Perpetual motion and free energy possible?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the possibility of perpetual motion and free energy, exploring claims made by various inventors and the implications of such machines in the context of established physics. Participants examine the feasibility of these concepts, referencing historical claims and contemporary skepticism.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that perpetual motion machines are impossible according to current laws of physics, citing historical rejections of such claims.
  • One participant mentions a story about a hidden planet that supposedly supports perpetual motion, arguing that its existence would disturb planetary orbits, thus questioning the plausibility of the claim.
  • Another participant expresses skepticism about the secrecy surrounding grand inventions, suggesting that if a true perpetual motion machine existed, it would be widely known.
  • Some participants discuss the concept of energy from nothing, referencing theories related to the Big Bang and conditions where energy conservation may not apply.
  • A participant raises a point about the assumptions in General Relativity regarding rotating magnetic fields, suggesting that this could lead to a closed system with net energy output.
  • There are claims that NASA has investigated free energy possibilities but found no viable solutions.
  • One participant questions the idea that an object spun in a vacuum would keep spinning indefinitely, proposing it as a potential example of perpetual motion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that perpetual motion is considered impossible by established science, but multiple competing views and speculative ideas remain present in the discussion. There is no consensus on the validity of claims regarding free energy or perpetual motion devices.

Contextual Notes

Some claims rely on assumptions about the nature of hidden planets and the implications of government secrecy, while discussions about energy conservation and theoretical physics remain unresolved and speculative.

  • #31
Guadalupe said:
Perpetual motion machines (PMMs)of the 1st, 2nd, or of any kind, does not and have never violated any laws of physics.
Reread what alpha posted. By definition, they violate the laws of physics.
Laws of Physics state, "Anything with a beginning, will come to an end".
There is no law of physics that says that.

Guadalupe, we are patient people, but our patience is finite. You are welcome to try to overturn the laws of physics in the Theory Development forum, but not in other forums. Other forums are for discussing the real laws of physics.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
perpetual motion machines

russ_watters said:
Reread what alpha posted. By definition, they violate the laws of physics.
There is no law of physics that says that.

Guadalupe, we are patient people, but our patience is finite. You are welcome to try to overturn the laws of physics in the Theory Development forum, but not in other forums. Other forums are for discussing the real laws of physics.

Forgive me for not being too specific. But, can anyone give me one example, by difinition, that is infinite in this whole universe? Just one?

Oh! God is a given. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Guadalupe said:
Perpetual motion machines (PMMs)of the 1st, 2nd, or of any kind, does not and have never violated any laws of physics.
Infinite meaning, "with no beginning and no end".
All PMMs of any kind, are finite, because they all have a point of origin, a ground state, a beginning.
Laws of Physics state, "Anything with a beginning, will come to an end". Again, PMMs are simply misunderstood.
Guadalupe, it seems it is you who has misunderstood PMMs. I do not blame you - the word "perpetual" is rather missleading; and the word "motion" is somewhat misplaced (see below). As I wrote earlier, PMMs are defined as machines that violate one of the first two laws of thermodynamics. Typically, these are machines that are supposed to produce continuous motion, hence the name. They are not expected to run forever, but only for as long as their structure remains intact.

To be honest, PMMs shouldn't really be called PMMs. Nothing in their definition talks about motion. And in fact perpetual motion is possible, and is occurring all the time. The Earth is in perpetual motion around the sun and around its own axis, the same goes for the moon, the other planets, and so on. What is not possible, is to produce work from such motion.

But if you want to talk about "free energy". My bet is on solar energy generator or windmill generator.
These examples are not free energy, in the sense that energy is not being created out of nothing. It is simply being converted from one form to another. And that is indeed quite possible.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Guadalupe said:
Forgive me for not being too specific. But, can anyone give me one example, by difinition, that is infinite in this whole universe? Just one?
We're not even sure if the universe itself is infinite (though it looks like it may be). In any case, this has nothing to do with why what you are saying isn't physics.
 
  • #35
perpetual motion machines

Having a point of origin is the very foundation in which engineering basis their building blocks upon. Without it, one can not build on the ideas, thoughts, even their insperations.

The word "Perpetual" to mean: forever, never change, etc. But, has anyone stopped to ask as to how can anything be forever in motion without having a point of origin? The answer is, sadly, no.

We claim that perpetual motion machines to do all kinds of wondrous things, like giving us free energy, runs forever, etc, and all because we are making the mistake of defining the word "perpetual" with Newton 1st Law of Motion (infinite) and overlooking his 3rd Law of Motion (finite).

I'm not talking about "free energy", but about "perpetual motion machines" as having a beginning, a ground state, a point of origin, onces its put forward into motion.

Why is it soooooo important about having a point of origin you ask? It means, "Any object set in motion, from a ground state, a beginning, a point of origin, will eventually come to a grinding halt".
 
Last edited:
  • #36
Since the vast majority of this thread has been inappropriate for General Physics, I am moving it to TD.

- Warren
 

Similar threads

High School Generating Energy from Molecular Motion
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
High School Energy Conservation in Relativity: Perpetual Motion?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
High School How does this osmotic system reach equilibrium?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
High School Can the moon orbit be used as perpetual motion?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Undergrad Gravity, Free energy, and proving my pet idiot wrong.
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
7K
High School Refuting Perpetual Motion with Magnets
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
High School Why and How are Mechanical and Kinetic Energy different?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
15K
Undergrad Is Perpetual Motion Truly Impossible or Simply Misunderstood?
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
12K
Did Nikola Tesla discover a way to harness free energy?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
High School Why Can't Permanent Magnets Create a Perpetual Motion Machine?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K