Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

You guys are gonna think im either stupid or crazy

  1. Apr 28, 2004 #1
    nice title huh, ok now i know that by saying this im getting the instant reputation of an idiot, belive me, i know about einstein's theory of relitivity and the first 2 laws of thermodynamics, but belive it or not i have made a perpetual motion mechine. at this point, i bet most of you are thinking about closing this message, but i really would like some feedback on your reasoning about my invention, uh...im not so sure i should show the details mostly for patent reasons (any info on pattent details ex:what i can and cant do, would be appreciated), but i can assure you all that it works. my main question to you however is why dont you think it could work, i need to see if i can debate this, i already have debated friction, rate of acceleration (makes sence in the design), einstein's theorys, and even harnessing the energy produced. I'd appreciate any help you can give me but i really would be more likely to reply to an e-mail or an IM, my e-mail is AdamChess4@aol.com and my AIM screen name is AdamChess4.


    P.S. i have a bad fealling that im posting this in the wrong section, maybe theoretical physics?
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 28, 2004 #2

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I'm going to move this to Theory Development.
  4. Apr 28, 2004 #3


    User Avatar

    Does it rely on...

    Does it rely on the heat of the sun to work? Will it work if in the vacuum of space at low temperatures? If it only works at earth temperatures, I think you need to say that it needs something that is not perpetual to work such as fusion from the sun.
  5. Apr 28, 2004 #4

    Oh no! You've proven the laws of physics wrong! Just you! Your little idea is so much better than the millions of ones that have also failed throughout all of recent history. And so rather than go and demonstrate this publically for all to witness and see, you decide to post it here, on the internet.

    My opinon,
    Stupid and crazy.
  6. Apr 29, 2004 #5
    Everything I know (or think I know) about the universe says that what you are saying is not true, so I have an extremely difficult time believing you.

    If you were to tell us a little more info about it, I think we'd have a much easier time figuring out why it won't work. For example, does it use electricity? Does it rely on any external forces? There are so many ways you could build something which seams like a perpetual motion machine, it's hard to tell where to start.
  7. Apr 29, 2004 #6
    For perpetual motion to be possible, all conservation laws of physics must be invalidated. There are many. But for this discussion, I'm just going to mention the three following conservation laws of physics.

    1. Energy (time symmetry)
    2. linear momentum (translation symmetry)
    3. Angular momentum (rotation symmetrry)

    For perpetual motion, the conversion of energy or motion must be symmetrical from both directions. It takes energy to produce energy. These energy are in different forms. For example, Chemical to electrical, nuclear to electrical, heat to mechanical, mechanical to electrical. The reverse processes are not all possible.

    For perpetual motion, the entropy of the universe must be a constant or, more precisely, zero. The bad news is the entropy is found to be increasing toward the heat death of maximum entropy.

    It requires less effort to go downhill than to go uphill linear momentum is not symmetrical up and down.

    It requires more effort to rotate against the spin of the earth.

    Bottomline is: For perpetual motion to work, there must be no motion to start with. This is more than just a contradiction.
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2004
  8. Apr 29, 2004 #7


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Most perpetual motion mistakes/hoaxes are input/output issues. Make sure you understand completely what you are inputting and outputting. Take special notice of time, ie, any input for any amount of time has to be added together before subtracting out the output. Make sure you know the difference between power and work. Make sure you take into account consumables. And last (and most important): have you built it? How long has it been running? Is it connected to a power source of any kind for any reason (you may think thats trivial, but it isn't)?

    Thats pretty much all I can say without more info on what your device does.

