Give use your best perpetual motion device ideas

[sharpstones]

This thought was inspired by reading the other thread "perpetuum mobile" where ZapperZ posted an interesting (but of course flawed) perpetual motion device. It was fun to analyze and to figure out why it didn't work and I was wondering if anybody else had neat ideas that seem to very convincingly display perpetual motion.


So post your ideas and then the challenge is to show how it is impossible!

 

[Gza]

but it isnt

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

It is. This is photon.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

This thought was inspired by reading the other thread "perpetuum mobile" where ZapperZ posted an interesting (but of course flawed) perpetual motion device. It was fun to analyze and to figure out why it didn't work and I was wondering if anybody else had neat ideas that seem to very convincingly display perpetual motion.


So post your ideas and then the challenge is to show how it is impossible!

I do not see any challenge. So all agree to accept the photon as perpetual machine.

 

[Gza]

But a photon is massless, therefore, by the definition of a perpetual motion machine which is energy out is greater than energy in, a photon cannot be a perpetual machine. To change the energy of the system, work must be done; to do work, a force must be applied, forget the distance the force must move through, there is no such thing as a force on a photon.

But I am arguing from my strictly classical, undergraduate knowledge of physics. Come to think of it, that inspires a question rooted in my vague understanding of modern physics; since light is bent in a gravity field, that bending suggest to me a component of acceleration perpendicular to the linear trajectory of the light beam. Does that mean that light truly interacts with a g field? If a g field causes an acceleration, that implies that a photon must have a gravitational mass to experience the force of gravity causing this acceleration. So is this true? Do photons truly have a gravitational mass to explain their curving in g fields? Sorry, I didn't mean to end my answer to the post with a question, but it just came up as I was typing. An answer would be much appreciated, thanks.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

But a photon is massless, therefore, by the definition of a perpetual motion machine which is energy out is greater than energy in, a photon cannot be a perpetual machine. To change the energy of the system, work must be done; to do work, a force must be applied, forget the distance the force must move through, there is no such thing as a force on a photon.

But I am arguing from my strictly classical, undergraduate knowledge of physics. Come to think of it, that inspires a question rooted in my vague understanding of modern physics; since light is bent in a gravity field, that bending suggest to me a component of acceleration perpendicular to the linear trajectory of the light beam. Does that mean that light truly interacts with a g field? If a g field causes an acceleration, that implies that a photon must have a gravitational mass to experience the force of gravity causing this acceleration. So is this true? Do photons truly have a gravitational mass to explain their curving in g fields? Sorry, I didn't mean to end my answer to the post with a question, but it just came up as I was typing. An answer would be much appreciated, thanks.

I hope, the following facts will be enough convincing.
- a photon can live infinitely long;
- a photon can move infinitely long;
- a photon has energy;
- a photon can transmit energy;
- a photon is a final “element” of any decay process;
- a photon is a primary “element” of all creating processes;

 

[Gza]

True the facts were interesting, but that doesn't answer the question. Using my reasoning from above, doesn't it imply that photons must have mass due to the curving of light in a gravity field?

 

[zoobyshoe]

I do not see any challenge. So all agree to accept the photon as perpetual machine.

Whether or not it is perpetual motion, you are not the inventor, and I think it should be disqualified on that basis alone.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Whether or not it is perpetual motion, you are not the inventor, and I think it should be disqualified on that basis alone.

Really, I have not invented a photon - this is creation of the nature (of God). I do not apply for authorship.
But any invention of the person is the such creation because the person is creation too.
Besides, I promise to be corrected and I‘ll present the working analogue of a photon.

 

[Scott Sieger]

Ok Guys...have some fun with this one...


Thermal Magnetic driver

 

[ram2048]

doesn't seem too perpetual motion to me if it needs hot and cold sources to operate...

then again it doesn't really seem to claim itself as PMM. Hmm

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

True the facts were interesting, but that doesn't answer the question. Using my reasoning from above, doesn't it imply that photons must have mass due to the curving of light in a gravity field?

Depending on frequency (length of wave) a photon or combination of photons can exist as:
- radiowave (massless);
- microwave (massless);
- visible light ( mass close to zero);
- X – ray (low mass);
- Gamma-ray (middle mass)
- particles (high mass).

