Psychology

---

Psychology of perpetual motion? Is there any? Better questions are: why is this idea so fascinating? Why is it still appealing although science knows good reasons to exclude the possibility of PMMs? And what is typical about the known concepts and machines? What can we conclude about their inventors' minds?

Fascination Perpetuum Mobile

A realistic man learns about the so-called "law of conservation of energy" and accepts it. That person learns at school a few facts about physics and accepts the teachers' words. Most persons forget what they have heard. Some decide for an engineering or scientific education and career. They smile about the perpetual motion notion.

Some are not satisifed with the things they had learned at school. Some invent perpetual motion machines. Why? Arguments for motivation, which are frequently heard are:

• It is impossible that everthing is invented already. Engineers and scientists impossibly can have checked the infinite potential of constructions. How can they judge for certain that the construction of PMMs is impossible?
• Of course I know about the French academy of sciences and their decision that perpetual motion is impossible. But decisions can be wrong and there is no practical proof for that decision.
• You only have to leave the trampled paths of thinking, to invent real great things.
• Things which are regarded as impossible are a real challenge. Nothing is impossible!
• Many inventors who are regarded as pioneers today were ridiculed at their time.
• Ambition, to demonstrate that the "establishment" is wrong. The thing can't be impossible! Many great inventions were made by laymen. Knowledge and science only restrict creativity.
• With a few good concepts and convincing presentations, you will find enough stupid people whom you can rip off. Nobody cares, if the machine works, the idea and the money are important.

We can see the whole range from complete technical and scientific ignorance to fraud. The reasons vary, the target is mostly the same.
And there are others. They do not make concepts or construct machines, but they are interested in the free energy stuff. They also have different motivation:

• Invest early enough in a great idea, in order to make the big business later. Some simply regard free energy and perpetual motion as one of several possibilites to invest in shares. Others are only driven by their greed for money and the advertisements of fraudulent inventors or their marketing people.
• Dreamers who need a vision, crackpots who follow their guru.
• The romantic searchers for a better world who are wise enough to judge over their technical capabilities. But they support an honest looking inventor, as it is a beautiful idea to help the poor, the weak and those who need food. It's a fine thing to give an energy resource to mankind, which will stop all those wars for resources. Mankind will face a golden future!
• The gullible guys who also buy magazine supscriptions or religions at the door of their home.

The motivation may be different as could be, all have in common that the idea of a perpetual energy source is very attractive.

The Conspiration Theorists

The conspiration theorists ar eworth mentioning, as they are numerous and seem to have convincing arguments. They suspect that every PMM that failed did this due to a great conspiration of the scientific and commercial establishment. They always suspect a mechanism of suppression of good ideas. The conspiration theorists clearly know that the laws of thermodynamics are free invention and conjecture, only to oppress the real advance in technology. Sometimes we can read really funny remarks like these which are cited from The Adams Motor Page:

"INVENTORS BEWARE! In 1978 Mr. Adams discovered that inventors of machines or devices of high energy efficiency capability ("Free" Energy) are not only refused patents, but that in most cases, their inventions are classified under the "Military Use Clause", which is, of course, international. Inventors are prohibited from publishing details of their devices or promoting them in any manner of their invention is classified under this clause. In other words, their devices automatically become the sole property of the "establishment". The fact that there is an established mechanism to suppress energy inventions of this nature has been a closely guarded secret for many years. Many inventors have made such claims, but the general public remain oblivious to the fact that they are being deprived of clean and free energy by organizations that would rather make money and hold power over the public, that allow such technology to become widely available. Yet another example of the abuse of power. (No pun intended.)"

