Is Free Energy a Viable Source of Power for the Future?

[FDeck]

I have this strange feeling, the solution is almost ready, I believe we are already entering the age of Free Energy. But no, it won't happen overnight.

If I may ask, what source of energy exists anywhere in the world? Constant and is always available, completely safe and doesn't emit harmful pollutants, but has been ignored for a very long time?...well, i guess since gas was discovered.

 

[OmCheeto]

I have this strange feeling, the solution is almost ready, I believe we are already entering the age of Free Energy. But no, it won't happen overnight.

If I may ask, what source of energy exists anywhere in the world? Constant and is always available, completely safe and doesn't emit harmful pollutants, but has been ignored for a very long time?...well, i guess since gas was discovered.

Can't be sunlight, it goes out every 12 hours or so.
Can't be the wind, it stops once in a while.
Can't be humans, they're not everywhere. (yet)
Can't be geothermal, it's hot and can burn you.
Can't be the tide, it's only along shores.
Can't be rivers, they don't flow in the deserts.

I don't know!

Would it be the electric company?

It's free if you live at home and Dad pays for it.

 

[FDeck]

It's Gravity.

Is it possible to create PMD using gravity that will generate a continuous force of at least half of the load applied?

I think so.

 

[russ_watters]

It's Gravity.

Is it possible to create PMD using gravity that will generate a continuous force of at least half of the load applied?

I think so.

I don't understand the question, or perhaps it isn't worded well. Force doesn't have anything to do with perpetual motion. A book sitting on a table generates a continuous force equal to the "load" (its weight). And a device that outputs half the energy that is input wouldn't be perpetual motion - there a lot of energy conversion devices (hydroelectric dams) that operate on efficiencies like that or better.

But no, perpetual motion machines - particularly type 1 machines (output energy greater than input energy), the usual one claimed - are not possible.

 

[FDeck]

I don't understand the question, or perhaps it isn't worded well. Force doesn't have anything to do with perpetual motion. A book sitting on a table generates a continuous force equal to the "load" (its weight). And a device that outputs half the energy that is input wouldn't be perpetual motion - there a lot of energy conversion devices (hydroelectric dams) that operate on efficiencies like that or better.

But no, perpetual motion machines - particularly type 1 machines (output energy greater than input energy), the usual one claimed - are not possible.

I wish you did not end your last statement with a period, unless it has been proven that it is an outright impossibility.

Machine flying, steel floating, fire raining...are classic examples of unbelievable inventions and deemed impossible in the old days. The point is, has the potential of gravity as an alternative source of energy been explored that much? No, we've been so much dependent on gas.

A device in perpetual motion with greater output than input, i think is an outright impossibility. A perpetual motion device with an excess output with at least half of the input, is more likely to be a reality.

Who knows, maybe this year?

 

[russ_watters]

I wish you did not end your last statement with a period, unless it has been proven that it is an outright impossibility.

It's a pretty fundamental principle of science that is re-affirmed millions of times a day, whenver anyone does anything involving thermodynamics. The odd of it being wrong are therefore vanishingly small.

Machine flying, steel floating, fire raining...are classic examples of unbelievable inventions and deemed impossible in the old days.

There is a difference between believing technology is impossible and believing the science is impossible. There is also a difference in what people believed before science was invented and what they belived after.

The point is, has the potential of gravity as an alternative source of energy been explored that much?

Absolutely! It's the fundamental driver of hydroelectric plants. But if you are looking for run-of-the mill perpetual motion, sure, crackpots have been working on that for centuries as well.

A device in perpetual motion with greater output than input, i think is an outright impossibility. A perpetual motion device with an excess output with at least half of the input, is more likely to be a reality.

Again - there is nothing special about a device with an output of half it's input. We have plenty of devices that already do better than that.

 

[FDeck]

Absolutely! It's the fundamental driver of hydroelectric plants.

I wish there are enough water flowing in every backyard.

But if you are looking for run-of-the mill perpetual motion, sure, crackpots have been working on that for centuries as well.

I wonder how many great inventors have been called that way?

