Perpetual motion machines: possible?

  • Thread starter noreply2
  • Start date

Possible to build them?

  • Yes, we should be able to build them

    Votes: 7 18.9%
  • No, it is against the laws of energy conservation

    Votes: 25 67.6%
  • It may be technically possible, but only in the distant future

    Votes: 5 13.5%

  • Total voters
    37
1
0
By this I mean machines that put more energy out than is put in.

Is it possible?
 
197
0
Unequivocally impossible.
 

enigma

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,738
9
Nope,

not possible in this universe.
 
125
2
Perpetual motion machine?

Perpetual motion? No problem!

Perpetual motion machine? No chance!
 
1,488
20
Even if we someday produce a machine that appears to do more work than input energy would allow, it is just that we do not fully understand the ultimate source of the energy. Such as some of the designs involving magnetism.
 
197
0
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

-- Arthur C. Clarke
 

Clausius2

Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,436
5
If a perpetual machine would be possible, there would be something similar in the Nature. But it is impossible because Nature and Universe are not perpetual, they had a beginning.

The only we need to built one is a frictionless material, so let's search one!. (but while you are searching I am going to visit my fridge.)
 

mysteryturtle

Physics; Pertpetual motion is impossible.
Cosmology;The universe is in constant motion.

Cancel out common denominators...

The universe is impossible !

Mystery
 
28
0
As far as the universe, it is not a question of perpetual motion, but the energy availability to do useful work. The universe is constantly expending its useful energy (primarily through nuclear fusion) and one day no further fusion will be possible once too of the Hydrogen has been converted to Iron. Once this occurs, everything will thermalize such that there is no difference in temperature and no further work can be extracted. Perhaps the protons may even begin to decay away according to some theories. The spiral will continue downward until you can get no usable work. The universe will die.

The universe is completely consistent with physics.
 
567
3
Yes, there is a difference between "perpetual" and "constant". Constant motion doesn't neccesarily indicate perpetual motion.
 
567
3
Clausius2 said:
If a perpetual machine would be possible, there would be something similar in the Nature. But it is impossible because Nature and Universe are not perpetual, they had a beginning.
Aren't nature and the universe the same thing?
If they had a beginning, then wouldn't they have "began" in a point in time? If so, then for it to begin, wouldn't its beginning be a "beginning" relative to other points in time?


The only we need to built one is a frictionless material, so let's search one!. (but while you are searching I am going to visit my fridge.)
Superconductors have been "made" you know.
now I think I'll go visit my fridge.


BTW, I have a question. Is it not true that if you apply a force on a ball in space, it will continue in that direction until acted upon by another force? Is it impossible for the ball to continue in perpetual motion [while in space] because eventually, it will be influenced by some other force?
 
1,013
1
Well then it is still true what you said... it continued in the direction until it was acted upon by another force. If there is nothing to slow something down, why should it. It would imply that it is losing energy by solely moving. On earth energy is lost through friction and heat but in space in a vacume until it feels some sort of force it will have no reason to change direction.
 

cronxeh

Gold Member
949
10
perpetual motion is impossible. from laws of thermodynamics:

energy can neither be created nor destroyed
bodies in motion tend to stay in motion unless an external force acts upon it

the universe is in constant motion from the big bang. will it stop doing that and go back towards singularity? probable. sort of like a rubber band. but even this process can not be described as perpetual in itself. something drives the expansion (explosion for example)

another thing about the machines.. if the friction isnt a problem.. and even if gravity isnt one.. certainly you'll never get more energy than what you put into that machine

you need to tap a source of energy to get it back.. please dont waste time on perpetual motion machines and start researching cure for cancer, cold fusion, run SETI@Home, do something but waste your and ultimate worse, others time
 

megashawn

Science Advisor
435
0
hehe, you say not to research pm, but then suggest to research cold fusion. LOL

Perpetual motion is a noble search. With such power, noone would have to work, for we'd have enough energy to do all sortsa cool stuf. But it isn't gonna happen. This very idea is what original brought me to this forum. I've learned and changed alot since I first came here (so has this forum now that I think about it).

I was so convinced I had come up with PM, I had come up with a method I still haven't seen anyone trying to use. It functioned, it moved, it melted my battery cause I was trying to put energy back in it while pulling energy from it. And yes, I wasted alot of time toying with it. But I learned some important things.

Picture the old school pm machines. The flywheels with the counter weights that slide back and forth, creating a downward force which would spin it back up again.

In a 0 gravity, frictionless enviroment such a thing would spin for quite sometime. Keep in mind the definition of perpetual motion: A machine which, once set in motion, will stay in motion until parts wear out or it is stopped.

In that regards, I'd say the universe could very well be considered perpetual motion. I don't know about the machine part, for that implies a creator, to many issues to touch there.

Anyhow, back to the ole school wheel. Lets say you get it spinning, say, 10,000 rpm. You put a pulley on it that turns a belt, which turns a generator. For each time the wheel turns, the generator turns twice. By turning a generator, and say, powering a house, you remove rotational energy from the wheel, convert it into electrical energy, and burn it in your television.