    Regarding patents. Depending on how you approach the patent, the USPTO won't even review an application for a perpetual motion device unless you submit a functioning model and it successfully runs for a year, completely self-contained.
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2004
  9. Apr 29, 2004 #8
    i see your points

    ok, first for "mee", the cold of a vacum is not a problem, it would not be in space or use energy from the sun. next, "Brad_ad23" hey man im not sayin im any smarter than they are, i think i just had the right inspiration as stupid as it sounds, and as for not displaying this publicly, dude, this is public! i meen not a huge # of people go to this site but as far as i know nobody has to pay to get in, what do you want me to do? make a billboard in front of my house saying "I HAVE A PERPETUAL MOTION MECHINE!" common man. now to ophecleide, this is my serios problem, idont know if i should show people publicly my designs, this sounds a little conceeded, but if i lost my pattent like that id never forgive myself man, i realize that all of these laws of physics prove me wrong, but the only explination i can give is that i think i have found a loophole in those laws. :redface: , now to Antonio Lao, well technicly, i am converting electromagnetic energy to mechanical to electric (technicly electromagnetic i know) . "Bottomline is: For perpetual motion to work, there must be no motion to start with. This is more than just a contradiction." technicly, my PMM does start out with no motion. ok and last but not least russ_watters, man i cannot thank you enough for the patent info, ive been looking for that stuff for a while, and thanks for the help rather than criticisim (although technicly i was asking for critisisim in the first place...watever) unfortunatly i have not built it yet, it would require a lot of money and space to produce safely. im not sure what you meen by "connected to a power source" yes there would be a genorator in the unit to harness the mechanical energy of the axle, like a turbine in a dam. i can keep a genorator on because otherwise, the spining of the mechanisim would cause it to essencially explode, just enough friction of a genorator would contradict this, but essencially, no, the genorator is not necacary. In concluson, i really would want to show this design to you, I know that by sending the design to myself and not opening the letter, it assures that that idea was mine, but im not sure if it still aplies if i show the design to someone elce, any info on this russ_watters? :smile:

  10. Apr 29, 2004 #9
    tell us you idea, its not going to be stollen from you, its going to be proved wrong.
  11. Apr 29, 2004 #10

    I've been around PF for awhile, and I've seen the likes of these people with their claims all the time, and they are always of some similar basic nature. Believe me when I say this: If there was a perpetual energy machine possible, it would already be in place.

    Alas, it seems Theory Development should be called something else now a days. something like Crank Ideas or something of the like. A theory is much more sophisticated and a much higher title of respect for a group of ideas than are in here.
  12. Apr 29, 2004 #11


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    There is a guy here who keeps posting perpetual motion machine ideas and they generally have an external power source providing what he calls a "control signal." Needless to say, this "control signal" is where all of the output power comes from.

    Since you are worried about showing your idea to us, there isn't any way for us to help you. My recommendation is find someone you trust who knows a lot about science/engineering to look over your idea. You could probably hire a grad student pretty cheap if you're short on cash - and put in writing that he can't take any of your ideas.
  13. Apr 30, 2004 #12


    User Avatar

    Law number 1 in a non-entropic system is:

    The system (in any level of it) must be opened.

    Since you keep the knowledge of it as any closed system, your own idea is under the laws of TD2.

    Shortly speaking, a real idea of a non-TD2 system must not be closed to public, because if this is really a non-TD2 system, then it will change all of us in any aspect of what we call existence, including you Arsonade.

    So, Arsonade do you afraid to be chaneged, or not?
  14. Apr 30, 2004 #13
    As I recall, Tesla tried to build a perpetual motion machine. At first, many rich people gave him money as investments but because the machine was never completed, investors started to retract their interests. Tesla died a poor and lonely man.
  15. Apr 30, 2004 #14


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Yes it still applies. When you send the design to yourself, put your own address and the postage stamp on the wrong side of the envelope. The stamp(s) should be accross the seal of the flap. This will function like the old-fasshioned "seals" that used to be placed on confidential documents (like "sealed orders"). When the envelope passes through the post office, it will be postmarked, and the postmark will be over the stamp.