Again - there is nothing special about a device with an output of half it's input. We have plenty of devices that already do better than that.

An ideal device is something that is self-sustaining by using gravity and a readily available material (rigid or fluid) to maintain its motion...and not depending on dams, or solar or wind, or gas power, which is not present in every area.

Since no theories is not being defied (especially, the law of conservation of energy) and its possibility to exist has not been disproved, I hope one crackpot could come up with something like that. Just like the crackpots in Australia who claims to have invented the same but using magnets instead.

Maybe we could just leave the possibility open.

 

[vanesch]

I think it is time to post again that great link:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

The Museum of Unworkable Devices.

 

[russ_watters]

An ideal device is something that is self-sustaining by using gravity and a readily available material (rigid or fluid) to maintain its motion...and not depending on dams, or solar or wind, or gas power, which is not present in every area.

Since no theories is not being defied (especially, the law of conservation of energy) and its possibility to exist has not been disproved, I hope one crackpot could come up with something like that. Just like the crackpots in Australia who claims to have invented the same but using magnets instead.

Before you said you were looking for a device with an output of half it's input. Now you are saying you are looking for looking for a device with an output but no input. That, quite obviously, violates conservation of energy.

I wonder how many great inventors have been called that way?

Few to none. When someone invents something and lays out how it works, scientists and engineers immediately recognize it for what it is.

Maybe we could just leave the possibility open.

If you leave your mind open too far, you risk having your brain fall out. No, it is not worthwile to pursue things that couldn't possibly work. There are so many worthwhile scientific and engineering pursuits out there where one's mental energy would be much better expended.

 

[FDeck]

I think it is time to post again that great link:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

The Museum of Unworkable Devices.

Thanks, interesting and creative works. But at least thanks to them, they've made efforts to prove what has never been mathematically and scientifically disproved. Then, the possibility is still open.

 

[FDeck]

Before you said you were looking for a device with an output of half it's input. Now you are saying you are looking for looking for a device with an output but no input. That, quite obviously, violates conservation of energy.

Pardon me, I never said "output without input".

Let me put it this way...if the input is 10, you only need 5 of it to put the system in continuous motion (losses included), the rest will be excess.

Few to none. When someone invents something and lays out how it works, scientists and engineers immediately recognize it for what it is.

But surely he will named names before being recognized. Prize is "Fame or Shame".

If you leave your mind open too far, you risk having your brain fall out. No, it is not worthwile to pursue things that
couldn't possibly work. There are so many worthwhile scientific and engineering pursuits out there where one's mental energy would be much better expended.

Not to the point of squeezing your brain to a drop. Maybe it's better to give some thoughts once in a while. Because if one is finally created, it's a breakthrough, it will give science people a new view. (could turn the switch to other button than "Shut up and calculate mode?", as somebody said on this thread) Should we close our minds to its possibility because of failure of others to prove it could exist? Before we do that, let somebody prove its impossibility.

Who would not want it? A new energy source...and it's free. I wonder how the would-be inventor of this will be treated?

The possibility is still open. Prize: Fame or Shame

 

[russ_watters]

Pardon me, I never said "output without input".

Let me put it this way...if the input is 10, you only need 5 of it to put the system in continuous motion (losses included), the rest will be excess.

But what is the input? In the last post you said basically no fuel of any kind - only gravity itself. Gravity itself is not an energy source. So you don't really have an input. Either way, I don't think you really understand what "conservation of energy" means. You're making a lot of strong assertions for such a thin understanding of basic scientific principles.

But surely he will named names before being recognized. Prize is "Fame or Shame".

Unlikely. Scientists are a lot smarter than you appear to think. Crackpots often cite Einstein as an example of an outsider who revolutionized science, but they couldn't be more wrong about him.

Before we do that, let somebody prove its impossibility.

Done that already, you just choose not to accept reality.

Who would not want it? A new energy source...and it's free.

It would be nice to win the lottery too, but wishing it does not make it happen.

 

[Cvan]

Gravity as a means of potential difference in energy is a wonderful thing, but conservation of energy requires you to do work to put a load on something.

The cool thing is the sun keeps giving us all this energy.