Eventually, the wheel will stop spinning, as each watt you draw from the energy exerts an opposite force on the wheel. Now, while it isn't perpetual, here is the trick. On the opposite side of the wheel which contains the generator puller, you setup an even larger puller, twice the size of the spinning wheel. This pulley is hooked up to an electric motor which is driven by a nucleur/thermoelectric generator.

The purpose of the wheel, instead of producing energy, becomes a sort of mechanical battery. In that it converts electrical energy into rotational energy, which can then later be extracted back out and put into use. Would you like to see something like this in action? Rip the engine out of your car. See the flywheel? Same concept. Check out a pottery wheels, they are peddle powered, spin up to speed, spin for a while, friction takes its toll and you must pump it again.

That is one of the major problems. We don't have a good electricity tank. We can't put 5 gallons of electrons in a plasitc tank and carry it out in the middle of the woods with us. It isn't so much that we don't have ways to generate electricity, but moreso we don't have ways to stockpile it, and any excess energy that is produced is wasted. That, is where your time would best spent, trying to figure out how to store electricity better.
 
1,488
20
Good response Megashawn. I like your thought on the storage of energy being the real challange.
 
14
0
Perpetua Motion Machines

Law of Origin states, "A body set in motion, from a point of origin, will come to rest", meaning, anything that is set into motion from a ground state, will eventually come to a grinding halt, such things as planes, trains, automoblies, solar panel generators, windmill generators, nuclear power generators, etc, and because this things are finite, they do not voilate any laws of thermodynamics.

Perpetual Motion Machines have a ground state making them finite not infinite.
 
Last edited:
462
0
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

-- Arthur C. Clarke
I agree with that soo much.
 
1,794
163
Corrolary:

Any sufficiently advanced science is 100% distinguishable from magic.

Edited twice, I seem to have no typing skills today.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,746
4,947
Law of Origin? Never heard of it and it ain't how our universe works.
 
14
0
Perpetual Motion

[edit] Sorry, but your gibberish is not physics and is not allowed in my forum. In the engineering forum, we necessarily only deal with real physics (caveat - a discussion on why perpetual motion doesn't work can be useful). Keep it in the TD forum. And keep the spam off the entire board.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
14
0
Perpetual motion machines

russ_watters said:
Law of Origin? Never heard of it and it ain't how our universe works.
"The important thing is not to stop questioning." -Albert Einstein 1879

I'm sorry if my gibberish may not sound like real physics to you, but it is.
 
Last edited:

Averagesupernova

Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,521
542
I tend to agree with megashawns suggestion about researching better storage methods but I wouldn't limit it to that. In some cases it IS easier to generate your power on site than to generate it off site and carry it to the site. But, it depends upon how you look at it. Carrying 5 gallons of gasoline and a small generator is somewhat equivalent to carrying stored power. It just depends on how you are defining 'stored power'. Gasoline and most things we burn are considered a fuel as less energy is expended getting the fuel than what burning the fuel yields.

Personally I am interested in sterling engines. As far as I know THE most efficient heat engine ever devised. If you are interested in power, just carry one of these to your site as long as you have plenty of 'natural' fuel around to burn such as wood.
 
151
0
If you cannot destroy or create energy, wouldn't that be perpetual itself. Imagine a machine that could take any kind of energy and convert it into a useful energy. Electricy, magnetism, heat, matter, light, potential, kinetic. If there were a machine that would take all these energies, turn them into electricity for a city to use.
 

megashawn

Science Advisor
435
0
Well, thats the trouble is converting the imaginary into reality. I can imagine a little box that has to wires coming out of it, one positive, one negative, and when I hook it up to the grid, it powers the entire world.

Now, let me build it, uhhhhh.

Sterling engines are pretty nifty, but they still rely on natural resources. If perhaps we could use such a concept on a hot spring, we could produce some decent amount of energy, but then again, we don't have all that many hot springs.

I really think the best bet would be to tap into volcanos, using some type of thermoelectric coupling that uses the heat to move electrons. Still can't store it, but there seems to be a pretty unlimited supply of lava.

Oh ya, and if we were drawing heat from the volcanos, would this in the long term cause them to settle down, instead of building more and more pressure then exploding?
 

Averagesupernova

Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,521
542
Yes a sterling engine does require a heat source of some kind but not necessarily natural resources. It is still more efficient than anything we have today. If we could focus solar energy onto a sterling engine we would have a fairly easy conversion to mechanical output. I think the key to efficient power useage is the combination of SEVERAL sources and efficient storage. As for your lava idea, isn't lava itself pretty much stored energy? I think solar of some type is still the key to our energy needs. Wind is technically a type of solar energy.

One last thing I want to add. I mentioned burning wood in my other post. I am not 100% sure if this is correct, but the natural decomposition of wood slowly releases some if not much of the same gases we consider pollutants when it is burned.
 
Last edited:

Related Threads for: Perpetual motion machines: possible?

Replies
2
Views
6K
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • Posted
Replies
17
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
982
  • Posted
Replies
3
Views
637
  • Posted
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • Posted
Replies
2
Views
4K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top