A perpetual motion machine that actually works?

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: operayt
This is the BEST perpetual motion machine on the Net. youtu.be...

Will it run for infinity without any need to replace parts or fuel source?

If not then it certainly IS NOT the best perpetual motion machine anywhere.

ETA Should have checked the link. The answer to my question is it will need new magnets as they lose 1% of their force every 100 years. They also erode. Oh, wood erodes too.

Parts DON'T LAST forever. They wear out , you replace them. Perpetual Motion in my book means it keeps running until parts breakdown occurs. Nothing lasts Forever EXCEPT death and taxes.

originally posted by: operayt

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: operayt
This is the BEST perpetual motion machine on the Net. youtu.be...

Will it run for infinity without any need to replace parts or fuel source?

If not then it certainly IS NOT the best perpetual motion machine anywhere.

ETA Should have checked the link. The answer to my question is it will need new magnets as they lose 1% of their force every 100 years. They also erode. Oh, wood erodes too.

Parts DON'T LAST forever. They wear out , you replace them. Perpetual Motion in my book means it keeps running until parts breakdown occurs. Nothing lasts Forever EXCEPT death and taxes.

The whole definition of perpetual motion is something that lasts for infinity. Look it up. Your interpretation doesn't make you right.

a reply to: TerryDon79

OH WELL, that's ALL that counts.

originally posted by: operayt
This is the BEST perpetual motion machine on the Net. youtu.be...

If what you say is true and it's a hoax then that doesn't say much for the other perpetual motion machines on youtube.

Comments are posted under that video by several people who said they built that device and it doesn't work. There are numerous ways to hoax these things.

People are gullible.

originally posted by: DexterRiley
a reply to: anonentity

Apparently the patent offices refuse to consider patents on these type of machines.

True. But isn't that limitation specifically for Perpetual Motion Machines? If he doesn't call this a PMM, but refers to it as a highly efficient motor, couldn't he get the Patent Offices to examine it?

After all, he never claims it's one of those mystical and illusive PMM's. He basically is claiming it's an 80%-90% efficient machine.

-dex

It's not a motor and he does not claim it is. It's a work of art that is claimed to be very efficient. It does not produce any power, it consumes it.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It's not a motor and he does not claim it is. It's a work of art that is claimed to be very efficient. It does not produce any power, it consumes it.

Isn't that patentable? If not, why not?

-dex

a reply to: Arbitrageur

It appears to me that what he has built is a simple Electrostatic Motor. See this link.

-dex

a reply to: DexterRiley

He sure can ... as soon as he is able to show how the invention is useful. Since he admits there is no use, there is nothing to patent. He could copyright it as artwork though.

originally posted by: DexterRiley
a reply to: Arbitrageur

It appears to me that what he has built is a simple Electrostatic Motor. See this link.

-dex

Then you would be completely wrong. Why would you possibly think that? The inventor himself says it does not produce any power, and it CONSUMES power to work. Can you show me why something that CONSUMES power, and produces none, should e considered a motor?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

First of all, I'm referring to this video:

If you look at some of the diagrams in the link I posted, you'll see that there are several designs that are quite similar to what is presented in that video/

So, I'm assuming you mistakenly think I'm referring to the device in the OP.

Can you show me why something that CONSUMES power, and produces none, should e considered a motor?

You're kidding me right. A motor is a devices that consumes some form of energy and converts it to mechanical energy.

Even in the case of the OP, that is generally what's occurring. Whatever is powering the device is being manifested as mechanical energy by the movement of the ball around the track. The claimed efficiency is what makes this a unique motor.

Since he admits there is no use

Can you point me to where he said that? As far as I can tell, from what he actually said, he wants to improve the efficiency of the device so that is actually overunity. I don't see that happening.

-dex

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

He sure can ... as soon as he is able to show how the invention is useful.

According to this link the utility requirement is not a particularly high hurdle.

That video proposed that a small paddle wheel could be used to acquire energy from the machine in order to do work. The specific use they discussed was for electric power generation. If the machine were used to generate a small amount of electric power over an extended period, and the aggregate amount of energy generated was of a sufficient magnitude to place it in the class of a "useful" motor, then it is a patentable device.

I have no idea of what constitutes a "useful" motor. Presumably a 30% efficiency would meet those requirements, as that is the efficiency of a standard internal combustion engine. If this motor idles at 80%-90%, as claimed, then I believe that a small electric generator stealing power from the machine would not reduce the efficiency to any less than 30%.

ALL OF THIS is predicated on the claim that there is no hidden power source. That has yet to be proven. In fact the reason that I initially brought up the issue of a patent was to call into question the validity of that claim. If this machine functions as advertised, then why is there no patent?

-dex

originally posted by: DexterRiley
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

He sure can ... as soon as he is able to show how the invention is useful.

According to this link the utility requirement is not a particularly high hurdle.

If the machine could actually do something it would not be. Unfortunately it's an impossible hurdle for this work of art.

That video proposed that a small paddle wheel could be used to acquire energy from the machine in order to do work. The specific use they discussed was for electric power generation. If the machine were used to generate a small amount of electric power over an extended period, and the aggregate amount of energy generated was of a sufficient magnitude to place it in the class of a "useful" motor, then it is a patentable device.

How many times does it have to be said, this machine DOES NOT GENERATE ENERGY. It CONSUMES energy. It's like saying a blender is a motor. Please stop and think before you speak, it's frustrating to hear the same thing over and over when it is an impossibility.

I have no idea of what constitutes a "useful" motor. Presumably a 30% efficiency would meet those requirements, as that is the efficiency of a standard internal combustion engine. If this motor idles at 80%-90%, as claimed, then I believe that a small electric generator stealing power from the machine would not reduce the efficiency to any less than 30%.

It does not idle at anything, it is not a motor, it CONSUMES energy and is claimed to be 80%-90% efficient in terms of energy loss making the machine work. It's the difference between round wheels that are highly efficient and studded wheels on a bicycle. The round wheels produce no power, the bike produces no power. It CONSUMES power in the form of a person peddling, the person is the energy source not the bike. Again, please let this be the last time this is said, IT IS NOT A MOTOR, it does NOT PRODUCE ANY POWER, the inventor WINDS IT UP to make it work.

ALL OF THIS is predicated on the claim that there is no hidden power source. That has yet to be proven. In fact the reason that I initially brought up the issue of a patent was to call into question the validity of that claim. If this machine functions as advertised, then why is there no patent?

-dex

What are you talking about!!!! The power source is not hidden, the inventor has to wind it up to make it work. The power source is known. The energy he inputs eventually runs out and he has to put more into the system.

originally posted by: DexterRileyYou're kidding me right. A motor is a devices that consumes some form of energy and converts it to mechanical energy.

So the problem is your having no idea what a motor is. This machine is not a motor. A clock is not a motor. It's the difference between saying a car has a motor, and claiming the car is a motor, it's not.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'm not going to get into a tit-for-tat with you on this, especially given your rudeness. It's not worth it for me to educate you on what a motor is.

Here is the Merriam Webster's definition of a Motor:

a machine that produces motion or power for doing work.

The specific example that I provided, from the Inventor himself is a perfect example of this.

While this is a piece of kinetic art, the movement of the ball itself is necessary to make this machine work. That movement is ostensibly the result of magnets, springs, and pendulums.

What are you talking about!!!! The power source is not hidden, the inventor has to wind it up to make it work. The power source is known. The energy he inputs eventually runs out and he has to put more into the system.

I'm sorry. I must have missed that part. Can you tell me exactly where that was demonstrated?

Furthermore, what I'm referring to is the supposition that some have made that the machine is not as efficient as claimed. The thought was that there is something hidden in the base that makes the machine look more efficient than it actually is.

As I said before, I have no intention of further debating this issue with you. I'm used to a certain decorum when I discuss these topics.

-dex

The major point about this 'gadget' is that it's a work of art and pointless as a machine because it can only support its own energy requirements for a limited time. If it could drive an external device, even something as simple as a fan, it would have a purpose but that would bring it a standstill even sooner.

It is less efficient than an electrical transformer which is a true machine with no moving parts.

originally posted by: DexterRiley
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'm not going to get into a tit-for-tat with you on this, especially given your rudeness. It's not worth it for me to educate you on what a motor is.

Here is the Merriam Webster's definition of a Motor:

a machine that produces motion or power for doing work.

The specific example that I provided, from the Inventor himself is a perfect example of this.

False. The pendulum/magnet is the motor. The machine itself is not. Again, it's like calling a Grandfather clock a motor, It. Is. Not.

While this is a piece of kinetic art, the movement of the ball itself is necessary to make this machine work. That movement is ostensibly the result of magnets, springs, and pendulums.

Yes, there is a motor moving the ball. Just like there is a motor moving a car. The car is not a motor. This machine is not a motor.

I'm sorry. I must have missed that part. Can you tell me exactly where that was demonstrated?

The inventor says he has to restart it every week or two.

14-days in a row is the longest it has run without stopping

peswiki.com...:Finsrud%27s_Perpetuum_Mobile

Furthermore, what I'm referring to is the supposition that some have made that the machine is not as efficient as claimed. The thought was that there is something hidden in the base that makes the machine look more efficient than it actually is.

As I said before, I have no intention of further debating this issue with you. I'm used to a certain decorum when I discuss these topics.

-dex

Which has literally nothing to do with patenting the machine as a revolutionary motor. Do you know how efficient high-efficient electric motors are?

This is a work of art, there is no revolutionary motor breakthrough here.

There would appear to be no practical applications of this device in its present mode

its a very inspired attempt if nothing else.
what a wonderful machine.
[im speaking of the first video in the op]

a reply to: autopat51

Definitely a nice work of art.

originally posted by: DexterRiley
It appears to me that what he has built is a simple Electrostatic Motor. See this link.

Electrostatic motor

An electrostatic motor is based on the attraction and repulsion of electric charge...They typically require a high voltage power supply, although very small motors employ lower voltages.

If you had a Van de Graff generator operating nearby you might get one to draw its power from that but some of the motors at your link have wires attached to them, so you're either supplying the static voltage through the wires or some other source like the Van de Graff generator, which of course requires its own power source with wires.

Also one of the youtube commenters noted that he never showed it running more than 10 seconds, perhaps there's a reason for that, it's not perpetual.

a reply to: anonentity

the link is just a bing search, which result is the one your pointing out?

regardless can the device output energy without coming to a halt? its kinda useless to have a perpetual closed system, need some output you can leech off it to be of use.