You think Perpetual Motion Machine is Impossible, Think Again!

reply to post by JohnPhoenix




And you are doomed to fail...

I don't give a whit about your 2nd so called law of thermodynamics.

Would do you some good to learn about entropy....

In any case, conservation of energy is fundamental, an irrefutable fact of the Universe we live in.

ANY source of "free energy" isn't really free....it comes form somewhere.

What so many laypeople misunderstand is, as we learn to tap into it, and utilize it, it then LOOKS like it comes form 'nowhere'....but, we live in a Universe that's ~13 billion of our Earth years in age, and it's had a lot of time to develop and "store" a great deal of energy, which as all encmpassed in the original moment of....what shall we callit? "creation"? "Big Bang"? Leave that for the cosmologists....

Point is, there is, paradoxically, a finite amount of energy (so large as to be virtually unimaginable to our puny minds) that exists in what we, so far, are considering an infinite Universe.

Still, even in "infinity" there are limits...sounds illogical, but that's the state of affairs, at this point in time, and understanding, and it's what our best mathematics tell us.

The MATH is also irrefutable....unless someone is willing to be able to show a PROOF of the failure of mathematics?? Good luck with that....

NO...looking at entropy, (and I forgot to mention friction, and waste heat that results, etc, etc...) again -- using energy in our Universe is ALWAYS a situation of "robbing Peter to pay Paul"...it is NOT inexhaustible...BUT it is so great in amount that, for purposes of OUR species' possible extent of existence, it appears to be "infinite". ONCE we learn more about how to tap into it.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


The Atmos Clock is rather wonderful isn't it? How lucky you are to have one in the family. As you say it certainly 'looks like' a 'kind of' perpetual motion machine, with no visible energy input, drawing its energy out of thin thin air.

This is the kind of thing that has modern PMM inventors thinking they have cracked the 'secret' and broken the 'Laws' of physics - especially when they're trying to convince people to invest money in their projects

Indirectly, of course, it's using energy from the sun and you're absolutely spot on when you suggest we look instead for free energy systems that don't violate physics, like the Clock.

TarzanBeta made a good point when he said -

If you want to find a completely free energy source, step outside and look up at that big ball of electric flame.

The Sun is the source of all energy on Earth, directly or otherwise, and that's where I think we'll make progress in our search for free energy.

Searching for the holy grail of PMM is a bit of a blind alley which is why Patent Offices and scientists won't waste their time on it. I can see the appeal though.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

I see we have a lot of deacons, bishops and popes from the Church of The Scientific Cult here tonight.

I don't give a whit about your 2nd so called law of thermodynamics. These so called laws are broken all the time you know.. just because you haven't seen it happen yet, for this law, does not mean this law is carved in stone. Get off your high horses already.

You guys sound like a broken record and it's really sad that you so believe your own propaganda that it stops you from ever going beyond the bounds that tie you down and keep you from growing.

Ouch! As a lab technician I suppose I'd maybe qualify as a flower arranger.

Please go back and reconsider where I said -

Even 'Top Scientists' don't claim they have all the answers ...

all 'Laws' of science are subject to being challenged and even refuted when that is based upon credible, demonstrable and repeatable experiment.

I accept that the laws of physics are incomplete and that it is very unscientific to state that something is impossible as an absolute fact.

Science isn't a religion for me, and I don't deal in dogma, propaganda or absolutes. I try to keep an open mind, subject to change whenever I'm wrong (and I'm wrong more often than I'd like). But in the Science vs Magic debate I tend to side with verifiable facts.

You're quite right that we don't need magical PMM's that run for eternity, we should be looking instead for practical ways of extracting the free energy surrounding us, and the Sun is the main source of that. It makes the Atmos Clock run very well indeed.

Originally posted by Crazy Man Michael
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

 

Even 'Top Scientists' don't claim they have all the answers ...

all 'Laws' of science are subject to being challenged and even refuted when that is based upon credible, demonstrable and repeatable experiment.

I accept that the laws of physics are incomplete and that it is very unscientific to state that something is impossible as an absolute fact.

Science isn't a religion for me, and I don't deal in dogma, propaganda or absolutes. I try to keep an open mind, subject to change whenever I'm wrong (and I'm wrong more often than I'd like). But in the Science vs Magic debate I tend to side with verifiable facts.

