Perpetual motion machines: possible?

[noreply2]

By this I mean machines that put more energy out than is put in.

Is it possible?

 

[TALewis]

Unequivocally impossible.

 

[enigma]

Nope,

not possible in this universe.

 

[rdt2]

Perpetual motion machine?

Perpetual motion? No problem!

Perpetual motion machine? No chance!

 

[Artman]

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.

 

[TALewis]

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

-- Arthur C. Clarke

 

[Clausius2]

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

 

[BCRion]

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.

 

[Imparcticle]

Yes, there is a difference between "perpetual" and "constant". Constant motion doesn't neccesarily indicate perpetual motion.

 

[Imparcticle]

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?

 

[Tom McCurdy]

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 vacuum until it feels some sort of force it will have no reason to change direction.

 

[cronxeh]

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 isn't a problem.. and even if gravity isn't 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 don't 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]

hehe, you say not to research pm, but then suggest to research cold fusion. LOL

Perpetual motion is a noble search. With such power, no one would have to work, for we'd have enough energy to do all sortsa cool stuf. But it isn't going to happen. This very idea is what original brought me to this forum. I've learned and changed a lot 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 a lot 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 environment 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. Let's 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 more so 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.

 

[Artman]

Good response Megashawn. I like your thought on the storage of energy being the real challange.

 

[Guadalupe]

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.

 

[Entropy]

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

-- Arthur C. Clarke

I agree with that soo much.

 

[Locrian]

Corrolary:

Any sufficiently advanced science is 100% distinguishable from magic.

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

 

[russ_watters]

Law of Origin? Never heard of it and it ain't how our universe works.

 

[Guadalupe]

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.

 

[Guadalupe]

Perpetual motion machines

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.

 

[Averagesupernova]

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.

 

[Dual Op Amp]

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]

Well, that's 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]

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.

 

[megashawn]

that is true, and using something like a http://www.sunoven.com/usa.asp you probably could get some pretty good energy.

 

[pinobot]

It's not perpetual motion, because perpetual motion is impossible .

 

[mysteryturtle]

Solar Direct...

Solar energy can be carried direct to the end user by fiber optics. It can be collected and transmitted to supply cooking , heating and lighting, without conversion. Optronics would be a usefull field to consider, along with information uses, employed at this time.

Mystery

 

[snpssaini]

If i read books of physics,i ll say no, it is not pssible to make pmm.
But if, I do a practical which proves that it is possible, then i say it is possible.
thats why i am saying
IT IS POSSIBLE TO MAKE A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE.

 

[anti_crank]

If i read books of physics,i ll say no, it is not pssible to make pmm.
But if, I do a practical which proves that it is possible, then i say it is possible.
thats why i am saying
IT IS POSSIBLE TO MAKE A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE.

Then may I recommend you proceed with all alacrity to your local patent office and become richer than any of us poor university students can dream of off your design instead of listening to us skeptics who will stubbornly cling to our law of conservation of energy.

 

[Chronos]

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.

 

[brewnog]

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...!

 

[russ_watters]

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.

Good luck...

 

[brewnog]

Leaving it for a whole year is presumably to allow the laughter in the patent office to subside before the inventor returns?

 

[snpssaini]

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.

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.

 

[brewnog]

I'll do it! I have development, research and manufacturing facilities. I'd be more than happy to develop your prototype!

 

[mysteryturtle]

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

 

[Rogerio]

This sounds like 1st April...

 

[snpssaini]

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.

 

[brewnog]

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!

 

[The Glom]

http://www.nuscam.com/

 

[humanino]

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

 

[young e.]

" No way!"

against the law of conservation of energy...

 

[amwbonfire]

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...

 

[amwbonfire]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

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.

 

[Cliff_J]

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'. 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

 

[Nereid]

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?

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[amwbonfire]

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...