Why not to discuss Perpetual Motion Machines? Is Politics Involved?

[.physics]

This thread is specially targeted to the Administrators and Moderators of Physicsforums.com to allow and support the discussions on perpetual motion machines.

The concept of the perpetual motion machines have interested me and most probably a lot of you since a long time. Time and again new concepts arise from new science enthusiast and subsequently are they reasonably(in my opinion - not reasonably) suppressed by Laws of Physics and Physics Gurus.

Even the rules in PF forum also prohibits any discussions on perpetual motion machines.

My main point here being that the existence of perpetual motion and discussion for the same in this forum is suppressed by two major rules since it is supposed to violate them;

1)Law of Conservation or Energy and
2)Law of Thermodynamics.

But, are we sure that these Physical laws are complete in themselves or they hold good for all conditions ; or have we discovered all physical laws and there are non to be further discovered. I mean we are still debating or can't tell for certain whether light is a wave or particle neither have we been able to derive real atomic model or an equation for Unification Theory . Yes, certainly there are various things to be discovered and there must exist various undiscovered physical laws and surprising phenomena. Few of which we are working on like Higg's Boson , Teleportation etc and there are numerous undefined natural phenomena like dreams, spirits, visions etc

Forum like this is an ideal platform to discuss new ideas and concepts regarding such issues. Discussion on such related issues involving concepts and logic of various science enthusiasts may result in discovery of surprisingly new or so far hidden physical laws and phenomena - I insist the same holds good for perpetual motion phenomenon and hence we should encourage the discussion of such concepts.

The phrase 'Perpetual Motion Machines' and the context that have been related to it so far might be somewhat misleading but I think the concept inherent in itself is very useful in improving the efficiency of various machines and power generating devices.

The machines like Monopole Magnetic rotors, Boyle's Flask, Overbalanced wheel may not work 100% perpetually but they can be made to work very efficiently providing very less energy or with high o/p to i/p energy ratio.

We could invent devices having architecture similar to perpetual machines. that would harness and efficiently utilize the energy from sources like magnetic energy, gravity etc

I sometimes even feel that there might be Macroeconomics and Politics involved in suppressing the development of perpetual machines or near 100% efficient machine since this may lead to low consumption or utilization of energy sources like petroleum and nuclear energy produced by such countries which might lead to lowering of their economy.

I would like to invite the interested to the discussion and would appreciate your opinions and comments over this matter.

 

[russ_watters]

No, there is no politics involved. The reason we don't discuss them is mostly because it is a waste of time that therefore detracts from our goal of teaching science.

In addition, you said that this is a good place to discuss new ideas; No, it isn't. Groundbreaking science is not done on internet forums, it is done by university and industry researchers and adjudicated by peer reviewed scientific journals.

And regarding near 100% efficiency machines: Most PMM advocates know so little about the state of the art that they don't know that electric generators and motors (common components of failed PMMs) are already on the order of about 96% efficient. So there isn't much left to be gained.

 

[Astronuc]

Adding to what Russ mentioned:

This thread is specially targeted to the Administrators and Moderators of Physicsforums.com to allow and support the discussions on perpetual motion machines.

We do not allow discussion of PMMs.

But, are we sure that these Physical laws are complete in themselves or they hold good for all conditions ; or have we discovered all physical laws and there are non to be further discovered.

We are sure of the physics.

Forum like this is an ideal platform to discuss new ideas and concepts regarding such issues.

No, thank you.

We could invent devices having architecture similar to perpetual machines. that would harness and efficiently utilize the energy from sources like magnetic energy, gravity etc

We already have efficient machines based on the natural constraints.

I sometimes even feel that there might be Macroeconomics and Politics involved in suppressing the development of perpetual machines or near 100% efficient machine since this may lead to low consumption or utilization of energy sources like petroleum and nuclear energy produced by such countries which might lead to lowering of their economy.

I would like to invite the interested to the discussion and would appreciate your opinions and comments over this matter.

We don't allow over-speculative posts or conspiracy theories, either.

 

[jim mcnamara]

How would you respond if we asked you to repost your question on a site like 'The flat Earth society' - they purportedly believe the Earth is flat, not spherical?

You answer would be 'That is not true'. That is our answer to you and your question. These forums have seen lots of threads about all kinds of completely disproven/unprovable ideas and of-the-cuff assertions... We are here to help you with Science, not perpetuate this kind of stuff. If you want to discuss it then find one of the dozens of sites like flat Earth and please post there. Not here.