Actually the PMM builders have been doing a lot to verify the laws of physics. Each time they build a PPM to defy the laws of physics, and it fails to do so, they are actually contributing to scientific knowledge by demonstrating via their failed experiment that the laws of physics are in fact true. So it's not just mainstream science that is bound by the laws of physics, it's everyone, including the PMM makers. And I'm referring to the real laws of physics which may or may not be consistent with our current understanding of the laws of physics.

And of course our current understanding of these laws are subject to modification as we learn more about what the real laws are. Maybe someday someone will build a machine that redefines what we currently know about physics. But so far the machine builders have confirmed what we understand about physics instead of shattering it. And they've had to resort to changing the name of their devices so you're behind the times calling it a perpetual motion machine, that's old school:

Perpetual Motion Machines

As the term "perpetual energy" increasingly became associated with fraud in the late 19th century, inventors have generally come to avoid using it. One common alternative term used is "over-unity," even though it has essentially the same meaning. Today devices described as perpetual motion devices claim to operate by extracting "zero point energy" or some other source of external energy.

So "over-unity" and "zero point" are more hip terms.

There's a long list of patents in that link for perpetual motion machines but you can't get a patent anymore without a working model. I guess the patent office wised up.

But they wouldn't have any problem with a machine that draws its energy out of thin air like the Atmos clock, because a working model of such a machine is available.

So don't give up on free energy. Just pursue it in a logical fashion (like the Atmos clock does) rather than an illogical fashion. That clock proves it's possible to get "free energy" out of thin air.

Searching the net years back and I saw this topic come
up on the net boards.
I thought this topic was dead and couldn't be bothered even
posting.

Taking a cue from Bill Lyne perhaps as there might be something
to the over unity proposals that can't let go of the Perpetual
Motion idea as well as the actual machines do exist like the Tesla
aircraft.

The word is over unity now.
Search 'self acting machine' then add Tesla for more information.
Tesla was aware of the dynamics and impossibility of perpetual
motion machine until a mechanical advantage in gases became
evident.
Thus use atomic gas properties and perhaps get lucky.

I'd say there is a so called free energy machine possible until parts
wear out of course but atomic gases do not wear out.
Some how the key use of the atom has been denied.

Another method of over unity would be direct electricity from
radioactivity weather random or induced by UV.

Then Cosmic pressure wave capture that has no moving parts
as well providing direct electricity.

And the biggest known free energy device, the Tesla aircraft
going 300 miles per second. I don't see perpetual motion
slowing down for the device using sound waves direct from
voltage.

Then there is TMZ, its FREEE.
Until asset back securities come back into fashion thats all that
will remain free.

Why don't you save the words and just build one that works?

Originally posted by Aman16
[SNIP]

What about friction?

You say in one of the links above that "some losses due to friction will be present", but the way I see it, your output of energy will never be greater than your input, ESPECIALLY when you consider friction.

Can you show me that the amount of "energy recovered" is still greater than the energy needed to raise the red ball MINUS the losses due to friction? It seems to me that the net energy from this system will be negative -- i.e., the energy put into the system will be greater than the energy recovered.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
[SNIP]

What about friction?

You say in one of the links above that "some losses due to friction will be present", but the way I see it, your output of energy will never be greater than your input, ESPECIALLY when you consider friction.

Can you show me that the amount of "energy recovered" is still greater than the energy needed to raise the red ball MINUS the losses due to friction? It seems to me that the net energy from this system will be negative -- i.e., the energy put into the system will be greater than the energy recovered.

edit on 5/22/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

My engine is a Gravitational energy converter.It is not new energy Creator.
It works on the principle that:
Most working Gravity engines should work on the principle that the Gravity engine/Gravity wheel systems are innovatively designed to take in (consume) much more Gravitational energy than what energy needed to lift heavy ball upward. 

If you substract total Gravitational energy input from the energy needed to lift heavy balls up in a gravity wheel,you get some net gravitational energy which is the net energy input to the system(input after subtraction) which can be converted to electrical energy.This is the scientific basis for any real Gravity engine.And hence real Gravity engines are not perpetual and do not violate Laws of energy conservation,simply because these gravity engines will use gravitational energy as net input, for a balanced Energy equation. 

Now instead of Electrical energy in electric car batteries,nuclear fussion energy in gasoline of IC engines,the form of energy that Gravity engine will use is Gravitational energy.

Gravity engines are possible but they are not Perpetual motion machines.

Gravity engines are energy converters and not New energy generators.

If you still think that you can make a PMM whose output is more than input,then it is not possible.Looks like you have not read my last comment completely.

Originally posted by samkent
Why don't you save the words and just build one that works?

That is what I will be doing now.