Perpetual Motion

I’m adding a new classification to my blog schema; perpetual motion.  This is a class of fallacy so vast and ubiquitous that many have become accustomed to it, and cannot detect it except in its pure, most radical form, the flatly-stated claim of getting something for nothing.

What people no longer seem capable of ferreting out are those arguments, which claim to improve the performance of a system by adding a complication which by itself will not produce the difference it is supposed to add in combination.  This is usually marked by keywords such as reclamation, conversion, multiplication, synergy, or revenue.

The particular bone in my teeth right now is something called (by one person) the “Energy Return Wheel”, which purports to improve upon a rubber tire supported by air mounted on a steel wheel by using a rubber sole mounted on a steel rim, supported by a neoprene membrane, bolted across an air gap to a smaller steel wheel.

Some of the claims the soft-spoken inventor makes:

  • “There is more energy at the top of the wheel than the bottom, making it easier to roll.”   First off, I don’t know what form that energy is in, or why there is more of it a t the top than the bottom, or why that is supposed to make the wheel easier to roll.  Second, I bet I am not supposed to think about that.
  • “… a deweighting effect, which, when a weight is sprung, it is much easier to move,” like a garage door being easier to lift “with a spring attached”.  I understand sprung weight, and I understand how a spring-assist garage door works, but I cannot imagine a connection between the two in this context.
  • “… that vibration and noise is devoured by the membrane, and the membrane stores that energy, and gives it back to the rolling action of the wheel, in, a, smooth rolling, kind of a process.”  If he has found a way to convert noise and vibration into torque, he will indeed be rich, and I will line up to invest in his company.  I promise he has not.

He ends with a plea for cash, which is fine, as this is not an indicator of a fallacy, but of a business.  The problem is that the business model itself is a scam, because the product is demonstrably not feasible.  Now I don’t doubt that it functions as a wheel, and there may even be benefits to this sort of arrangmenet.  It may run quieter, smoother, weigh less, behave fractionally more like spring weight, corner or stop better than any tire wheel combo yet invented.  Any fool who knows what “cupping” is on a tire can tell you that this thing is a turd, but there may be decent reasons to buy it.  “Energy Return”, however, is not one of those reasons, and the few claims (all about mechanisms, none about results, by the way) that he does make are easily shown to be nonsense.

If you really wanted to produce an “energy return wheel” you could not do better than a huge diamond (for affordability, let’s say a remarkably stiff steel alloy), as that will return almost all of the energy you put into it.  One way or another.  The only way I can see this fellow’s claim to “return” energy and have it make the wheel “easier to roll” is to accept energy at on place yet apply it at another, or to apply it at the same place but in a different direction without really trying.

By way of analogy, let’s start with an energy return concept that actually does what it says, and that is the storing of work.  If we secure a rope to an axle so that a driven wheel hoists a weight up a pole (pumps water uphill, charges a battery, moves the vehicle to a higher location, or results in a faster speed), then we can see where the energy went.  We can also see that we cannot withdraw that energy at the same time that we put it in.  The harder we try to do that, the more useless activity has been generated by more unnecessary equipment, and the whole mess is just an energy drain, converting our valuable driven wheel’s input into heat and noise, and perhaps spilled water.  We are clearly better off just putting energy straight into the ground and being grateful for traction.

Now, technically, there are holes in my scenario there, but it’s a lot more correct, and a lot safer a bet for results that this idiotic “Energy Return Wheel”.

Here’s the whole stupid thing. And in case the suspense is killing you, yes, he does eventually drive the Mercedes with this kook-wheel bolted on. He almost gets beyond spitting distance of his own driveway, and he does so very carefully. I say that the whole hoop and membrane contraption develops resonance and destroys itself spectacularly any faster than thirty miles per hour. But that’s just a guess.

Now why does this particular video bother me right now? Why is it a bone in my teeth? I am listening to The Cars Candy-O, which is a magnificent album. I wante to go to some YouTube video where I had commented on it, and found Mr. Energy Retun’s reply to my own comment on this perpetual hoo-hah in my YouTube inbox instead.

@haakondahl ERW has never made one claim that says we have a perpetual motion machine. And friction or Grip (which is what you meant) is much different than rolling resistance of a tire.

And you know what? He had deleted my comment. So I figured I would pick it up over here. Nobody puts Papa in a corner.

This entry was posted in Perpetual Motion, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply