Could This Machine Actually Work?

Really! If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.

This is no different.

Whether articulated or not, it will require the same amount of energy to get the links to the top, as will be produced when they fall. A net gain of zero.

Just build one, and watch it fail to work.

For one thing, what keeps the right side from being the heavy side?

For another, this is PesWiki, which is plumb full of BS.

For yet another, study some physics.

"Just build one, and watch it fail to work." That's why I posted here first.

"For one thing, what keeps the right side from being the heavy side?" The sprocket constrains the links. In the illustration, there are always 21 bars on the right and 49 on the left. The left side will always be heavier than the right.

"For yet another, study some physics." BSEE Cal. Lower and upper div physics and various ME courses. That's why I posted here. The physics and ME statics and mechanics I learned says it can't work.

But if the left side is always heavier than the right, then it has to rotate.

If not, then WHY not?

Good grief, how did you ever pass any of those courses?

Just build it, dammit, and you will soon see that there aren't always 21 bars on one side and 49 on the other.

"If not, then WHY not?"

Build it and you will see.

If started as in the drawing, it will rotate until there are equal amounts of the closed angles at the bottom of each side, then it will stop.

Good grief, you really cannot see why this won't work. The first thing that should tip you off is the animation at the bottom of the page. Did you notice the magically appearing and disappearing bracing that force the spacing on the far right. Why do you think this bracing has to happen on only one side?

Now if you had one of these machines wouldn't you build one and make a video of it running? Wouldn't that be the first thing you would do before going public? Think about it...

Just looking at the top drawing (without magic straps)

The top will turn CW (more hanging on the right)

Te bottom will run CCW (more pushing on left than right)

The dam thing will just unwind.

To prevent it from unwinding the top need to be connected to the bottom with a drive.

That's just another variation on an old idea that was debunked nearly 2 centuries ago:

There is a website that lists a lot of similar 'perpetual motion' schemes.

http://www.todayinsci.com/Books/MechApp/chap23/page6.htm

Why do you think it's in The Museum of Unworkable Devices?

...those who search for, or imagine they have found, the perpetual motion, are always men to whom the most certain and invariable truths in mechanics are unknown.

-Jacques Ozanam (1640-1717)

The psychology of perpetual motion machine seekers

...

This will partially work. You will find that the part that operates to accept $$ from you works very well.

The part that creates/extracts energy will not work.

and like in the second law, there are no refunds...

Uh, Work=Force time Distance Maybe you're thinking of Horsepower, the time rate of doing work. Why wouldn't the top just spin until it's half and half folded links? The extended links make a rope that just pulls folded single links off the top until the sides are equal.

The mechanical horsepower, also known as imperial horsepower, of exactly 550 foot pounds per second is approximately equivalent to 745.7 watts.

Don't fully follow your remarks, but as the links are rotated around the top the mass is retarded (puts work into the system) but when the links are rotated around the bottom the mass is accelerated (takes work out of the system) that leaves work done on one side to raise the reduced mass, and work on the other side done to lower the increased mass.

Conclusion, the work done to retard and accelerate the links is equal and the horse power to raise and lower the different masses is equal, that then only leaves friction, and as no work is input into the system to over come any friction then it will not work.

Regards JD.

Looking at the animation and just taking into account the theory of the idea. logic will tell you that if on the left you have 18 links moving downwards at say 100mm/min and then you have 9 links moving upwards at 200mm/min. this would equal out to be even. Then you add friction and it will stop.

Work In = Work Out

Work = (mass1)(gravity1)(distance1) = (mass2)(gravity2)(distance2)

Since gravity is constant

m1s1 = m2s2

Note! When there are more links on one side, the distance the links travel will be less by the same proportion. The machine (?) is based on the same principle as a simple pulley.

Work IN = Work Out describes perpetual motion.

Or, is this just an oversimplification?

You have failed to account for any losses.

Simply ideal equations exposing the obvious flaws in this apparatus/conversation.

The links (aligned different on each side) are rotated 90 degrees changing the distanced they move at the same ratio (inverse) as total mass changes.

Is it necessary to discuss friction or the second law of thermodynamics (especially when appropriate data is limited) which we all know will eventually stop the apparatus unless continual energy is added?

P.S. I have actually seen the above apparatus...it does not continue to move...no big surprise!

Why?..... The weights going up are moving faster than the weights moving down. So the total energy, a function of weight x speed, is the same on both sides.

from a practical standpoint how would you get the chain to fold up & stay folded on the left so nicely?

"from a practical standpoint how would you get the chain to fold up & stay folded on the left so nicely?"

