Give use your best perpetual motion device ideas!

  • #26
geistkiesel said:
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.
 
  • #27
540
0
Michael F. Dmitriyev said:
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!
 
  • #28
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
 
  • #29
170
0
from what I understand it has to be a closed system......
 
  • #31
170
0
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.
 
  • #32
so gravity cannot be utilized because you cannot contain it? ok. would magnets be acceptable even though they generate their own force?
 
  • #33
170
0
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)
 
  • #34
170
0
gravity, if constant can be used but this limits the location at which the device would work.
 
  • #35
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 thats a force at all. apparently i do not know many forces. there needs to be a force to create continuous energy right?
 
  • #36
6,265
1,280
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.
 
  • #37
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 thats so perfectly designed that when you apply something to use the energy its producing it stops working correctly?
 
  • #38
301
0
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
 
  • #39
301
0
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
 
  • #40
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?
 
Last edited:
  • #41
6,265
1,280
relativelyslow said:
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 thats 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.
 
  • #42
6,265
1,280
relativelyslow said:
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.
 
  • #43
well, ive seen this video of a frog hovering over a magnet (they did it with a water droplet too and various other things). im 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?
 
  • #44
http://www.hfml.sci.kun.nl/levitation-movies.html [Broken] theres the link to the site with the floating things.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #45
mee
213
1
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.)
 
  • #47
6,265
1,280
mee said:
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.
 

Related Threads on Give use your best perpetual motion device ideas!

  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
10K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
28
Views
5K
Top