 

[Vanadium 50]

First, your suggestion that we are dishonestly suppressing this discussion on non-scientific grounds is offensive. Please retract it.

Second, PF's mission is not about exploring speculative theories - it's about learning and discussing science as it is currently generally understood and practiced by the professional scientific community.

Third, most people who advocate perpetual motion are ignorant of the field: which is essentially a distillation of measurements conducted in the past. Worse, they seem to like being ignorant, which makes discussion futile.

 

[mfb]

To add one point:
Within the current framework of physical theories, it can be proven that PMMs are impossible - that is mathematics, not physics. A PMM would need some completely new elementary operation where energy conservation is violated (or entropy decreases in a systematic way). This implies that experiments are the only possible way to find anything new in that respect. It is pointless to propose any mechanism which operates according to current theories of physics, and nearly all PMM proponents I have seen so far tried that.

 

[.physics]

Respected All,

Thank you for your replies. For the same reasons you have mentioned, I have put forth this post.

You seem to be repulsive to the phrase PMM, irrespective to the context. You might have misunderstood or missed to refer to the theme of my quest that is -

" The phrase 'Perpetual Motion Machines' and the context that have been related to it so far might be somewhat misleading but I think the concept inherent in itself is very useful in improving the efficiency of various machines and power generating devices.

We could invent devices having architecture similar to perpetual machines. that would harness and efficiently utilize the energy from sources like magnetic energy, gravity etc "

I am neither challenging your intellect nor am I an avid advocate of PMM. I am just interested in modified machines architecture somehow related to PMM that would utilize free energy for our good as we have been utilizing solar energy. I don't think that would violate the Law of conservation of energy as it is - since one form of energy is being converted to other.

Again, I am curious to know if we could invent or there has been any technological achievements that utilizes just Earth's magnetic field or gravity to make machines work to generate energy without any other input energy or add to the efficiency or mechanical advantage.

Also I don't think discussing on issues related to PMM is more of waste of time than discussing over issues related to Time Travel which are of abundance in this forum though I am also equally i interested in that topic.

"Ignorance is Bliss" - and I am happy to learn new things from contributors like you.

@russ- I don't expect to have a patented invention over this discussion but I see no harm in discussing new science ideas as there are many more threads having the same. Could you please provide me a link to 96% efficient motors.

@astronuc - Respect. I would be happy to know if you could elaborate on efficient machines utilizing natural constraints.

@jim - loved your sarcasm, didn't knew such thing existed.

 

[Integral]

Your second post is an excellent example of why we do not allow these discussions. It is simply a rehash of your first post with no real effort to address the issues that were presented to to you. In our experience that is EXACTLY how any discussion with PPM advocates go. We point out why it won't work, the PPM side ignores all effort and simply rehashs the same line over and over.

Right now my inclination is to close this thread. You have already shown the blind faith in the concept that is so typical of other PPM advocates. You will not convince us to change this policy.

 

[ZapperZ]

This is another example of a carnivore walking into one of the few vegetarian restaurant in town, and then complaining that they don't serve meat.

You have so many other places on the internet to cater to such topic. Why do you HAVE to pick the one forum that do not allow such a thing? You are not being deprived of your need to discuss it. You are only disallowed to do that on HERE. So go elsewhere, and discuss it to your heart's content!

"But ZapperZ, Physics Forums is full of knowledgeable people! It is one of the few (maybe only) forum on the internet that is populated by actual physicists and engineers!"

EXACTLY! And the reason why we are able to attract these professionals IS because we have a very high signal-to-noise ratio, and will not tolerate the same repeated, tiring topics that have floated on the internet and Usenet ever since they opened their doors to the public. Go scour the Usenet and various forums, and see if there's anything new to discuss on PMM since, say, on 1985!

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

Premium efficiency motor standard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premium_efficiency
Example:
http://www.baldor.com/pdf/brochures/BR457.pdf

You'd also benefit from reading-up on what the term "perpetual motion machine" means. It is, excplicitly, a machine that violates one or more laws of thermodynamics (so a solar panel does not qualify):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

Note, the term "free energy" is not a scientific term, it is a crackpot term based on the erroneous belief that things like gravity are (untapped) energy sources. Ie, the energy harvested by a hydroelectric plant is free, but nobody in the industry ever uses that term.

Also, you need to look more into the concept of sarcasm because there wasn't any in Jim's post.

