A perpetual motion machine that actually works?

originally posted by: DexterRiley
a reply to: anonentity

Even a graphite pencil line makes a good circuit for high voltage transmission

Interesting. Sounds like a circuit board trace. Something like that could be easily concealed by drawing the line on a black background.

Have you experimented with that?

-dex

No it was a trick that some people did at a place I worked at once, a pencil line from the spark plugs on a car, to a place where the unfortunate would rest his hand or touch, the shock was a thing to remember. Mainly on the spark plug insulators, if you took one off when the car was running etc.

a reply to: DexterRiley



This one seems to be bona fide as the patent was granted, the calculations suggest an energy gain. The fact that on the face of it violates the laws of thermodynamics. But something might be going on that is hitherto unknown. www.energythic.com...

a reply to: anonentity

Are you saying that's perpetual motion?

Also, you do know the patent is from 1823 as a concept?

a reply to: anonentity

1) It's a patent from nearly 200 years ago
2) A patent isn't proof of a working device
3) They don't even grant patents for perpetual motion claims

a reply to: anonentity

That certainly looks like an interesting device. I'd definitely consider it a beautiful work of art.

Even with the whole page of mathematics on the page you linked, I don't completely understand how it's supposed to work. It also looks like it would be somewhat time-consuming to fabricate.

I also followed from that page to another one that was linked. There was a quote on there from Richard Feynman I found interesting:

It is the facts that matter, not the proofs. Physics can progress without the proofs, but we can't go on without the facts ... if the facts are right, then the proofs are a matter of playing around with the algebra correctly.

I think you are having a lot of fun and learning quite a bit about this field as you continue your research. I say keep it up. Ignore the naysayers. If and when you discover something useful, and can present a functional prototype, remember to mention that your supporters were few and far between. But DexterRiley was always there to offer moral support for your efforts!

-dex

a reply to: GetHyped


They don't grant patents for PM machines anymore. Funny that because if you had one you'd be fairly stuffed. In most of academia its considered a joke. Because it violates the laws of thermodynamics. So it seems everyone follows the dogma and doesn't even try. That magnetic wheel was patented 200 years back but it would be interesting to see what it would do with the more powerful rare earth magnets.

a reply to: anonentity

You mean like neodymium magnets? The same magnets I've already explained lose 1% of their magnetic force every 100 years?

They would run out of magnetism after 10,000 years. They would actually disintegrate before that 10,000 years were up.

a reply to: TerryDon79

You mean like neodymium magnets? The same magnets I've already explained lose 1% of their magnetic force every 100 years?

They would run out of magnetism after 10,000 years. They would actually disintegrate before that 10,000 years were up.

What is a Perpetual Motion Machine?
1. How long does a device need to run continuously before it's effectively considered a PPM? 1 year - 10 years - 10K years?

2. Mechanical parts wear out. That includes magnets, bearings, couplings, etc. Does the fact that these parts eventually degrade negate the possibility that a machine that satisfies criterion 1 is effectively a PPM?

3. To be declared a PPM, does the device need to display overunity? In other words, if the device meets criteria 1 and 2, yet is unable to drive any external load, is it considered to be a PPM?

The bottom line is whether a Perpetual Motion Machine can be considered such based solely on an obscure scientific definition, or whether public perceptions also play a role.

-dex

a reply to: DexterRiley

There's a pretty straight forward answer to that.

Perpetual motion has to fit the rules of the scientific guidelines. It's that simple.

If you want to interpret perpetual motion on a personal perspective then it's not science.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Perpetual motion has to fit the rules of the scientific guidelines. It's that simple.

What are those rules?


-dex

originally posted by: DexterRiley
a reply to: TerryDon79

Perpetual motion has to fit the rules of the scientific guidelines. It's that simple.

What are those rules?


-dex

Perpetual Motion,

The action of a device that, once set in motion, would continue in motion forever, with no additional energy required to maintain it.

Here's a link to the Britannica about it. BRITANNICA LINK

a reply to: TerryDon79

The action of a device that, once set in motion, would continue in motion forever, with no additional energy required to maintain it.

So then there are two seemingly unconquerable problems:
1. Overcome the laws of thermodynamics.
2. Construct the device of materials that never wear out.

Therefore, even if it were possible to somehow produce a machine that could run forever, the fact that mankind doesn't have any material to build it from still means that it can't be considered a PMM.

I just wanted to make sure I understood your point about the magnet.

-dex

a reply to: DexterRiley

Basically, yes.

All current perceived pmm (doesn't mean they are, it means people are calling them that) work on either magnets, electricity, water or the Sun. Since all of those things have an "end time", it means they can't last forever.

ETA And you are correct about the materials. If we could discover some form of self renewing or indestructible material you would still need to overcome the powering of said device.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: GetHypedit would be interesting to see what it would do with the more powerful rare earth magnets.

Only to those who missed out on the last few hundred years of advances in physics.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: anonentity

You mean like neodymium magnets? The same magnets I've already explained lose 1% of their magnetic force every 100 years?

They would run out of magnetism after 10,000 years. They would actually disintegrate before that 10,000 years were up.

One of the rules as stated by Newton as I suppose a definition of PPM was that it had to do useful work. The definition seems obscure, as PPM already exists, With regards to electrons spinning around a nucleus, the moon spinning around the earth etc. If a definition is that it has to produce over unity for ever. Then it will never exist, because nothing lasts for ever.

originally posted by: anonentity

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: anonentity

You mean like neodymium magnets? The same magnets I've already explained lose 1% of their magnetic force every 100 years?

They would run out of magnetism after 10,000 years. They would actually disintegrate before that 10,000 years were up.

One of the rules as stated by Newton as I suppose a definition of PPM was that it had to do useful work. The definition seems obscure, as PPM already exists, With regards to electrons spinning around a nucleus, the moon spinning around the earth etc. If a definition is that it has to produce over unity for ever. Then it will never exist, because nothing lasts for ever.

FINALLY. I'm glad you figured it out