Antiphon
- 1,685
- 4
Sure some are crazy. So are many homeless people. The level of disrespect they get should depend on their ill conduct, not on their lack of technical knowledge.
So, point to someone here who violated that.Antiphon said:Sure some are crazy. So are many homeless people. The level of disrespect they get should depend on their ill conduct, not on their lack of technical knowledge.
Jimmy Snyder said:Trust me, once they get started discussing it, they never ever stop.
fluidistic said:Ahahahah!
fluidistic said:Ahahahah!


DaveC426913 said:Yes, it is. If someone is there to guide these people. The problem with 99% of people who try to make PPMs is that they aren't learning physics; they attempt to defy it.
chiro said:Regardless of their intentions of whether they are just curious or whether they just want to prove somebody else wrong and then show everyone else how smart they are and how dumb everyone else is, I still consider it a good exercise none the less.
Sure a lot of people might say they are 'wasting their time', but if that's what they want to use it on, I say good for them.
Also I'm a little surprised about the comment that the person wouldn't learn physics. I mean after all they are doing experiments aren't they in building these machines? Even if the experiments aren't as controlled as you would find in a university lab, and even if they didn't understand all of the calculus and so on, why would you think that the person wouldn't learn about physics?
I would say that they would learn a hell of a lot about physics don't you think? If they spent that much time and that much effort I absolutely gaurantee that they would learn at least something.
To say the opposite is rather condescending, and suggests a little bit of ignorance. Whether they end up failing or not is irrelevant to the learning issue.
DaveC426913 said:i.e. actually learning physics by building PPMs is a negative feedback process. "The more you do it, the more you'll stop."![]()
Kudos for doing the test. Fyi, this device was posted again in the past few weeks. I'll see if I can find it...OmCheeto said:Don't I know that...
retrieving two empty tuna fish cans from the recycle bin: 90 seconds
finding hammer and nail to poke holes in cans: 90 seconds
pulling [STRIKE]neo-neptunian[/STRIKE], [STRIKE]neobdinium[/STRIKE], rare Earth magnets off of 'fridge: 30 seconds
putting it all together: 360 seconds
time to realize what was going on in the "iron plate / magnetic attractor": 3 seconds
taking pictures, transferring data, etc: 1 hour 30 minutes
time it took PF to lock the thread: 1 hour 35 minutes
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=329636
My experience is:chiro said:Regardless of their intentions of whether they are just curious or whether they just want to prove somebody else wrong and then show everyone else how smart they are and how dumb everyone else is, I still consider it a good exercise none the less.
Sure a lot of people might say they are 'wasting their time', but if that's what they want to use it on, I say good for them.
Also I'm a little surprised about the comment that the person wouldn't learn physics. I mean after all they are doing experiments aren't they in building these machines? Even if the experiments aren't as controlled as you would find in a university lab, and even if they didn't understand all of the calculus and so on, why would you think that the person wouldn't learn about physics?
russ_watters said:My experience is:
1. They aren't interested in learning.
2. They don't build, much less test their devices.
So all they do is cling violently to whatever misconception got them there.
chiro said:I gaurantee you're right in that some (perhaps the majority) are this way, but don't paint everybody with the same brush.
chiro said:I'm not a physicist by any means just to get it out there, but if someone showed me something that did what they said, and it physically existed, and I could look at it and pull it apart and see that it really did what it did, I would pay attention.
I wouldn't invest in the technology, ...

OmCheeto said:I almost met one once. In that eX-Filed forum I discussed earlier, someone brought together the fact that pistons of different sizes, under the same pressure, would have different net forces applied. So he proposed sinking his device into the ocean to generate huge amounts of free energy. I looked at his drawing and told him that it would work through one cycle and then stop. I also told him that I had a fish tank into which I could submerge a mini-model and prove this. He said it would only work if it were submerged under hundreds, perhaps thousands of feet of water. So I asked him if he required financial assistance for such a huge venture. He of course said yes, at which point I stopped conversing with him.
But I did google his name*, and discovered he lived only a few miles away from me. I now avoid that section of town like the plague...
*He was so confident in his idea, he gave out his real name.
Gads. Googling the concept and my town, still lists him on page 1.
How could I have forgotten that name...
OMG! His invention has it's own Wiki entry!
"A prototype [top secret name] has yet to be built, but several scientists and engineers[who?] have attested to the validity of the [top secret] concept.[citation needed] Conceptual drawings are available.[doodle]"I feel really special now.
Please note, there is a selection bias at work here which cause the vast majority of our encounters to be negative:chiro said:I gaurantee you're right in that some (perhaps the majority) are this way, but don't paint everybody with the same brush.
This isn't specific to perpetual motion devices but applies to all invention. The "disease" you describe is nowhere more evident than in the biographies of people like Edison and Tesla, who were addicted to the pursuit of the ground breaking, world changing, invention that would make them rich and famous. The fact they both did invent some remarkable things just made their addiction worse and they both lost much more money pushing their unsuccessful inventions than they ever made with their successful ones. Just like gamblers who win big at the start and keep betting long past the point where their initial winnings are depleted, they both wasted the last half of their lives trying to recreate the success of the first half and failing.Q_Goest said:There are specific behaviors demonstrated by a small group of people that defies all logic. PMD is very similar to gambling for instance, where the victim has the urge to keep gambling irresponsibly.
russ_watters said:Please note, there is a selection bias at work here which cause the vast majority of our encounters to be negative:
Those who are willing to learn learn quickly since the issues here are high scool level simple. So such people fall out of sight quickly.
chiro said:I'm not a physicist by any means just to get it out there, but if someone showed me something that did what they said, and it physically existed, and I could look at it and pull it apart and see that it really did what it did, I would pay attention.
Inventionitis is a necessary component of PMD, but PMD goes further. The difference is that for Inventionitis, the prospective inventor may or may not realize or be willing to realize that what they are trying to do violates the laws of physics. If they do, they just have Inventionitis. If they don't, they may also have PMD.zoobyshoe said:This isn't specific to perpetual motion devices but applies to all invention. The "disease" you describe is nowhere more evident than in the biographies of people like Edison and Tesla, who were addicted to the pursuit of the ground breaking, world changing, invention that would make them rich and famous. The fact they both did invent some remarkable things just made their addiction worse and they both lost much more money pushing their unsuccessful inventions than they ever made with their successful ones. Just like gamblers who win big at the start and keep betting long past the point where their initial winnings are depleted, they both wasted the last half of their lives trying to recreate the success of the first half and failing.
lisab said:Re the bolded text: oh definitely, if someone presented me with a PMM that appeared to work, I'd want to get a veeeery close look at it, too. And that's the rub. The PMM people have told me about *don't* exist. I've even had one guy ask me to build a prototype of his idea for him! Lol, yeah right, I'll get right on that...
Brilliant! You even could skip the PPM technology - go straight to the PPM principle.chiro said:I will come up with investment options for perpetual motion technologies that promise infinite growth and do a few fancy excel charts with my projections. What do you think?
russ_watters said:He is explicitly promoting a perpetual motion machine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman's_energy_machine#Claims_by_the_inventorNewman claims that the motor derives its power by converting some of the mass of the copper in the coils into usable energy...
The great thing about Joe Newman is that he's basically an "official" crackpot in that he sued the USPTO for refusing to grant him a patent for his PMM and lost. So his crackpottery is officially recognized by the US justice system. He can argue his device isn't a PMM and should be patented and all he wants, but unfortunately in order to fight his fight in court, he needed to deliver a functioning prototype for testing and analysis.DaveC426913 said:According to Wiki at least, he claims it is not PM, but mass conversion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman's_energy_machine#Claims_by_the_inventor
So that makes him somehow less crazy. Right?![]()
MacLaddy said:I have not had any experience with chronic sufferers of PMD, so I do not know how this would play out, but I would like to ask one of them two simple questions.
1. Do you believe that energy and heat are the same?
-If the answer is yes-
2. Can you describe a perpetual heat source?
This might get their mental gears moving in a different direction.
If the answer is no, walk away quickly.
No, he's always explicitly said he is not claiming perpetual motion. I read his self-published book many years ago. All he claims is that the machine produces more energy than is contained in the battery that operates it. It's a primitive DC motor run from a car battery. He completely explains how it operates, though he rephrases everything in his own bizarre jargon, and any reasonably handy person could build one. The commutator is clever, and is the "secret". He built a couple of capacitors into the commutator. Contact is broken with the field coil when the commutator rolls around to the capacitors. The switching surge is collected in the capacitor and it is fed back into the battery a bit later in the rotation, recharging it. Just by collecting the switching surge and feeding it back into the battery, the thing runs longer than it "should", though it does run down eventually. He admits it runs down, and does not claim infinite energy, just more than there should be.russ_watters said:Uh, yeah, Joe Newman is the archetype for PMD. He is explicitly promoting a perpetual motion machine.