V50's statement about "most people who advocate perpetual motion..." is basically a succinct definition of a "crackpot". Our policy could be restated to say we don't discuss crackpottery here. Please don't be a crackpot, it will not serve you well in life.

 

[CWatters]

We could invent devices having architecture similar to perpetual machines. that would harness and efficiently utilize the energy from sources like magnetic energy, gravity etc

There are two problems with this remark...

1) There is no such thing as an "architecture similar to perpetual machines". If you think you have invented one you have missunderstood something.

2) "Magnetic energy" and "gravity" are not energy sources. At least not in the context you mean.

Many inventors make comments such as.. my system started out 90% efficient, now it's 99% efficient so any day now I will have cracked it. They totally missunderstand the problem. All they are doing is eliminating losses. They are no nearer producing a net gain than when they started. A 99% efficient machine is no nearer being a net energy source than one which is 95% efficient.

 

[Monsterboy]

Instead of being so sure about the existence of PMMs and their applications ,you could have started the thread asking for help to dismiss some PMM theories by saying that you lack the understanding of physics in order to dismiss it yourself,may be that is allowed but i am not sure, is that allowed here?

 

[D H]

is that allowed here?

Nope. That's not allowed, either. We've tried it. Such discussions inevitably tend to devolve to non-science. Another problem is that advocates of non-science learn that they can use this as a backdoor to advocacy by coming to this site under the guise of a skeptic. W have learned that allowing discussions of perpetual motion, or any of the other non-science topics listed in our rules take a whole lot of babysitting by the mentors (we are not paid to do this). Even worse, these discussions tend to chase away the very people we most want to stick around and contribute.

 

[Buckleymanor]

There are two problems with this remark...

1) There is no such thing as an "architecture similar to perpetual machines". If you think you have invented one you have missunderstood something.

To give some support for the idea.I reckon for some obtuse reason there is a negative response at PF towards PMMs without actualy looking at all the evidence and the above remark is a good example.
I doubt very much that jet engines would have been invented if it was not for PMMs.
Sir Frank Whittle's farther was an advocate of such devices and Sir Frank himself thought that the first jet engine prototype would run away with itself, be self sustaining in a loop and explode in a heap.
So maybe the great man thought his jet engine had similar architecture to a PMM, but missunderstood something.
I don't know why the burning of books mentality applies in generall at PF with regards these devices as I am sure that other usefull machines have come about directly and otherwise through enquireing about them.

 

[Nugatory]

I don't know why the burning of books mentality applies in general at PF with regards these devices as I am sure that other useful machines have come about directly and otherwise through enquiring about them.

It doesn't apply "in general". It applies to a specific list of topics, ones that we have learned the hard way will crowd out other topics that we find more interesting. And even then "burning of books" is an inaccurate comparison; you have no shortage of forums in which these topics can be discussed.

 

[ZapperZ]

To give some support for the idea.I reckon for some obtuse reason there is a negative response at PF towards PMMs without actualy looking at all the evidence and the above remark is a good example.
I doubt very much that jet engines would have been invented if it was not for PMMs.
Sir Frank Whittle's farther was an advocate of such devices and Sir Frank himself thought that the first jet engine prototype would run away with itself, be self sustaining in a loop and explode in a heap.
So maybe the great man thought his jet engine had similar architecture to a PMM, but missunderstood something.
I don't know why the burning of books mentality applies in generall at PF with regards these devices as I am sure that other usefull machines have come about directly and otherwise through enquireing about them.

We are NOT burning books. We are telling you to go read it elsewhere. There's a difference.

Again, NO ONE is depriving you out of your need to discuss such things. It just can't be done here, the same way a number of topics are off-limits here as well! You ALL knew this when you joined, didn't you? So why are we complaining now?!

My analogy of the vegetarian restaurant still holds, and no one has given me a rational explanation for that!

Zz.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I don't know why the burning of books mentality applies in generall at PF with regards these devices as I am sure that other usefull machines have come about directly and otherwise through enquireing about them.

When we don't allow something at PF it is either because we cannot efficiently moderate it or it hasn't been demonstrated in peer review. Our not allowing discussions on PMMs is the same as us not allowing discussions of flat Earth theory, creationism etc. We are not censoring it nor inhibiting it in any meaningful sense. Proponents are still free to work on it and publish, then we will allow it.

As Zapper pointed out the reason so many educated people post on these forums are (in part) because of the environment created by the rules. If that many people wanted to discuss PMM they would be free to do so, just not here.

 

[berkeman]

Thread has now been closed.