Perpetual motion machines: possible?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the feasibility of perpetual motion machines, which are defined as machines that output more energy than they consume. Participants explore theoretical implications, physical laws, and the nature of energy in the universe.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that perpetual motion machines are unequivocally impossible due to the laws of thermodynamics.
  • Others suggest that while perpetual motion machines cannot exist, the concept of perpetual motion itself is not inherently impossible, as seen in the universe's ongoing motion.
  • A participant proposes that even if a machine appears to produce more energy, it may simply be drawing from an unrecognized energy source, such as magnetism.
  • One participant discusses the distinction between "perpetual" and "constant" motion, indicating that constant motion does not imply perpetual motion.
  • Another participant reflects on the idea that if perpetual motion were possible, it would likely be observable in nature, which they argue is not the case.
  • Some participants highlight the challenges of energy storage and the limitations of current technology in harnessing energy efficiently.
  • A participant shares a personal anecdote about experimenting with a design that seemed to function as a perpetual motion machine but ultimately failed due to energy loss.
  • Another participant introduces the "Law of Origin," stating that all bodies in motion will eventually come to rest, reinforcing the idea that perpetual motion machines are finite and cannot violate thermodynamic laws.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the possibility of perpetual motion machines, with some firmly stating their impossibility while others entertain the concept of perpetual motion in a broader context. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views present.

Contextual Notes

Participants express various assumptions about energy sources, the nature of motion, and the implications of thermodynamic laws, which are not fully explored or settled in the discussion.

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
  • #31
No 'free' energy. Our universe, and time itself, would collapse otherwise [the math that infers that already exists]. The total energy of the universe is fixed, and always has been. Energy can be transferred, but, it is forbidden to create or destroy it.. re: the laws of thermodynamics. That is what Einstein believed, and he was a smart guy.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #32
I just think it's funny that 9 out of 28 people think perpetual motion machines are actually viable! Indeed, they should go and patent their thoughts, then look for someone to do a little product development. I'd certainly be willing to be paid a modest salary to, ahem, "develop" their ideas...!
 
  • #33
anti_crank said:
Then may I recommend you proceed with all alacrity to your local patent office...
Warning: the US Patent Office is somewhat demanding in their requirement that a PPM work before awarding such a patent. You'll need to build it and run it for a year in a sealed container before they will review the application.

However, one resourceful chap was able to sue to have his device tested and won - but it failed the test. :smile:

Good luck...
 
  • #34
Leaving it for a whole year is presumably to allow the laughter in the patent office to subside before the inventor returns?
 
  • #35
russ_watters said:
Warning: the US Patent Office is somewhat demanding in their requirement that a PPM work before awarding such a patent. You'll need to build it and run it for a year in a sealed container before they will review the application.

However, one resourceful chap was able to sue to have his device tested and won - but it failed the test. :smile:

Good luck...

I think there is no sense to go to any patent office. This thing is not for making money. If i ll make its prototype, it is mainly for remote areas and poor countries like us. I know it is too dificult to reach the right person for making its prototype.
 
  • #36
I'll do it! I have development, research and manufacturing facilities. I'd be more than happy to develop your prototype!
 
  • #37
They say they have done it

This group has done it they say, and are manufacturing home units...check it out - you decide...

http://pesn.com/2004/06/30/6900029PerendevPowerMagneticMotor/


Mystery
 
  • #38
This sounds like 1st April...
 
  • #39
brewnog said:
I'll do it! I have development, research and manufacturing facilities. I'd be more than happy to develop your prototype!

thanks for your coopration, brewnog

in my country one of ngo is in touch with me.
they assuring me about its secracy.
I think i should faith on them.So i m giving them all the
drawings and taking a chance to develop the prototype.
 
  • #40
Sounds like they'll be shutting down the power stations immediately then snpssaini!

60kW of never ending power, initial investment of eur8500? I don't think so!
 
  • #41
http://www.nuscam.com/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #42
cronxeh said:
perpetual motion is impossible. from laws of thermodynamics:
yes. It is not exactly energy conservation involved here.

Except for the :
The design of perpetual motion machine is on the other side
:-p
 
  • #43
" No way!"

against the law of conservation of energy...
 
  • #44
Perpetual motion is silly. It can't happen.

Also, if we had perpetual motion, and we used it to generate electicity, we could run into a few nasties. For instance, with no energy being used up, the generator will either:

a) Continually output the same amount of energy; or
b) Increase the output of energy as time goes on

If b) happens then we're in trouble. And if a) happens, we're still in trouble. How do you turn the thing off, or start it again?