For more details you may take a look here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=7611

 

[Scott Sieger]

it has been updated to exclude the need for temperature differences

 

[member 11137]

Concerning "perpetuum mobile" I should like to say how I was wondering last days in re-reading a very old book of Lichnerowicz (Theories of gravitation and electromagnetism; 1955). Only looking at this "1955" you certainly will say it is no more up to date. But true mathematical demonstrations are true for ever... A complete chapter is developped concerning these perpetual motions. You can verify that a perfect fluid with an equation of state (e.g. by my self: (volumetric density of matter/c²) + pressure = 0) has a permanent motion if and only if the Riemanian space is a stationnary one (One needs an holonom part of the space time associated with a metric...). My book also speaks about the Klein-Kaluza, the Jordan-Thiry and the Einstein-Schrödinger Theories but doesnot say anything about the entropy... Just as small contribution to this discussion. Blackforest

 

[zoobyshoe]

I'm pretty certain sharpestone's intention was to discuss man made inventions that claim to sustain their own operation, and from which useful work can be harvested. People have been tantalized by the notion of this possibility since the first machine was invented, and thousands have been designed in the mind and on paper, and none at all has ever worked when actually built.

I don't think he was asking for reiterations of Newton's first law, rather, stuff like this:

The Museum of Unworkable Devices
Address:http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

 

[zoobyshoe]

Using my reasoning from above, doesn't it imply that photons must have mass due to the curving of light in a gravity field?

How and why gravity affects light is an important part of Einstein's General Relativity, I believe, and your best bet for good answers would be to post questions about it in the Relativity forum.

 

[fluid]

Surely a PMM will have to work from gravity or permanent magnets.

Without climbing into the atom, these forces are the only ones we know that are not bothered by the Conservation of Energy Law.

Why does the Earth not get "tired" of holding everything down ?
How can a permanent magnet exist ?

These forces can create movement without renewing their power source, into infinity.
If we can harness this potential energy, by means of some special geometry, we might get lucky !

Yip, Geometery...Why do orbits behave the way they do ? Kepler observed and written laws on orbital motion, but we should try to figure out why.

So in short, we need to understand and replicate the solar system or the atom, right ?

 

[PFanalog57]

So post your ideas and then the challenge is to show how it is impossible!

A room temperature superconductor combined with the Casimir effect gives the elusive "free energy"?

 

[geistkiesel]

The Hoover Dam, a few miles to the north, will be providing energy long, long after most of you are gone, effectively for eternity. The only input that is required to make the dam perpetual is the periodic maintenance that keeps the generators fom squeaking, all of this paid for, of course, from the spare change jar on the dam supeintendant's shelf. Mother Nature's generous gift of water, height and gravity provides the energy in perpetuity.

I think those that come up with perpetual machines ought to win a new refrigerator or something.

 

[geistkiesel]

I hope, the following facts will be enough convincing.
- a photon can live infinitely long;
- a photon can move infinitely long;
- a photon has energy;
- a photon can transmit energy;
- a photon is a final “element” of any decay process;
- a photon is a primary “element” of all creating processes;

Mike- Once a phoon has been used and its energy consumed does not this put your photon in the classification of a log of wood tossed into the fireplace?

I also agree that unless perturbed, or absorbed the photon will live forever (whata concept, huh?) , but don't we want to have some use from the perpetual nature of the 'machine'/

Of course the universe has an effective supply of photons, so I would agree with you there that harnessing photons as an energy source would provide energy as long as the universe remained in a state of existence.

 

[PFanalog57]

The Hoover Dam, a few miles to the north, will be providing energy long, long after most of you are gone, effectively for eternity. The only input that is required to make the dam perpetual is the periodic maintenance that keeps the generators fom squeaking, all of this paid for, of course, from the spare change jar on the dam supeintendant's shelf. Mother Nature's generous gift of water, height and gravity provides the energy in perpetuity.

I think those that come up with perpetual machines ought to win a new refrigerator or something.

Of course, but the "Hoover Dam" cannot be portable enough to provide energy for interstellar travel.

 

[geistkiesel]

Of course, but the "Hoover Dam" cannot be portable enough to provide energy for interstellar travel.

That would depend on the size and 'technology' of the battery, wouldn't it? I would use Mike Dmitryev's photons for charging purposes, perpetually, or scoop hydrogen from the tnterstellar gas as I was moving along. Space ships should be designed so the their 'flat' is perpendicular to the line of motion. One increases friciton perhaps, but increases absorption of usable energy, including photons.