Place the contraption in a box with inside dimensions that would keep any of the links from wandering. (This adds frictional losses, but reduces the likelihood of jamming.)

Well there you go. Add frictional losses for alignment to a system that is supposedly working because everything is balanced and voilà, no perpetual motion.

I knew you could figure this out.

a box might keep it folded

you would need a mechanism to fold as it came off the top sprocket

how would you keep it from falling out of the bottom of box, if you have a guide or bottom, the folded mass won't exert the weight on the top sprocket

as a matter of fact the only way for any weight [beyond one link] is if the chain is stretched

the chain can't be stretched & folded at the same time

You remind of the joke were a "biker" is walking down to road dragging a length of chain and a cop pulls up and says "Hey; why are you dragging that chain?". To which the bikers replies "have you ever tried pushing one?"

[I'd say the theory is; the guides forcibly spread the links, so the 'concertina' created provides the tension - meaning the wheels/guides/pivots, are significantly loaded - read; more friction. Here is something of a similar forced 'concertina' tension principle]

It can not work because it is in balance. If you start it with your hands friction will soon stop it.

The animation is an artifice to picture a thing that will not generate energy that is in motion because it is a cyclic set of cartoon frames.

If you build it and set it on a table, it will not start, if you start it in motion, it will soon stop. It is like a spinning top, but more complex, and even though you can start a spinning top it will soon stop from friction. In free fall in a vacuum the top will spin forever, but any try to get energy from it will slow it. Modern flywheel energy storage are like this. They run on a magnetic bearing in a vacuum, but in 2-3 weeks they come to a stop

You'll get a lot of more detailed (and, frankly, accurate) explanations here but for my view - it's got 21 bars rising and 49 bars falling. If it only lifts 21 to the top it won't have 49 to drop.

Now Now Di Bach, Imagine a line of 49 children at Barry Island fair receiving a prise, and then 21 going to the back of the Que again, all they have to do is walk faster than the 49 in the other Que. Nice to see another Taffy .

Regards JD.

<g> Doesn't sound like Barry Island to me. Now, 29 kids picking on the smallest one of the 49 and shoving him out of the queue. That would sound like Barry Island, and, come to think of it that 's not a bad metaphor for the the disappearing bracing in the video.

Yes, the energy involved in lifting the "29 side" much faster in order to present the relevant number of links to fall, will mean that, as kramerat and passingtongreen have explained, it will run briefly, then stop. Because the energy needed to bring them up at speed is equal (mmmmm is it?) to the energy in the downpull. Then Uncle Friction pops along to spoil whatever nascent party may exist. The energy in the initial partial rotation will be the release of the stored energy from whoever placed the 49 links.

BTW, I guess you know your Prime Minister was from Barry Island? I guess that's where she learned the basic rules of Auzzie politics!

I have to admit this is a very good concept in the genus of PM scams.

It will instantly appeal to anyone who when fitting a chain has had it unwind off a sprocket due to a weight imbalance.

It's quite clever not to show the 'timing chain' behind that keeps the sprockets in sync, so all people see is a 'stack' going down verses 'less' going up.

If that timing chain was in there, the 'down' velocity difference would make it a lot more obvious that F = ma is equal for both sides. _{(as others above have said)}

A Very Clever job of distracting folk from one of the very "101" mechanics fundamentals with links and guides and wheels and color and movement and selective omission.

And having then realized that the forces are balanced - what you are looking at is a friction nightmare.

GA but as for timing, one link off at the bottom equals one link on at the top, they rotate at the same speed, after you have advanced the link coming up, over to the down side, they remain synchronized.

Regards JD.

We obviously agree on the F=ma aspect, so I'm not sure what you are getting at ref timing in my prior post. Quite possibly "" means you're just 'pulling my leg', but the slightest excuse to babble on about what is non-Kosher about this sort of scam is all I need.

Looking at the mechanics as outlined in the link - if the bottom sprocket is held as 'driving' then there is need for a separate 1:1 'timing chain' to transmit drive to the top sprocket to lift the upward run - otherwise it would just equalize to two even stacks. (read, a static useless mess)

So, it was the downward velocity of such a chain relative to the stack velocity, that I figured for a 'dead acceleration difference give away'

However; I also figured most of that "link description" is ill informed, or deliberately misleading, as it also states the sprocket ratios are, or can be, different and seems indecisive about which shaft is output to the alleged generator. I.e. whoever wrote it has no idea how it is meant to work.

Even so; looking at it as concertina without a timing chain; the concertina spreading forces have to lift the upward run.

As we all know, a flat linkage, much like a tight catena, exerts a huge horizontal tension force for a small vertical load.