Like hydroelectric plants for example. What puts the water back up on the top of the mountain? The sun does. That's why the energy crisis is going to be fixed by the sun. Whether it be in the form of chemical energy (algae anybody?), hydroelectricity, windmills, what have you. Solutions are already out there, and maxwell's demon wouldn't even be around if the biggest solution of them all hadn't been here since the beginning of civilization fueling us; the sun.

 

[nuby]

You guys must all be psychics.

 

[FDeck]

But what is the input? In the last post you said basically no fuel of any kind - only gravity itself. Gravity itself is not an energy source. So you don't really have an input. Either way, I don't think you really understand what "conservation of energy" means. You're making a lot of strong assertions for such a thin understanding of basic scientific principles.

I think I said, using gravity and a material(rigid or fluid).

Unlikely. Scientists are a lot smarter than you appear to think. Crackpots often cite Einstein as an example of an outsider who revolutionized science, but they couldn't be more wrong about him.

Yes, scientists are too smart these days, but maybe they never notice the very simple of things, leaving some things as it is, maybe because they are capable of analyzing and calculating tons of problems in a second using computers, or doing things to make it even easier for the next generation of computer-dependent people. (Anyway, business is business, as they say) Or maybe, they just plainly think that being a scientist means they already know everything. Sure hope not!

Done that already, you just choose not to accept reality.

Impossibility has been proven only to those devices that existed and never worked as it supposed to. But not the impossibility for a device to exist that could do the task.

A load of 1:1 is equilibrium, most of the time, but not always. Is it possible to have an equilibrium with a load ratio of 4:1 or 10:1? Yes and No, depending on how you put the load and what you will use to hold it. It's an open question! Basically, it's the same thing as perpetual motion device. Who can prove that every design combination possible have already been done? Can anybody post the general equation?

Im beginning to think that we all believe those what was called "crackpots" who tried to make such a device. Ironically, should we believe them if they are?

It would be nice to win the lottery too, but wishing it does not make it happen.

Anyway, i am not insisting. But if every scientists believe it's impossibility, sad to say, a non-scientist will be able to invent it.

 

[vanesch]

Thanks, interesting and creative works. But at least thanks to them, they've made efforts to prove what has never been mathematically and scientifically disproved. Then, the possibility is still open.

While philosophically you are right of course in that in science one can never ultimately prove anything before it is done, practically, no, the possibility is not open *unless we use physical processes/effects/phenomena which have never been studied before* and hence must be quite exotic things.

For the many years that I dwell scientific internet discussions, I've met a lot of crackpots who also think that "the possibility is still open" and that the only activity of the "establishment" is to "impose their rules" on what people should think and what not. They think that "the first law of thermodynamics" is some arbitrary principle that not-too-open-minded scientists tell themselves, after a limited number of observations where they *didn't manage* to break it, and hence generalize it to a "universal principle", while in fact, one just had to be a bit smarter than them to find a thing that DOES violate it. And because "they" weren't smart enough to think of it, now they "prohibit" it.

In fact, no. The first law of thermodynamics, or the law of conservation of energy in a gravity field, or the law of conservation of momentum or whatever, is not, although it is formulated that way, just a "denial of possibilities" postulated by some closed-minded set of arrogant scientists. No. It is the result of a precise understanding of how different phenomena work. It is in fact a *calculation*. It is *positively used* to find out how things work, not just to tell what doesn't work.

For instance, in Newtonian gravity, we know the force of gravity: F = -G m1 m2 / r^2 .
Well *from that formula* one can *calculate* the work done by a cyclic movement *no matter how many masses take place in the movement*. We know all the forces (they all are a sum of the above formula, right ?). And one can mathematically prove that for a cyclic motion, the sum is 0 for the work done by that force. It is a mathematical deduction, *once the formula for the force is given*. Even if not all individual designs are checked.
It is like the mathematical proof that even integer numbers must have as a last digit, a 0, a 2, a 4, a 6, or an 8. One can prove this mathematically. One doesn't have to check each even number individually.

