What is a Perpetual Motion Device and How Can I Make One?

AI Thread Summary
A user claims to be developing a perpetual motion device based on an overbalanced wheel and plans to release detailed drawings for others to replicate it. The prototype is currently only on paper, with a release strategy involving ten parts, where the final part is essential for understanding the entire mechanism. However, another participant points out that perpetual motion is impossible due to factors like friction and air resistance, suggesting that while the device may not be truly perpetual, it could be highly efficient. The discussion highlights skepticism about the feasibility of such a device and questions the complexity of the underlying principles. Overall, the concept of creating a perpetual motion device remains contentious and largely viewed as impractical.
snpssaini
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I make a perpetual motion device. It is a kind of overbalanced wheel. :wink: It is very simple mechanism. I am trying to make its prototype (or toy model).
It is on paper now. :confused: I am trying this month only. After that I will cut my drawing in ten (10) parts.I ll release all drawings one by one on net. All nine (9) parts of drawing will be sense less without its last part. :surprise: With the help of this drawing everyone can make this machine. :wink:

It is not a joke.It is just for information.
sanjay saini
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In our world of friction, air resistance, etc. perpetual motion is impossible. Hate to break it to you...
 
While perpetual motion is impossible, the idea that the cunsumption of energy for whatever reason can be compensated for while the device is in motion, can lead to a device that while not perpetual, is efficient to the point that the device seems perpetual.

Now, an overbalanced wheel would not provide enough momentum to compensate for its own weight, so I don't see how a device using such a wheel could ever be perpetual.

Perhaps some further explinations to elaborate on the principle behind this device?

Probobly not ;)
 
snpssaini said:
I make a perpetual motion device. It is a kind of overbalanced wheel. :wink: It is very simple mechanism. I am trying to make its prototype (or toy model).
It is on paper now. :confused: I am trying this month only. After that I will cut my drawing in ten (10) parts.I ll release all drawings one by one on net. All nine (9) parts of drawing will be sense less without its last part. :surprise: With the help of this drawing everyone can make this machine. :wink:

It is not a joke.It is just for information.
sanjay saini

Let me guess, you can't tell us what it is for fear we'll steal it. But it relies on a very complicated math that any simple 4th grader could understand?
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top