME80I
I asked for feedback about the 1st version of the design.

Criticism was raised that the burden of the proof rests on me, yet I remain unconvinced that there is not significant conceptual proof.

If it is true as before that a weight applied to the uppermost end of a see-saw has the force to move another weight horizontally, especially on a track when each weight has wheels, it seems that the primary remaining difficulty is geometry, for as I have found before, when the see-saw tilts at 45 degrees, a weight applied at the uppermost end is sufficient to move another weight more than half of the distance, but not all the way.

Now consider that I have found a certain configuration using a triangular track and a less than 45 degree tilt that seems to solve this problem, especially when the cord is pulled horizontally by contrast to the tilted track.

The most relavent diagram may be found at:

http://www.nathancoppedge.com/Perpetual_Motion_SeeSaw_It2.jpg

As before, the principle is that when these see-saws are implemented in series, if it is true that they function as effectively as dominoes, yet have the same potential energy at start and finish, then the cycle may be perpetual. If it is perpetual and it involves mass movements, it seems to me that energy could be derived.

Of course, I have no working design. It is trickier to build than I might expect. Of course I have heard that patent companies get see-saw designs all the time. Perhaps this is only one amongst thousands of petty ideas.

The question of course, is if there is any reason to believe this would not cycle once, and having achieved the first cycle, if in this case there is any reason to suspect that it would not continue, having already achieved over-unity?

Addendum

1. My first respondent didn't seem to take note of the relationship between dominoes and "the same potential energy" at the beginning and end of the cycle.

If you had an infinite row of dominoes, would it every stop, once you hit the first one? Not in principle. Now if you had a way for the last domino to hit the first, and somehow the first was still knockable, you could make a perpetual loop without getting infiinity involved.

The use of see-saws with mobile weights creates a situation where each individual unit (see-saw) is at an equivalent energy state before and after it is activated. This is the same as saying that these dominoes don't need to be set up, only built (assuming the geometry works).

Answer 1

I can't fault you for trying to think outside of the box. Great scientists have done just that for centuries. Perpetual motion is certainly an intriguing idea. And if nothing else, definitely a learning experience.

It wasn't long ago that engineers pretty much deduced that bumblebees couldn't fly - too much body mass and not enough wing area.
Neither the bumblebee nor the engineers had learned about vortexes - and the bumblebee just kept flying anyway.

The engineers had a distinct advantage over you - they had a "working model" that wasn't suppose to work - and they simply had to figure out why it did. You have an idea - that isn't suppose to work - and that's ground zero. You have to invent the bumblebee and make it fly even though it isn't suppose to - and then let the physisists figure out why it works.

I strongly suspect that a perpetual motion devise based only on mass and gravity is destined to fail - objects just tend to the lowest energy level and equilibrium will surely result when weights are balanced against each other - however intricate.

Your domino analogy will only work if someone is "adding energy" to them, i.e. setting them back up before the last one in the loop falls against it.

Your bucking a pretty stout set of laws in your quest - among the many, its further complicated by the equivalency of mass and energy and the aledged fact that neither can be created.

Good luck and enjoy. In this age of enlightenment, I never say never - but when it comes to perpetual motion, I'm tempted. Perhaps you will find a new way of transfering energy more efficiently or a device like the perverbial "better mouse trap" - new inventions are not always the results of the original objective. (microwave ovens, transisters and so on)

Answer 2

Wow, it's been a long time since I debunked a perpetuum mobile. Unfortunately, this one is not very original, and fails due to basic geometry. Here's why:

"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."

This is true, because the force of the weight on the rope is only W sin θ, where W represents the weight of the weight and θ is the degree that the inclined plane makes to the horizontal. But note that the total distance moved by the rising weight is only the distance moved by the falling weight (this is inherent to the fact that it is being raised by a pulley). If the falling weight moves down by d meters, then the rising weight moves diagonally by d meters, the vertical component of which is d sin θ meters.

In other words, by using the inclined plane, it takes less force to raise the weight, but the cost of that is that you raise it over a proportionally smaller vertical distance. Any configuration that would raise the rising weight by the full d meters (so that it could be used to restart the cycle) would require that the falling weight exert an average force equal to the full W pounds - which it would be unable to provide.

Another way of saying this is that in any configuration where the average force required to be exerted on the rising weight is less than W pounds (and where the force is provided by a equal weight falling d meters) will raise the rising weight less than d meters.

By the way, wouldn't you rather work on cold fusion? At least that's not physically impossible.

Answer 3

You are attempting to violate the first law of thermodynamics, in the absence of nuclear reactions, energy can be neither created nor destroyed.

You claim that energy can be withdrawn from the sea-saw and at the same time the sea-saw retains its original energy violates this law. You are attempting to create energy.

When it come to energy, there is no free lunch. Here are the laws of thermodynamics in layman's terms:

0) You have to play the game.
1) You can't win.
2) Not only can you not win, you can't even break even, except under very special circumstances.
3) The special circumstances in the second law do not exist.

You can read more about thermodynamics here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics

Answer 4

PMMK1 and PMMK2 do not exist. If you waste your time, you will reach a point where you will question all basics of science. Get real.