Trying to find a design with cyclically moving masses that doesn't have all the gravitational forces have 0 work is the same as trying to find an even number that doesn't end in a 0, a 2, a 4, a 6 or an 8.

The thing is, for *all known forces* in nature, ultimately (on the microscopic level), we can prove a similar theorem as for the forces of gravity. It didn't need to be so, but it turned out to be so (we now also have an understanding from the structure of spacetime *why* this is so, but that doesn't matter here). So *all known forces* in nature have, on the microscopic level, 0 work for a perfectly cyclic operation. And from that, and some statistical arguments, one deduces the first law of thermodynamics.

It's not just that people have done 300 experiments, didn't succeed in getting out more than they put in, and decided that this was now a "law of nature" and beware those who dare to say otherwise. No. We know *why* it is the case.

The only way to violate this, is to come up with something that acts according to an as of yet totally unknown interaction force. All known forces will result in the first law. We already checked the maths. Well, another way to violate it is by using a known law of interaction, but claiming that the formula for its workings is wrong. That gravity doesn't go as G m1 m2 / r^2 for instance. But that would mean that all calculations as of now, which correspond to known experimental results, used somehow the wrong formula, but nevertheless came up with the good result in the end.

That's why a system with just weights, magnets, pulleys, strings and so on will *never* violate the first law of thermodynamics, because the individual forces used in the device are known forces, and those *have* formulae which DO lead to conservation of energy. One doesn't have to check all the possible designs individually (just as one didn't have to check all the even numbers individually).

 

[FDeck]

While philosophically you are right of course in that in science one can never ultimately prove anything before it is done, practically, no, the possibility is not open *unless we use physical processes/effects/phenomena which have never been studied before* and hence must be quite exotic things.

The possibility is not open only to those who will stubbornly try to imitate the concepts that failed, and will try to defy the existing universal laws of science.

For instance, in Newtonian gravity, we know the force of gravity: F = -G m1 m2 / r^2 .
Well *from that formula* one can *calculate* the work done by a cyclic movement *no matter how many masses take place in the movement*. We know all the forces (they all are a sum of the above formula, right ?). And one can mathematically prove that for a cyclic motion, the sum is 0 for the work done by that force. It is a mathematical deduction, *once the formula for the force is given*. Even if not all individual designs are checked.
It is like the mathematical proof that even integer numbers must have as a last digit, a 0, a 2, a 4, a 6, or an 8. One can prove this mathematically. One doesn't have to check each even number individually.

Trying to find a design with cyclically moving masses that doesn't have all the gravitational forces have 0 work is the same as trying to find an even number that doesn't end in a 0, a 2, a 4, a 6 or an 8.

The thing is, for *all known forces* in nature, ultimately (on the microscopic level), we can prove a similar theorem as for the forces of gravity. It didn't need to be so, but it turned out to be so (we now also have an understanding from the structure of spacetime *why* this is so, but that doesn't matter here). So *all known forces* in nature have, on the microscopic level, 0 work for a perfectly cyclic operation. And from that, and some statistical arguments, one deduces the first law of thermodynamics.

It's not just that people have done 300 experiments, didn't succeed in getting out more than they put in, and decided that this was now a "law of nature" and beware those who dare to say otherwise. No. We know *why* it is the case.

The only way to violate this, is to come up with something that acts according to an as of yet totally unknown interaction force. All known forces will result in the first law. We already checked the maths. Well, another way to violate it is by using a known law of interaction, but claiming that the formula for its workings is wrong. That gravity doesn't go as G m1 m2 / r^2 for instance. But that would mean that all calculations as of now, which correspond to known experimental results, used somehow the wrong formula, but nevertheless came up with the good result in the end.

Who can argue? What you said are all on the physics book. However, books are references, it contains great wisdom if understood. It sets parameters. But it doesn't think. Minds creates ideas. And for as long as you are within the boundaries of the set parameters your idea is safe.

It is unfortunate that the idea attached to PMMs are confined to... over-balancing a circle or cyclic motion, apple-and-orange, buoyancy and complicated what-have-you concepts that never prosper.

Minds are supposed to think, and are not programmed what to think.