Some people have voted yes to this poll...
 
  • #45
I've just reread the thread, and it seems we're only looking at machines that increase energy output as time goes on. So the machine would eventually break down (due to overheating, etc.) And there's no way you could stop it, because it just keeps getting faster, and the amount of force needed to stop it increases. :eek:
 
  • #46
amwbonfire said:
I've just reread the thread, and it seems we're only looking at machines that increase energy output as time goes on. So the machine would eventually break down (due to overheating, etc.) And there's no way you could stop it, because it just keeps getting faster, and the amount of force needed to stop it increases. :eek:
You could always "bleed off" the extra energy - if, for example, the output is 100W more than the input, you can add a resistor (a light bulb) to turn that 100w into heat, bringing the sysem into equilibrium.
 
  • #47
Plus, if its over-unity then there is no losses to heat to account for correct? What, your perpetual motion machine isn't a super conducting dynamo extracting energy from a 'vacum'. :smile: If needed, you could always oversize the over-unity to drive a heat pump to extract some of that pesky residual heat, with 1800% efficiency you've got lots of excess energy to play with!

I'd like to see these inventors homes and the autos they drive every day. I'd guess they're hooked up to the power grid and use petro as fuel.

Cliff
 
  • #48
What is this thread doing in Engineering (other than provide amusement to some readers)?!?

Didn't I read that there's been a bit of a change in how the site guidelines are implemented here at PF?
 
  • #49
Nereid said:
What is this thread doing in Engineering (other than provide amusement to some readers)?!?

Didn't I read that there's been a bit of a change in how the site guidelines are implemented here at PF?
Well, it started as a legitimate discussion of why perpetual motion isn't possible. Its kinda meandered though. But I don't know that the crackpottery level is high enough to close it.
 
  • #50
russ_watters said:
You could always "bleed off" the extra energy - if, for example, the output is 100W more than the input, you can add a resistor (a light bulb) to turn that 100w into heat, bringing the sysem into equilibrium.

The energy output is continually increasing. You'd need to keep adding more and more lightbulbs forever...
 
  • #51
amwbonfire said:
The energy output is continually increasing. You'd need to keep adding more and more lightbulbs forever...



Take it to Vegas they are always adding light bulbs, it will have perpetual use there.
 
  • #52
Impossible?

rdt2 said:
Perpetual motion? No problem!
Perpetual motion machine? No chance!

Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future scientific advances.
-- Dr. Lee De Forest, inventor of the vacuum tube and father of television.

Never say never. Never say impossible. Every one of today's advances in science were all considered "impossible" by the scientific elite of the past. Instead of denying it, why don't you present day scientific elite (geniuses :smile: ) work on it?
 
Last edited:
  • #53
Hmmm... And wasn't it Bill Gates who said we'd never use more than 1Mb for hard drive storage?

Every "impossibility" has it's own obstacles to overcome. Unfortunately, perpetual motion machines have a lot of huge obstacles, including the nature of the universe. When we can overcome that, we can build 'em. :-p
 
  • #54
maps said:
-- Dr. Lee De Forest, inventor of the vacuum tube and father of television.

Never say never. Never say impossible. Every one of today's advances in science were all considered "impossible" by the scientific elite of the past. Instead of denying it, why don't you present day scientific elite (geniuses :smile: ) work on it?

Because none of today's scientific advances violate the laws of thermodynamics. PPMs do. You cannot create energy any more than you can lift yourself to the ceiling with your tie.
 
  • #55
maps said:
-- Dr. Lee De Forest, inventor of the vacuum tube and father of television.

Never say never. Never say impossible. Every one of today's advances in science were all considered "impossible" by the scientific elite of the past. Instead of denying it, why don't you present day scientific elite (geniuses :smile: ) work on it?
To expand on what enigma said, what you have here is a very common misunderstanding of the difference between science and technology (engineering). Dr. Forest would certainly not have claimed that space travel violated the laws of physics. Same goes for the commonly cited "sound barrier" issue. These and others are engineering problems that many scientists/engineers/inventers never thought we'd solve.

Perpetual motion machines, on the other hand (self-powering machines that produce excess energy forever) directly violate the laws of physics.
 