 

[PFanalog57]

That would depend on the size and 'technology' of the battery, wouldn't it? I would use Mike Dmitryev's photons for charging purposes, perpetually, or scoop hydrogen from the tnterstellar gas as I was moving along. Space ships should be designed so the their 'flat' is perpendicular to the line of motion. One increases friciton perhaps, but increases absorption of usable energy, including photons.

That depends on the scoop "area" of the photon/hydrogen gathering device.

It probably would not be practical...?

The true hopes and dreams of independent scientists would be a "portable/compact" energy apparatus. Ergo, a room temperature superconductor...

 

[geistkiesel]

delete duplicate post

This page left intentionally blank.

 

[geistkiesel]

Energy scoop area

That depends on the scoop "area" of the photon/hydrogen gathering device.

It probably would not be practical...?

The true hopes and dreams of independent scientists would be a "portable/compact" energy apparatus. Ergo, a room temperature superconductor...

The scoop area is some form of 'formed plastic' maybe a kilometer in radius.

Absolutely, on the room temperature superconductor. This would increase the efficiency of the energy transfer mechanisms, but we still will spend energy in modifiying the energy state of our space ship.

Methinks we will necessarily start thinking slightly off axis of a linear velocity line hoping to achieve velocities >> c. For instance, if the space/time continuum is warped, or warpable, then extermely high concentrations of mass by warping space in a predicted direction will bring space to the space ship, ergo the coordinate changes of the absolute location of the ship are not velocity dependent and hence no velocity restrictions would apply. No 'fancy holes in space' short cuts, donut shaped tunneling schemes, lots of mathematical 'riemann integrals' and stupid summation symbols to contend with, or any other crack pot ideas, will distract the rational process of spaceship design and construction. Did everyone bring their check book?

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Mike- Once a phoon has been used and its energy consumed does not this put your photon in the classification of a log of wood tossed into the fireplace?

I also agree that unless perturbed, or absorbed the photon will live forever (whata concept, huh?) , but don't we want to have some use from the perpetual nature of the 'machine'/

Of course the universe has an effective supply of photons, so I would agree with you there that harnessing photons as an energy source would provide energy as long as the universe remained in a state of existence.

Seems, there is an opinion if the photon is absorbed it come out from existence. This is an erroneous opinion.

 

[geistkiesel]

Seems, there is an opinion if the photon is absorbed it come out from existence. This is an erroneous opinion.

It isn't my opinion, but the photon is altered to the extent that when given the option of channeling photons from a space scoop, or reusing the old photons, meaning reforming , the once used photon, economics dictates using the space photon scooper. Let St. Peter sort out all the once thought of as 'dead photons'. That's his job!

 

[relativelyslow]

what are the regulations for a genuine perpetual motion device? what forces can/cannot be used? can gravity since its a continual force? does this device have to work in all places i.e. places with and without gravity? just curious what one is to build their ideas around. thanks

 

[Scott Sieger]

from what I understand it has to be a closed system...

 

[relativelyslow]

what do you mean by that?

 

[Scott Sieger]

I think what i mean is that the device is self perpetuating only recycling the energy and forces with in it's own closed system. Not drawing on energy from out side this system. Generating it's own energy from the forces it has within this system regardless of external ambiences or environments.

It would also have no limit to it's duration in time ( eternal ). This is why most devices are referred to as pseudo perpetual motion devices.
For example the rotation and orbit of the Earth around the sun is not a true perpetual system because it is deemed to fail eventually. ( entropy)



Any way this would be my definition and I am sure others will define it differently.

 

[relativelyslow]

so gravity cannot be utilized because you cannot contain it? ok. would magnets be acceptable even though they generate their own force?

 

[Scott Sieger]

gravity ( spacetime ) would always be part of the picture I would think, but as you have suggested if a devise was built solely around the use of fixed or changing magnetic fields then I would think that would be a "classic" psuedo perpeptual motion device.

(Magnets in my opinion being polarised spacetime)

 

[Scott Sieger]

gravity, if constant can be used but this limits the location at which the device would work.

 

[relativelyslow]

what types of forces are universal? heat doesn't work in cold, centripetal doesn't work without gravity (or does it?). i can only think of gyroscopic and i don't even know if that's a force at all. apparently i do not know many forces. there needs to be a force to create continuous energy right?

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't know if there is a strict definition of "Perpetual Motion Machine". People who look back over the history of the attempts to make one have come up with classifications of them, from what I understand.