Maybe it's time to put to rest the concepts that never worked and create something that will.

 

[FredGarvin]

Another good thread ruined.

 

[FountainDew]

I'm not an engineer or anyone that will contribute a fresh idea to this thread, but the debate between FDeck and others about the possibilities of science hijacked my interest. In my personal view, I would agree with what Richard Feynman said once about anti-gravity. I don't know the exact wording because I can't find the transcript of his talk, but some one asked "How would you go about making an anti-gravity machine?" And to the man he said he didn't know, because the simple question didn't relate to his understanding of the laws of gravity. He said that you could be creative in science, but you had to let the laws of the universe guide that creativity or you'd be all over the place. So as far as he knew, the only anti-gravity machine that fits the laws of gravity was the floor he was sitting on, it was keeping him from plummeting into the Earth.

So I have to agree with Dick, he's absolutely inspirational. Creativity is a wonderful thing, but the universe was created the way it was. It doesn't care if your creative outside the bounds of what laws govern it because that would be useless. If it says zero equals zero, then its zero. As people, we're trying to understand it, not the other way around. So any creativity with what the universe can do, has to be within the abilities of the universe itself. IMO, conservation of energy is a universal law, it cannot be any other way unless you don't live in the same universe our physicists live in.

 

[vanesch]

It is unfortunate that the idea attached to PMMs are confined to... over-balancing a circle or cyclic motion, apple-and-orange, buoyancy and complicated what-have-you concepts that never prosper.

I don't know if I made myself clear enough (although when re-reading my post, I should have been...). The first law of thermodynamics (the one that has, as a corollary, that PMM cannot exist, as PMM of the first kind are *defined* to be hypothetical machines that violate the first law of thermodynamics) is not a postulate in a vacuum. It is not "the result of the observation that no matter how we tried, we didn't manage to make one". If that were the case, then there would indeed be every reason to go looking in those areas where one hasn't yet tried.

Many people trying to build PMM have the above misconception, that the first law is just inductively derived from a whole lot of experiments which failed. If that were its only basis, then they would indeed be right to look for one. The first law would then be: "there are no elephants" or "there are no dinosaurs". Indeed, I've been looking in my garden, I have traveled quite a lot, I've looked around, and never I've seen an elephant, nor a dinosaur. So I summarize my empirical knowledge into "First Law of Zoology: there are no elephants". Second law of Zoology: "there are no dinosaurs".
And then on scientific fora, we give a bad treatment to anybody who wants to go on elephant hunt or dinosaur hunt. We cry "hoax" when a picture of a living elephant is circulated... Several people think that *this* is the attitude of the "scientific establishment" with respect to PMM. And it will turn out that they were wrong on their first statement (yes, there ARE elephants), and are right with their second statement (no, there are no dinosaurs any more). You simply needed to look in the right place, and anybody's luck is as good as any other. You simply have to look *elsewhere* than where one has indeed established that there are no elephants anymore. And one might look a bit better in those places where some poor souls claimed that they had seen an elephant. But it was mightily arrogant to claim, from that limited experience, that elephants are not possible. And it was unscientific behaviour to look down upon the intrepid explorer who has glimpsed some elephants.

But that's not the basis of the first law of thermodynamics. The basis of that first law is that we have a rather good understanding of a lot of interactions (gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear forces, ...) and we can DERIVE from those, the first law of thermodynamics. That means that anything that is *designed to work* according to these forces, will, if it works according to the design, *necessarily* obey the first law. It is only when the design would NOT work as predicted, because it turns out that the interactions do not behave as we have always understood them, that there is a chance for the first law to be violated. But then the inventor *also* doesn't know this. It is only if there are deviations of the universal law of gravity that there is a *possibility* to violate the first law. As long as gravity is supposed to work according to Newton's formula, it *can't* violate the first law, because the first law was *derived* from Newton's formula.

Just given, on paper, the laws of gravity and electromagnetism, one can *derive* the first law of thermodynamics for every system that works according to these interactions. So there is no hope to have:
1) a device that works according to a design that obeys the known laws of nature (gravity, electromagnetism...)
2) will violate the first law of thermodynamics.

