The Atmos Clock: Perpetual Motion Machine

Mary Rose
Here is the definition of perpetual-motion machine from Dictionary.com:

That says "forever". The sun won't "burn" forever, only for another 5 billion years, so the clock won't run any longer than that, even if you could maintain the bearings etc that long.

So even under that definition it's not perpetual motion, but people love to abuse the dictionary, don't they?

Even so, that clock is really cool, and if it would run for 5 billion years (with some maintenance), that's pretty good even if it's not perpetual motion.

Arbitrageur
So even under that definition it's not perpetual motion, but people love to abuse the dictionary, don't they?

Sounds like scientism.

And if my Granny had wheels, she'd be a wagon.

The Atmos clock is not a perpetual motion machine.

A perpetual motion machine is (and always has been) understood to be a device which continues to run (and here is the most important part) WITH NO EXTERNAL POWER.

The Atmos clock is continually supplied with external power (via temp and pressure changes) therefore it cannot possibly be considered a perpetual motion machine.

The form the energy takes doesn't matter.

Would you consider a water powered mill a perpetual motion machine? It's not. It uses no electricity, but neither does a steam engine, and neither are perpetual motion machines. Because you have to continually supply them with power in order to run, just like the Atmos clock.

How convenient or cheap the energy supply is doesn't matter. Just because you can't physically see the energy being introduced into the system (like an electrical cord, fuel supply, etc.) doesn't matter either.

The only thing that matters is that a perpetual motion machine will continue to run without ANY source of external power. The second you introduce external power, it becomes no different in effect than a coal power plant powering your home AC, a nuclear reactor powering a light bulb, etc. Would zero point energy be perpetual motion? Not anymore than nuclear power is perpetual motion. It doesn't matter how wonderful and powerful the technology is, if you are introducing external power to a system that system is no longer a perpetual motion device. So far nobody has ever figured out a way to make a machine operate without any external application of power.

It's no surprise people who support the perpetual motion idea don't understand this simple difference. I don't mean that as an insult, just that if you are not very knowledgeable about a subject obviously it's much easier to make incorrect assumptions. The fact that someone is asking if the Atmos is perpetual motion, means they are asking a question, and you only ask questions if you don't know something, so by definition that's a lack of knowledge on the subject.

James1982
A perpetual motion machine is (and always has been) understood to be a device which continues to run (and here is the most important part) WITH NO EXTERNAL POWER.

You are claiming a universal dictionary definition but the one I posted says nothing about no external power.

reply to post by Mary Rose


I type "define perpetual motion machine" into Google.

The first result:

Noun 1. perpetual motion machine - a machine that can continue to do work indefinitely without drawing energy from some external sourceperpetual motion machine - a machine that can continue to do work indefinitely without drawing energy from some external source; impossible under the law of conservation of energy
machine - any mechanical or electrical device that transmits or modifies energy to perform or assist in the performance of human tasks

www.thefreedictionary.com...

The second result:

perpetual motion
n.
The hypothetical continuous operation of an isolated mechanical device or other closed system without a sustaining energy source.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

The third result:

Perpetual motion describes motion that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy.[2] This is impossible in practice because of friction and other sources of energy loss.[3][4][5] Furthermore, the term is often used in a stronger sense to describe a perpetual motion machine of the first kind, a "hypothetical machine which, once activated, would continue to function and produce work"[6] indefinitely with no input of energy. There is a scientific consensus that perpetual motion is impossible, as it would violate the first or second law of thermodynamics.[4][5]

en.wikipedia.org...

The fourth result:

device inherently impossible under the law of conservation of energy that can continue to do work indefinitely without drawing energy from external sources

www.merriam-webster.com...

The firth result:

a state in which movement or action is or appears to be continuous and unceasing:
the planet is in perpetual motion
the perpetual motion of the dance floor
the motion of a hypothetical machine which, once activated, would run forever unless subject to an external force or to wear:
the age-old quest for the secret of perpetual motion
[as modifier]:
a perpetual motion machine

www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Need I continue? Arbitrageur described your tacit quite adequately: dictionary abuse. Cherry picking a dictionary definition that only gives a vague and incomplete outline of the commonly understood definition and trying to use this caveat to apply to whatever you like is intellectually dishonest.

reply to post by GetHyped


I posted what I believe most people think it is. Nothing dishonest about it.

But the Wikipedia article reflects the establishment quite nicely.

I'm glad I started the thread because I had no idea that the official story is that there can't be an energy source in the environment.