It seems to me that to qualify, a thing would have to be a man made device, as opposed to something that already exists in nature. And it would have to both require no fuel imput and be capable of producing useful work.

I think that gravity and magnets are perfectly acceptable, and even desirable, since so many perpetual motion machines have been attempts to get work by kind of tricking these forces into being unbalanced or intermittant.

 

[relativelyslow]

so you couldn't just have this thing that moves forever; you have to be able to tap energy out of it? what would determine it as useful?
what if you have a device that's so perfectly designed that when you apply something to use the energy its producing it stops working correctly?

 

[ram1024]

yeh, if you can get something to work using gravity, magnetism, or buoyancy then you're golden.

the problem is, getting something that emits a constant force to DO something is always a one way ticket, so to speak :|

good luck, guys

 

[ram1024]

well if you can get something to perpetually motion here on Earth that's a start.

since there is no "frictionless" here, you must be getting SOME energy out of it to keep it moving.

you don't even have to try and "tap" the energy out of it, just accomplish that first step, preferably on something larger than a molecular level ;D

 

[relativelyslow]

bouncy: ingenious. this should be a fun thought to toy around with during the summer (perhaps longer). keep posting ideas and further definitions of a perpetual motion device.

can the movement be erratic or does it have to be stable and reliable?

 

[zoobyshoe]

so you couldn't just have this thing that moves forever; you have to be able to tap energy out of it? what would determine it as useful?

It does usefull work if it supplies power to something we need power for. That could be anything from grinding grain into flour, to providing the electricity to run your computer. The out put of energy could be in just about any form.

what if you have a device that's so perfectly designed that when you apply something to use the energy its producing it stops working correctly?

I wouldn't call that a "perfectly designed" device. The word "delicate" would be better.

The Crookes Radiometer is something like this. It spins continuously if there is enough ambient thermal energy, but that is all it can do. The difference between it running or not running is so fine that any attempt to harvest any enrgy from it would stop it dead in most cases. It is delicately balanced at the edge of the amount of friction it can overcome. There's just the tiniest, tiniest little bit of excess energy left. Not really worth going after.

If you could design a devise like that which ran off of gravity, or the field of a stationary permanent magnet, people would be completely astonished, of course, but you wouldn't get any work out of it.

Some people are going for the astonishing defying-the-laws-of-physics effect, and other for the work-out-with-no-fuel-in approach.

 

[zoobyshoe]

can the movement be erratic or does it have to be stable and reliable?

I have never heard of one you could call "erratic" but I don't suppose it makes a difference.

Thing is: look into the ones that have already been tried. No point in reinventing the broken wheel.

 

[relativelyslow]

well, I've seen this video of a frog hovering over a magnet (they did it with a water droplet too and various other things). I am assuming it would continue to do so without fail but the movement will not be predictable. it just floats around, twisting and turning. its kinda funny. should i just search online for previous attempts?

 

[relativelyslow]

http://www.hfml.sci.kun.nl/levitation-movies.html there's the link to the site with the floating things.

 

[mee]

Is a planet orbiting in a perfect non decaying orbit around a black hole a perpetual motion machine? Or perhaps an electron orbiting an proton in a vacuum a perpetual motion machine? (End of the universe defining the limits on perpetual if there is such a thing.)

 

[zoobyshoe]

should i just search online for previous attempts?

This site has examples of all the commonly tried ideas:

The Museum of Unworkable Devices
Address:http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

 

[zoobyshoe]

Is a planet orbiting in a perfect non decaying orbit around a black hole a perpetual motion machine? Or perhaps an electron orbiting an proton in a vacuum a perpetual motion machine? (End of the universe defining the limits on perpetual if there is such a thing.)

"Perpetual motion" has traditionally been applied only to devices invented by people (on paper or in their head) that need no fuel imput and from which you can get usefull work. It isn't a perfectly accurate thing to call them. Alot of people, therefore, bring up the subject of natural phenomena that, as far as we know, will keep on going till the universe ends, and present these as "perpetual motion".

This is a kind of game, I suppose, trying to prove the statement "There's no such thing as perpetual motion," wrong. It is based on a literal interpretation of "perpetual motion" rather than the unworkable machines it the term was first coined to describe.

The fact remains that whenever anyone has made a physical embodyment of one of these machines they don't work. It is instructive to examine them, though, and figure out why they don't do what the inventor expected them to do.