That is as impossible as finding an even number that ends in digit 3. It would be a violation of a mathematical theorem. So as long as one can reasonably expect a machine to behave according to known gravity, electromagnetism and so on, it cannot be a PMM.

So in order to even *hope* to design a PMM, you need at least to have established an interaction which is NOT the known gravity, or electromagnetism or whatever. You *need* a totally new piece of physics on which to base your design even before hoping to design a PMM. Otherwise you're just randomly assembling components of which *you hope you don't know how they work* and hope that this will somehow result in a PMM. From the moment you use "standard" design knowledge, based upon standard physics, it is impossible for it to be a PMM. You can only hope to have a PMM if at least a part of the machine is not behaving as anything we know in physics.

 

[FDeck]

Another good thread ruined.

Hope not.


First of, I would like to apologize to the thread starter. Please do not think that I am trying to hi-jack this thread. And if anybody thinks so, just post it and i'll never post again. I just wanted to participate since the topic is of global concern...and not a problem of "scientists" alone.

And since I consider this as my last post, I would like to thank everyone in this forum.

I recognize all your wisdom. But If minds are closed, wisdom is limited. Yes, there are laws of science that are not to be violated. But these laws are just boundaries of up to where you can go to. It should not be treated as "hindrance". The first law of Thermodynamics never stated that PMM is an impossibility, but a deduction of people who got tired maybe of
trying to make one.

PMM concept is not a matter of "creating energy out of nothing" (which for a very long time, has always been tagged to PMMs, that made it too evasive...or, if not, considered an impossibility), but converting an existing energy (which is gravity), and objects (weights) manipulation (depending on how you will create the system), "without using magic". True, summing up all "directly" reacting forces creates equilibrium. But PMMs are not going to work on that state, but "beyond the state of equilibrium" (with excess load after the equilibrium state) to successfully create a perpetual movement.

For instance; in a system where the ratio of 1:3 is enough to put the system in equilibrium, then the task is to find a place in the system where you can add up the additional load (excess load). Now creativity needs to work.

"Did we violate any existing laws of science?" Did we introduce new physics?




K, let's start over. How about solar panels. China will be releasing non-oil-based in years to come. Price reduction cost will be great!

Thanks everyone.

 

[FDeck]

So I have to agree with Dick, he's absolutely inspirational. Creativity is a wonderful thing, but the universe was created the way it was. It doesn't care if your creative outside the bounds of what laws govern it because that would be useless. If it says zero equals zero, then its zero. As people, we're trying to understand it, not the other way around. So any creativity with what the universe can do, has to be within the abilities of the universe itself. IMO, conservation of energy is a universal law, it cannot be any other way unless you don't live in the same universe our physicists live in.

Thanks for being open-minded. I just want to make it clear that I am not suggesting to go beyond the limits of science. But if anybody could discover another unknown phenomena and will be able to prove it scientifically, let him be.

 

[vanesch]

The first law of Thermodynamics never stated that PMM is an impossibility, but a deduction of people who got tired maybe of
trying to make one.

The *DEFINITION* of a PPM of the first kind is a machine that violates the first law of thermodynamics. You take wiki for what it's worth, but when you look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
you see that it is its definition.

It seems that my previous two posts passed next over you, because "a deduction of people who got tired maybe of trying to make one" was exactly the point I adressed that the first law was NOT about.

but converting an existing energy (which is gravity), and objects (weights) manipulation (depending on how you will create the system), "without using magic".

Well, if it is "without magic, then you can only do this in a non-cyclic way (in other words, "only once"). Yes, you can extract energy from the gravitational potential energy a rock has on the top of a mountain. Once the rock is down, you've had it. Is that what you mean ?
Something that acts "only once" is not very "perpetual".
There's not much left in the gravity field which is readily exploitable. There is some kinetic energy left (rotation of the moon and so on) which can be extracted, by tidal power for instance. But that too, is not a PMM.

True, summing up all "directly" reacting forces creates equilibrium. But PMMs are not going to work on that state, but "beyond the state of equilibrium" (with excess load after the equilibrium state) to successfully create a perpetual movement.