  • #56
A faithful bodyguard for life of mankind----account in the own words of Brown perpetu

Abstract:
Brown perpetual motion machine can be called as the perpetual motion machine of the first category without energy consumption and doing work permanently. There would be no mankind if without them. After reading the article, Maybe you would say, “Yes, indeed !”

TEXT:
Any substances, due to the subtle and inevitable causes in the boundless cosmos, all follow the self-possessed and permanently-existed golden rules to continually move. Inside of this great and exact truth I----a true Brown perpetual motion machine----am included!
Actually, the Brown motion the people at today are familiar with has already been available before Brown, a great scientist in the 19th century, found the motion entitled with his name! Accordingly, people should get to know the true fact of me, the [Brown perpetual motion machine] existing simultaneously with the said motion!
To a gaseous (or liquid) physical isolated system thermally balanced with the outside world: it is an isolated system without exchanging quantity of heat or energy with the outside world while keeping the internal energy unchanged, it is me----Brown perpetual motion machine!
I am able to do work continually for the Brown particles (those suspending in a gas or liquid) getting into the system of mine with the force source from the collision by the countless molecules inside of the system! By contrast to the definition upon the perpetual motion machine of the first category, I am really a thoroughgoing perpetual motion machine, i.e. [ a kind of the machine able to do work permanently without consuming any energy].
Just like the extra-micro car which can safely drive forever, the mileage of every Brown particle inside of the isolated physical system of mine will get quickly increased along with the lapse of time. In case of the measurement of the work I have done for it, then: [time goes ahead without end, so does the work’s growth!]
In case a gas of a dissenting kind gets into some gas groups belonging to mine, I can give effect to have the community of the molecules of such kind of gas dispersed and reduced till the molecules evenly mixed with each other (nitrogen, oxygen etc. in the atmosphere are so mixed).
The same function can also make the molecule community of the solutes in various solutions differentiated and expanded till becoming a solution of an even concentration.
In all, such a truth that I often make the coexistence of many substances to be a harmonious status comes more important than the find-out of the perpetual motion machine and in the world there is a great deal of such a fact as the objective laws bring benefit to mankind in silence while people do not get to know them!
Because of my existence, the people being sunk in sleep will not die from stifling when they are drowned out by the piled carbon dioxide exhaled from themselves.
Because of my existence, anywhere in the evenly proportional atmosphere there is enough oxygen for people to share life.
Because of my existence, the generous sea shows its fairness furthermore (all kinds of the substances inside of it required by mankind are evenly distributed, as: table salt, heavy water, ……).
Because of my existence, numerous harmful substances (small as coal gas leak, big as the hazard biochemical weapon etc.) are lost to sight with their target of attack to wreak havoc.
……….
I am really a natural and worthful [perpetual motion toxic remover] and [perpetual motion material transmitter] !
What is more worth rejoicing is: the effect of the Brown perpetual motion machine can still exist even if in the environment with temperature rising or lowering! Just due to that, I am made able to bring my competences making benefit to mankind and removing numerous dangers into full play all day.
Without me, people would have died before they got to know what is the carbon dioxide, therefore there would be no mankind if without me, which is so clear just as there would be no mankind if without air!
The wonderful arrangement in the universe creation can not be lack of either air or me, mankind started existing and multiplying therefrom with the result in forming the negation towards the perpetual motion machine. Said upon this----such a negated conclusion towards the perpetual motion machine completely comes from myself!
I have never complained the arrangement in the universe creation nor the defect of mankind, because what is the bounden duty of mankind is to seek truth, provided that people could know the truth which brings them some benefits is really a truth, this is no doubt a kind of advance!

Made up upon the oral account of Brown perpetual motion machine.
 
  • #58
I think this thread has run its course, and I'm getting tired of deleting crackpot posts from it. Any objections? Good.

[mod hat]
locks thread
[/mod hat]
 

Similar threads

  • Sticky
Insights Why We Don’t Discuss Perpetual Motion Machines (PMM)
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
15K
High School Generating Energy from Molecular Motion
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
Undergrad What's the trick to this "perpetual" marble device?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Undergrad Feynman: Reversible machines, no perpetual motion?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Infinite flow with capillary tubes?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Could New Washing Machine Be Damaged by Delivery Guy?
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
Undergrad Perpetual motion machine - Intuitive meaning
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
6K
Graduate Can this machine produce more work than consumed?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
High School Can we mimic a perpetual motion machien?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Leonardo’s Perpetual Motion Machines
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
7K