# What would perpetuum mobile be good for?

1. Nov 6, 2006

### xAxis

When I was a teenager, I tried to design perpetuum mobile, dreaming of glory, money, and joy of the fact that I would solve the world energy crisis :)
But now, I think even if I had succeded, would it help energy crisis at all?
We already have "perpetum mobile" in the form of rivers, tides, winds etc.
And so what? My electricity bill is still getting higher, every couple of months

2. Nov 6, 2006

### chroot

Staff Emeritus
Rivers, tides, and wind are absolutely not "perpetuum mobile;" they are all powered by the sun.

- Warren

3. Nov 7, 2006

### Artman

Don't waste your time trying to achieve perpetual motion. There are many ways to save energy that are physically possible that can amount to great savings over conventional methods to solve the same problems.

As an example, I invented a system of simultaneous heating water and cooling air for a certain project that achieves a combined energy efficiency ratio (EER) of over 100 (conventional methods would have been below 20). My system will save the owner over $100,000.00 across the life of the equipment, when compared to the cost of using the conventional methods. 4. Nov 7, 2006 ### xAxis of course they are not perpetuum mobile, that's why I quoted. But my point is that even if all those common designs worked as their designers imagined, we wouldn't get much. You can't make a car or airplane powered by magnet and ball. Energy is all around us, end much more then we need. So the problem is construction, transfer and maintenance, that's what we pay, not the energy itself. 5. Nov 7, 2006 ### brewnog So you don't get owt for nowt. Not to be rude, but what's your point? 6. Nov 7, 2006 ### Artman Well, that is what the maintenance people thought at my project. The design was simple (although it looks complicated), but somewhat expensive. What they didn't realize was that it will payback the cost difference of doing the project by conventional means in only 3 years. It will payback the entire cost of the project in about 10 years. The owner will pocket approximately$100,000.00 in energy cost saved at the end of 20 years.

It is not perpetual motion, but it is pretty close. It will save 2,447,025 kWh, and 8349.6 Mbtu oil consumption over 20 years.

Estimated reduction of the following pollutants will be:

CO2 by 2,166,086 kg,
SO2 by 5,712 kg,
NOx by 4,546 kg

over those same twenty years.

I'd say that is getting something.

7. Mar 19, 2007

### M Grandin

I thought everyone understood the obvious benefits from "perpetuum mobile",
either as 1:st or 2:nd kind: Achieving free pollutionless energy anywhere on
earth independent of surrounding. :surprised

The 2:nd kind (PM2) appear increasingly realistic as an increasing number of scientists appear wakening up from their "perpetuum-complex", introduced
centuries ago by pre-historic scientists claiming PM2 is impossible. In fact
without any proofs - just guessings from experience. Scientists rely on old
formulas originally derived by Clausius & Co, resting upon suggested inavitable increase of entropy. The mistake is generalizing these formulas as yelding at any circumstances and not just at circumstances they originally were aimed at.

But an advent of PM2 may "rock the boat too much" (as someone expressed
it), seriously disturbing established economical bonds and power balance, not to mention unemployment of people depeding on oldfashion energy sector. But the advantages, wisely handled, from advent of PM2 must always be better than dangerous nuclear plants and CO2 producing plants (if the CO2 threat is as serious as they believe).

8. Mar 19, 2007

### Staff: Mentor

9. Mar 19, 2007