There is no "requirement of equilibrium" or anything of the kind in the first law. So I don't know what you mean.

For instance; in a system where the ratio of 1:3 is enough to put the system in equilibrium, then the task is to find a place in the system where you can add up the additional load (excess load). Now creativity needs to work.

I don't understand what you mean.

"Did we violate any existing laws of science?" Did we introduce new physics?

No, but we didn't create a PMM either.

K, let's start over. How about solar panels.

Solar panels are nice. They are not PMM. They convert light into electricity. The light comes ultimately from a nuclear reaction in the sun where the hydrogen is consumed as a fuel. It's a "only once" extraction, which, however, takes a long time (a few billions of years). It is not perpetual, but it is good enough for us.

Another thing is oil. There's oil in the ground and we can burn it. It is also a "once only" reaction, but there is/was a lot of it, so for a while that was "good enough" too. Or coal. Or uranium. And there are stones on the mountain.

 

[FDeck]

The *DEFINITION* of a PPM of the first kind is a machine that violates the first law of thermodynamics. You take wiki for what it's worth, but when you look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
you see that it is its definition.

Inventions that failed are the basis of WIKI in defining PMM of any kind. And they too, were affected by the contagious belief of its impossibility. But any books can be re-written if proven at fault.

Well, if it is "without magic, then you can only do this in a non-cyclic way (in other words, "only once"). Yes, you can extract energy from the gravitational potential energy a rock has on the top of a mountain. Once the rock is down, you've had it. Is that what you mean ?
Something that acts "only once" is not very "perpetual".

It must be cyclic in a way, (but maybe not exactly the way you think) that is, to create continuity.

There is no "requirement of equilibrium" or anything of the kind in the first law. So I don't know what you mean.

I don't understand what you mean.

Okay, to give you an example (this is just an analogy to create a better picture) to understand what I meant; suppose I've created a system (a juggler), he holds 1 ball on the right and 2 balls on the left, this load ratio is enough for the system to be in the state of equilibrium, I summed up all the loads he holds and all forces equaled to "zero"!

Now here is where all the scientists stopped. Because Einstein gave us this formula F = -G m1 m2 / r^2 and the law of conservation of energy. But never did Einstein mentioned that PMM is an impossibility. He merely laid out the boundaries. And I wonder if he would say that PMM is an impossibility. He could have stated, if it is. Because the fact is, he wasn't sure himself if it is possible or not. Have we violated any law so far? i don't think so.

But hey, we're not done yet. We're just starting with our PMM. The system (the juggler) I've created when added a load is capable of throwing 5 or 8 balls simultaneously up in the air. Now may I ask, should we add up those 5 or 8 balls in the formula, when those balls are practically not in the system? No, because those are the excess loads, the trigger, that will over-balance the system, that makes it PMM.

Now, is there anything magical about it? No, it is creativity. Science will only guide us, not think for us. Did we violate any laws of science? No, we just played around it, by looking at it in a different way. And not the same old way that has been passed on up to now.

Well, I can only do so much explaining the possibility of PMM as the real alternative for energy crisis. If you all think it's crackpot idea, sorry me. But it's alright, actually, i am more worried about it's future when somebody released one. A lot of Big Guys up there wouldn't be so happy.

Well, business is business.

 

[russ_watters]

Inventions that failed are the basis of WIKI in defining PMM of any kind. And they too, were affected by the contagious belief of its impossibility.

Now you're claiming that devices that have actually been built failed to work because people didn't believe they would work. Sorry, but you can't make things happen by wishing and you can't make them not happen by not believing. Either they work or they don't. The laws of physics don't care what you believe.

This ends now and I'm cleaning the thread up. [now split from previous thread]

FDeck, please review PF's global guidelines, in particular be aware that we do not allow crackpot claims here. We've given you way more leway than you deserve and that ends now. You are, of course, free to choose to believe whatever you want about how the universe works, but what you believe will not change reality and we clearly can't help you understand a reality you aren't interested in learing about, so there isn't anything left for us to discuss.