Obviously those stack links would require an incredible spreading force to even approach flat whilst lifting 20 something links.

In fact an equal number of those 'flat' links would be lucky to achieve 30⁰ 'standard sling geometry' - so ignoring the monumental friction and crushing resultant - what does that do to 'stack height'?

No, its mechanics are chasing their tail with a timing chain, but without, they're total drongo turd stupid.

First the animated drawing on the link is wrong in that on the up side the links need to be constrained on both sides not just the outside. That is required to prevent the number of chain links from equalising on both sides. The two wheels cannot be linked as the top wheel must rotate in the ratio 42:21 in relation to the bottom wheel. The extra bar that appears on the up side is a piece of string connecting two links that constrains how far they can move apart but does not limit how close they can be.

Forget friction for a moment an just look at the physics. The 21 rising links are moving at twice the speed of the 42 falling links. The F=ma equation becomes F=42m x a (falling) =21m x 2a (rising) which means that the forces on both sides are in balance. Start it and it goes on forever. Take energy out of it and it stops. Now add back the friction. Start it and it stops. Take any power out it stops quicker. The only power you can get out is the power you put in to start it less the friction losses.

Shhhhh..... It does work but oil companies tried to keep it secret. You just ruined the whole thing. S.M.

The PESWiki picture back at the beginning showed a full assembly of one of these "avalanche drives." Why didn't it ever occur to those idiots to simply stand the thing up, and watch it work (or not)? Or maybe they did, and it didn't. (And hence no video.)

There comes a time when idiots graduate into liars.

True idiots never graduate...

Ever notice how these con men gather investors who then proselytize to get new suckers.

There was one con man in gold mining called Joe Champion, he is in here

over unity scams

scam fun website

there have been many machines of this type designed over the last 600 years. unfortunately they never work. remember friction and gravity among other mechanical effects cause them to slow down and stop. the last time i saw something like this was from a book printed in the 1700's. it looks good but will not work to give you energy forever.

bruce

I always get a kick out of PM threads... really. There's not an inventor alive (and most here are inventors at heart, I think) who doesn't secretly try to think of a way to devise a device that will exhibit PM. It's just too damned fun and enticing. We all know there is no device like this, that we know of (except at the atomic level -- virtually PM). But still, we can't help but think that, somehow, there might be a solution that everyone before has missed. It's why most technical types love puzzles. The Universe is one big puzzle.

I wouldn't disparage anyone for not recognizing the flaws in any design. Despite the implication of ignorance, the reason thorough analysis doesn't happen in any given instance is precisely the reason mentioned above. We'd all like to think the "prize" is still available for the first one to solve the problem. Kind of similar to thinking that we all can become disgustingly wealthy. And this can lead to a somewhat (relatively speaking) hasty perusal.

I would say the more practical, yet to all appearances, magical technologies, come from striving for the highest efficiency energy production. It's why petroleum has been so hard to supplant. And why nuclear power doesn't go away, despite the untidiness of what to do with spent fuel.

Reassessing the energy paradigm of what is truly required to operate a household, is the best way to then adopt practical technologies that can provide for our needs in a distributed manner -- a grid made up of many "smaller" suppliers. Passive energy, such as a well-designed solar home, can play a big part in this vision. I think Germany has been at the forefront of adopting solar energy. Too many countries, like the U.S. scoff at the idea. Well, one day in the not to distant future, it will dawn (or not, we can be pretty dumb as a society) on us that an outlook, and the action based on that outlook, like Germany has demonstrated, will be significant.

Here is a screen grab from the animation on this site that should make it pretty clear why the device will not work: there is no imbalance of torque to cause the sprockets to revolve.

But even more screamingly obviously, (assuming no friction): the energy extracted from any weight falling must exactly equal the energy required to lift the weight (so that it can fall again). I suppose that is only painfully obvious to people with a basic education in science. It really does not matter if the person (or mechanism) lifting the weight twirls three times and click her heels, or simply lifts the weight more directly.

The "solution" is more obvious yet, I'd hope, it there were simply a chain running over three sprockets: an upper, a lower, and an idler off to one side that causes there to be more links on the longer path around the idler side.

It's hard not to wonder about the motives of the inventors of these devices when they refuse to build a working prototype. Many of the devices are very clever, and all would have $multi-trillion implications that would be blatantly obvious. Are these all done just for fun? It seems impossible that someone can simultaneously believe the thing works, but not actually make one.

there is usually an element of intrigue including claims of suppression

any company, would not suppress, but use the greatly lowered operating costs made possible by the innovation to reap huge profits

knowing that if they didn't their competitors would

I heard the quack, it's a duck