PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE HERE

I wish it was me :(

http://www.wimp.com/motionmachine/

So what is the catch do you guys think?












Also I know deep down this is a hoax, but OMG!

The thing that gets me is he says it's at 42 hundered RPM, then 17k, then at the end says 4k.

You can get resonant situations in electromagnetics where is seems like something is getting stronger (i.e. by injecting a small frequency it oscillates into a very strong signal). This really sounds like what's going on, because "it takes a couple times to stick".

I am pretty drunk, and generally shut down the brain on weekends. Thus, even if I'm right I can't tell you where the apparent extra energy is coming from.

This has to be a hoax, right? If it's real, it would be one of the biggest scientific breakthroughs of all time. Greater than splitting the atom. I just don't think we're going to learn about something like this on a website.

I sooo want this thing to be real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kb coolman

This has to be a hoax, right?

---

Yes. Although more likely a misunderstanding than a hoax, per se.

clever little contraption

I mean... we cant even see the whole device.. "sorry about the lighting" .. uhh.. get better lighting then, asshole.

That being said, it still made me smile.

100% of physicists understand that perpetual motion violates the law of conservation of energy, and thus perpetual motion is impossible

this is hoax or dumbness, nothing else

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

100% of physicists understand that perpetual motion violates the law of conservation of energy, and thus perpetual motion is impossible

this is hoax or dumbness, nothing else

---

100% of physicists could be wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

100% of physicists understand that perpetual motion violates the law of conservation of energy, and thus perpetual motion is impossible

this is hoax or dumbness, nothing else

---

it's only a 'law' as long as it stands true in 100% of observable instances. Perpetual motion is not impossible because of this law, the law exists because perpetual motion has thus far not been observed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irisheyes

the law exists because perpetual motion has thus far not been observed.

---

well not exactly. It exists because things we have observed support this law. This doesnt mean that our observations have been misinterpreted, and therefore the law is wrong. But having not observed it is only a reason for the law still being in place, not a reason for it being made imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

100% of physicists understand that perpetual motion violates the law of conservation of energy, and thus perpetual motion is impossible

this is hoax or dumbness, nothing else

---

I think it is pretty idiotic to say something is impossible. For the rule set we live in now it seems impossible. But what we learn in the next 5, 10, 15 years who knows what could be possible then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irisheyes

it's only a 'law' as long as it stands true in 100% of observable instances. Perpetual motion is not impossible because of this law, the law exists because perpetual motion has thus far not been observed.

---

qft

Earth used to be the center of the universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irisheyes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

100% of physicists understand that perpetual motion violates the law of conservation of energy, and thus perpetual motion is impossible

this is hoax or dumbness, nothing else

---

it's only a 'law' as long as it stands true in 100% of observable instances.

---

Same as it is with everything, but it's misleading to suggest that we have reason to be skeptical of all things. Also, it's not so cut and dry; afterall, one contrary observation doesn't necessarily negate a law or theory

Quote:

---

Perpetual motion is not impossible because of this law, the law exists because perpetual motion has thus far not been observed.

---

That's kinda like saying, after flipping a coin which lands heads up, "it's not that it landed heads up, but that it didn't land tails up".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prozach

I think it is pretty idiotic to say something is impossible. For the rule set we live in now it seems impossible. But what we learn in the next 5, 10, 15 years who knows what could be possible then.

---

I know you're not referring to this, but I'll put it up just because. True 100% proof exists only in mathematics, and this is because only in math is 100% knowledge possible. In a scientific context, 'proof' is used to identify that which empirical observation concludes. It can never be 100%, but that's largely silly semantics because it's as much proof as is possible for us to ever ascertain, way beyond any kind of reasonable doubt, and if it is wrong it is unfathomably unlikely that that which is correct is not really close to that which our laws and theories said.

Now what I'm sure you are referring to is simply a misunderstanding of what empiricism (scientific knowledge, in specific) and epistemology (any/all knowledge, in general) means. In a nutshell, knowledge is a progression. The more progessed our knowledge becomes, the more we can accurately predict future knowledge, and the more we can speculate about the 'unknown'. This is because the Universe is governed by laws, it's not completely random. The more we know about what IS the more we know about what ISN'T.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by halv

Earth used to be the center of the universe.

---

Actually, this was never a scientific consensus, and similar irrational and non-evidence based ideas have never been a scientific consensus. The scientific method is very new, one of the single most (if not THE most) true and profound ideas mankind has ever known, and is misunderstood by the public.


Guys, physicists are way smarter than we are, way more qualified and experienced that we are, and they laugh at those who perpetuate perpetual motion nonsense. These are the same physicists who predicted (based on theories) black holes, myriads of quantum particles, and many other amazing mysteries. These physicists also predict the most whack shit about our Universe and our technological future, but this is all based on empirical evidence and realistic theory, unlike the ludicrous pipe dream of perpetual motion.

It's probably about a million times more reasonable to say that Phil Ivey is not a winning poker player than the law of energy conservation is wrong.

I didn't read wuf's post because it was long.

Perpetual motion as thought of commonly will not happen, because friction is always a loss. You could potentially design a machine that uses some source, aka light, or better the earth's magnetic field to generate enough energy to overcome this loss and produce a positive output.

Word

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swiggidy

I didn't read wuf's post because it was long.

Perpetual motion as thought of commonly will not happen, because friction is always a loss. You could potentially design a machine that uses some source, aka light, or better the earth's magnetic field to generate enough energy to overcome this loss and produce a positive output.

Word

---

which would therefore be an engine that runs on renewable energy, not a perpetual motion machine.

Fuck me I had a very tl;dr intelligent reply all typed up for this and I lost it but to summarise (rather gruffly) what I wanted to say:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Same as it is with everything, but it's misleading to suggest that we have reason to be skeptical of all things.

---

No it's not. It is misleading to suggest that it is efficient to be sceptical of all things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Also, it's not so cut and dry; afterall, one contrary observation doesn't necessarily negate a law or theory

---

Yes it does, assuming that the contrary observation can be taken as true. Of course this leads us to a paradox.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

That's kinda like saying, after flipping a coin which lands heads up, "it's not that it landed heads up, but that it didn't land tails up".

---

No it's very different.

With all that said I totally agree with you that this is most likely a hoax or a misunderstanding and that the conservation of energy theory will likely never be negated.