A few comments need to be added:

• It's not at all necessary to apply for a patent, if an invention shall be published. Patents primarily serve to protect commercial claims based on a particular construction or process. If someone already knows that he won't have success at the patent office, why is that person so stupid to endanger his or her idea to being suppressed and robbed by the establishment?
• If those inventors are so honest to give their invention as a gift to mankind, why don't they do it, but collect money for their commercial success?
• Everone is free to construct, build demonstrate a real running PMM. Everyone is free to publish all plans, als calculations and all technical data to allow others to reproduce the mechanism. The most simple an elegant proof for a PMM is to publish it. The internet has a far too large dynamics on its own to be completely controlled and suppressed by the establishment. They would not be able to delete all traces of an idea of that impact.
• The fact that not a single plan of a workable PMM has been published up to now does not prove the great conspiration. It's simply the sign of the failing of all attempts to successfully construct a perpetual machine.

Constructions

If you had a closer look into the concepts section, you may have wondered why all perpetual machines can be roughly sorted into two classes: stunningly simple devices and terribly complex machines.

The Simple Machines and their Inventors

Why do we encounter simple PMMs again and again? Why are there so numerous variants of old principles like the overbalanced wheel? Why are there so many repetitions of wrongly understood basic mechanics about levers, buoyancy, capillary action or magnetic fields? None of the possible explanations and reasons is a compliment for the would-be genious.

• The inventor had an idea, but the same idea had others long time ago. Either the inventor has no clue about the technology needed for his machine or he did no literature research.
• The inventor does not understand the basic principles of physics and technology. The cases in which lack of wit and ignorance come along with real genious in a single person tend to be rare. Alone of statistical reasons I would therefore doubt the workabilty of a PMM.
• The inventor uses the Bhaskara method. He explains how the machine shall work, but never made a practical attempt to prove his concept, as the function is obvoius.

The Complex Machines and their Inventors

The inventors of complex machines invent complex machines because they know that all simple constructions were tried already and have failed.

• The reason for complexity is that specific types of "energy losses" need compensation. This is done by levers, counterweights and other methods. Most inventors overlook that they introduce additional losses by their additions.
• The machine is complex, as this allows more parameters for adjustment and fine-tuning. This increases the expectation of success. If an inventor is asked when his machine definitely will run, for sure he is going to answer "Well, I have to tune these parameters and the add one more vernier here, and then you will see it running."
• The machine is complex, because that's appealing.

Dogmatics

Some PMM inventors are so convinced from their idea that this self-esteem degenerates to messsianism. If authentic or played is of minor importance. Those who regard their constructions as given by a "higer being" are dogmatics. Those who answer critical questions and the demand for demonstrating a working sample by "You have to believe it works" are docmatics. Those who answer scientific analysis and technical arguments by telling their discussion partners stupid, and mentally too restricted to get the point in their theory are fanatists.
It is useless to discuss with fundamentalists; it leads to nothing. It is useless to warn persons who want to waste their money for the ideas of a guru and charlatan. Those who decided to do this after several warnings have to learn the other way.

Dogmatics are ridiculous at a closer glance. They talk of nothing else than world-formulae, they disprove Galilei, Newton and Einstein, and can do this in a sentence. They can deliver energy for the whole world, for free, for all. These are the minor claims. If those are issued in a thick pseudo-scientific argumentation, the whole thing becomes a great fun.

And now for something completely different.

Confusion of Sight

It is very easy to depict an operable perpetual device on paper. If this is done by a master artist like M.C. Escher, the result is fascinating. Let's analyze this waterfall image a little closer!

At the first glance, there is surprise. The function of this device is not based on misunderstood physical principles, but by a confusion of sight. Each detail in itself is perfectly ok. The water runs downwards in every section of the canal. The waterwheel is driven by a waterfall. The construction as a whole is stunningly impossible. Our eyes are not trained for images like this. The brain refuses to combine the details to a concludent item that fits into the known schemes. This setup can't be built in practice. All other machines discussed up to now can be built, although they will not work. I'd like to remind you that there are many ways to make images of our surrounding world. Our western way to see is not the only possible way. You may have seen already Japanese woodcut images which show a strict parallel perspective that looks strange to our eyes. However, this perspective is very useful. Have you ever seen the unproportional seeming size of persons in medieval manuscripts? This perspective has a good reason, as it reflects the importance of a person. The image was not intended as a realistic "photo" of a scene. All these ways to see are neither better nor worse than ours - just different.

...next chapter