So really a perpetual motion machine as defined by the establishment is a meaningless term and of no interest to anybody - especially those interested in making this a better world with new energy technology.

reply to post by Mary Rose

I'm glad I started the thread because I had no idea that the official story is that there can't be an energy source in the environment. So really a perpetual motion machine as defined by the establishment is a meaningless term and of no interest to anybody - especially those interested in making this a better world with new energy technology.

Ooh that sounds like you think this semantics confusion on your part is actually a big plot from the petro-chemical industry or something......

Noone here is against a better world and renewable and free energy but the definition of a perpetuum moblie is that it runs without an outside energy source.

The perpetuum mobile is a centuries old delusion and it is simply not possible with he laws of physics we are subjected to.

Wth?

reply to post by abecedarian


That right there is a good premise to circumvent the block on patenting perpetual motion machines ... one needs only to label it as such and claim that it is something else that is "free" that is generating the output ...

reply to post by BitSlapper


The clocks are examples of using the environment for power, however, so the lesson (for me ) is to now ignore the useless term and try to promote research into other similar technologies.

reply to post by Mary Rose


So when a definition doesn't suite your agenda you ignore it and redefine it to suite your confirmation bias? Why don't you tell us your definition of the term "perpetual motion machine" so we can see what technologies or phenomena will fall under this bracket.

reply to post by GetHyped


I didn't coin the term. I have no definition of my own.

Now that I know what the establishment says the term means I have found out all I need to know.

The term is useless for anyone seeking to describe devices which tap the environment. End of discussion as far as I'm concerned.

I don't care if the thread gets closed.

People don't like to be wrong, so they move the goal posts and change the definitions !

The literal definition for perpetual motion is "Forever moving" not "Forever moving" AND doing work...That would be "over-unity".

Nothing in the universe is stationary, so therefore "Perpetual Motion" is not only possible but its the norm.

Only when trying to make that moving object do work, like overcome friction does it fail.

And if its impossible to make something from nothing....What was there before there was something ?

We don't know everything and its stupid to have a "Flat Earth" mentality.

That's my tuppence.

ken10
Nothing in the universe is stationary, so therefore "Perpetual Motion" is not only possible but its the norm.

People in the new energy community are trying to observe nature and mimick it in devices.

ken10
People don't like to be wrong, so they move the goal posts and change the definitions !

The literal definition for perpetual motion is "Forever moving" not "Forever moving" AND doing work...That would be "over-unity".

You like dictionary abuse too I see.

Using that logic, you can tell the officer you were driving the "speed limit" because you had the accelerator pushed all the way down so your speed had reached it's limit. You can try that but I think you'll still get a ticket.

The fact is that sometimes when we use two words together it creates a specific meaning different from just combining the meanings of the two separate words. You can claim the "speed limit" is the limit of the speed your car will go all you want, but that's not how the term is used and most people who are not being intentionally obtuse know it. The same thing applies to other two word terms that have established, specific meanings like "Free energy" (which doesn't mean energy that's free) and "perpetual motion" (which doesn't just mean motion that's perpetual, because the definition involves more than that).

reply to post by Arbitrageur


So, what were you thinking when you said this in the thread "Is the Perpetual Motion Machine really a free energy source?":

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Arbitrageur

Here is a perpetual motion machine of sorts:

en.wikipedia.org...

Atmos is the brand name of a mechanical clock manufactured by Jaeger-LeCoultre in Switzerland which does not need to be wound from its outside. It gets the energy it needs to run from temperature and atmospheric pressure changes in the environment, and can run for years without human intervention.

reply to post by Mary Rose

Saying it's a perpetual motion machine "of sorts" emphasizes that it's NOT a good example of a perpetual motion machine:

dictionary.cambridge.org...

Of sorts: used to describe something that is not a typical or good example of something

I even clarified in that same post why it's NOT a perpetual machine, because it won't outlast the sun, so your excerpt seems a bit out of context too.

But as I admitted before, 5 billion years is a really long time, even if it's not perpetual.

Panic2k11
reply to post by abecedarian

 

That right there is a good premise to circumvent the block on patenting perpetual motion machines

... one needs only to label it as such and claim that it is something else that is "free" that is generating the output ...

f

I've found several that were patented, but the issue is that the patent is a sort of shaggy-dog story that seems plausible on the surface. The patent examiners often don't catch that sort of thing.

Arbitrageur
I even clarified in that same post why it's NOT a perpetual machine, because it won't outlast the sun, so your excerpt seems a bit out of context too.

But the issue here has been the fact that the clock draws on the environment, no? As in accusations of dictionary abuse?