    Now, because the stamp is placed in such a location that the envelope could not have been opened after the stamp was in place without ripping the stamp, and the postmark is over the stamp, you now have proof that whatever is in the envelope must have been there before the date on the postmark. Anyone trying to patent your same design after that date will be proved as a fraud.
  16. Apr 30, 2004 #15
    Tesla tried to harness the energy of the earth as an unlimited power source. He understood the laws of thermodynamics. Investors started to retract their interests because of bad media around Tesla. Good inventor, bad business man.
  17. Apr 30, 2004 #16

    Some added thoughts. The 'sealed envelope" procedure holds very litle weight in a court of law.
    Let's say "Bob" has an idea, and makes excellent engineering drawings of the device. Let's further say that "Bob" understands the general idea of a "patent", and goes so far as to even accurately write "claims" of his device that is accompanied with the drawings. Let's go one step further and say that Bob has the documents witnessed and notorized!
    Bob, not having the money for a patent, decided to place the documents in an envelope and seal as described.
    Let's say that Bob did all of this in June, 2000.
    Now, "Jim", across the country and having absolutely no personal or professional relationship with Bob, comes up with the same idea in September, 2001. Jim decides to follow formal procedure, and scraps up the money to submit a patent. In 2003 the patent is granted to Jim.
    In 2004, Bob finds out about it and challenges Jim's patent in court.
    Who prevails?
    Jim does, not Bob.
    Why? Because the U.S. Government established the Patent and Trademark Office to be the procedure one MUST follow to be granted idea ownership, and Jim followed that procedure.
    There are exceptions.
    If both Bob and Jim filed on the same date, and Bob had a notorized document he kept that pre-dated Jim's, then the court will consider it. But, in this case, Bob STILL needed to file a formal patent, not just have notarized documents of ideas collecting in a drawer.
    The other exception is if Bob and Jim were professionaly related, and Bob came up with the idea but could not patent it, yet had notorized documents, and Jim secretly stole the idea and patented it. Again, in this case as well, the court will consider it. This aspect is probably closer to what you are wondering about.
    In the PF arena, participants could be considered "related" in a court of law, the same as if we were all physically meeting right now at the Holiday Inn, but it's up to the court to determine that.
    In ANY case, pre-patent idea exchange with others is risky. The law does provide safegaurds, however.
    The MOST IMPORTANT safegaurd is that a non-disclosure/non-use document be written up and signed by all interested parties, dated, witnessed and notorized. Such a document carries CONSIDERABLE legal weight in a court of law; far beyond a personal sealed envelope situation.
    This procedure allows for one to get help from others as they develop the idea and still be fully protected. You don't even need a lawyer to do it!

    A word of caution: Statements or descriptions of potentially patentable ideas in this or any other public forum is the same as publishing it in a magazine. Under the law, an "idea" that is so published and yet no patent filing occurs with 1 year of publication, the design is remanded to "public domain" and no patent is allowed by anyone.

    In short, if you really believe your PMM idea is patentable, follow the above.
    In all probability it is not patentable, however, and you likely are misunderstanding certain aspects of physics, and so you should feel free to expound on your idea here.
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2004
  18. Apr 30, 2004 #17
    The "something" that is found in quarks and leptons and also in photons keeping them to live a long, long time is the closest thing to a perpetual motion of "something."

    Nature does not want to waste time and energy. It is the smallest things that will be the most stable. Electron and proton are the smallest of their respective group and photon is the smallest among the bosons. These are the ones that are stable and live a long time. The first two forming the atoms of the universe and the third is the best messenger one can find in nature, never tiring shuttling information at the constant speed of 186,000 mi/s.
  19. Apr 30, 2004 #18
    man, if i was afraid of being chalenged i would never have started this post


    P.S if anybody is reading these right now, im still makin relpies so h/o a sec
  20. Apr 30, 2004 #19
    i wouldnt doubt it man, but comon, giving up on something because it hasnt been done yet seems...stupid

  21. Apr 30, 2004 #20
    now i understand what you meen and no it definatly has nothing of the sort, i think your idea of double checking my designs seems good, buuut...

    This has given me a lot to think of, i realized that the sealed envolope idea seemed very iffy but i really appreciate the advice on legaly binding this idea, i really do not have any money for a patent so i need something that costs as little as possible. Buuuuuuut...

    OK now im confused lol, no, ill get this legal stuff sorted out soon, need something to do in Spanish class right? lol
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2004
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook