Talk:Perpetual motion/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Perpetual motion not forbidden by laws of science?

I do not believe that breaking the laws of science is required for a perpetual motion machine. I think a better definition would be something which seems to endlssly generate power for humanity without any great expense to humanity. when used in a discussion , most people talk abou tit like this. For instance if someting used electromagnetic feilds or energy waves which are sort of everywhere, and a way was figured out to harness this stuff and bring it to say power cities. THat would basically be a perpetual motion machine, for all intenets and purposes. This issue of energy is very important to the future of humanity. PLus when people first started talking baout perptual motion they didnt nescesarily have idea about the laws of science. tye just wanted things that gave them "free energy".

I propose anyone who agrees with me, who ios a capable writer, to spend some time and work on it.

Perpetual motion at atomic levels

The definition says:

"For example, electrons in atom or quarks in a nucleus are in a state of perpetual motion."

It's been a little while since I studied Quantum Mechanics, but I don't think that this is a reasonable statement. The concept of "motion" of electrons around an atom, for example, is one of the great misnomers of popular science (the whole Bohr style orbiting electron). I would remove this from the definition, but I don't have the guts to do it myself!

Brownian motion

There is something I was surprised not to see in this article: a discussion of brownian motion. Brownian motion is sometimes presented as a refutation of the second law and is the source of various ideas for perpetual motion machines (see for example http://www.eprairie.com/printer/article.asp?newsletterID=4574 ).

I don't know enough to comment on this but I wish someone would. --ChrisSteinbach 06:46 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

See my recent comment at the bottom. Miguel 19:47, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)

To summarize:

The Feynman ratchet is an example of how to extract work from a temperature difference using thermal fluctuations.
The second law could be stated as it is impossible to extract work from thermal fluctuations in the absence of a temperature difference.

Miguel 20:08, 2004 Feb 25 (UTC)

I'm not sure this would be a good refutation of the second law. Just a bit I remember from a physics symposium on the subject of Brownian ratchets - Feynman proposed the idea, but then went on to explain why it would NOT violate the second law of thermodynamics. If you read the wikipedia article, you see that brownian motors have been developed to take advantage of the concept, but they do not violate the second law either. --Abqwildcat 20:02, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Moved from main page:

"True" perpetual motion machine would not have to violate the currently accepted laws of physics. It have to induct radiant energy from the Natural environment. It would also need to to be a solid-state [or, no moving parts] hetrodyning self-regenerative resonant oscillator. Energy obtained in such a system at the system's natural vibration (or, its resonant frequency) from the phantom loop. Inducting atmosperic energy and emmiting telluric currents (or the converse) would not violate the 1st law, nor would the "loss" of energy into environment. Being solid-state would not violate the 2nd law. [see: Tesla coil ]

I can't make head nor tail of this. Anyone wish to comment? Evercat 14:36 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

radiant energy must mean either heat of electromagnetic radiation. The natural environment is probably treated as a heat reservoir which is infinitely big so can give out heat without changing its temperature. This is an idealization. The idea that solid-state systems without moving parts somehow avoid the second law stems from the misunderstanding that, because elementary thermodynamics is presented in terms of pressure-volume fluid systems, that's what the second law is about. If you have a magnetic material, the internal energy will have a term Hdm, where H is the magnetic field and m is the magnetization of the material, and you can do Carnot's analysis in H-M space instead of p-V space. A resonant oscillator without dissipation blows up. Electrical oscillations are damped because they radiate away energy in the form of electromagnetic waves. Just my 2 Euro cents. Miguel 19:57, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)

FYI, radiant energy is all the forms in the electromagnetic spectrum (heat [eg. Infra-red Radiation] is just one form) ...

And yes, a open resonant oscillator without enough dissipation blows up (and this is what exactly happens to Tesla coils (TC) [see that article]). As a futher note ... analysis of appropriate systems (such as the TC) breaks down eventually (please read Tesla Coils and the Failure of Lumped-Element Circuit Theory) ... see also Regenerative circuit (for how energy is radiate away and then reinducted [eg. amplification]) and Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution (inparticular the part about assumption of a Maxwell distribution yield quantitatively wrong results). There are other sources that point out that the idealization of the math involved in analysis does not correspond to reality. JDR

So you propose to use a TC to draw energy from the Earth's atmosphere. How is that a perpetual motion machine? Miguel 22:11, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)

Not a TC specifically, but any electrodynamic tether (space or earth)... how is this a "perpetual motion machine"? It produces useful energy "from nowhere" [nowhere being the "potential"]. JDR

Like someone else said farther down, this would make a windmill a perpetual motion machine. You are more likely to get people to seriously study this system if you remove any reference to "perpetual motion". Miguel 23:35, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)

It can draw from the environment, BUT that is not entirely necessary ... Potential difference can produce the energy (no contactors necessary) ...

"people to seriously study this system"? I don't care if some "skeptics" don't look into it ... because NASA is studying it (along with other serious scientists) [personal, I find it funny that ppl don't look into, considering that it has been proven repeatedly] ...

Sincerely, JDR

--

What do you mean that you can't make heads or tails of this paragraph? Is it not worded clearly?

Please look up information on "Electrodynamic Space Tether" research conducted by NASA.

These condition would make a device not violate the parameters of thermodynamics:

Solid-state [or, no moving parts] - No loss to friction [the usual killer in PMMs]
hetrodyning - this is an interaction of energy [similar to the vacuum tubes developed by Armstrong]
self-regenerative - this is about circuits that regenerate energy in it by transformations. It can be ssen in vacuum tube and other coils. [example: Old tube in radios and Tesla coil ]
resonant - this is the condition of the multiple frequency of the devices interating.
oscillator - This is a simple LCR circuit [see definition of it.

Energy obtained in such a system at the system's natural vibration (or, its resonant frequency) from the phantom loop. The loop is the "unseen" circuit on the energy traversing the Earth's magnetic field. [see above over tether]

reddi ... more later ....

It sounds as though you've described a system that can be stable in motion indefinitely. A "perpetual motion machine", as generally understood, produces energy. Drawing it from the environment is, again, not perpetual motion, or a windmill would qualify. Vicki Rosenzweig 16:47 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

electrodynamic tethers do produces energy.

It can draw from the environment, BUT that is not necessary ... Potential difference can produce the energy ... JDR

--

I was describing a system that can be stable in resonance. The mechanics are solid state ... just vibrating as the enrgy flows through it .... it will last forver [or as long as spacetime exists or the componets naintained] (be that in independent orbit (space tether) or on linked to a planetoid rotation (earth tether)). It is in motion ... be that the relative motion on space-time or locally linked to the earth's field.

A "perpetual motion machine", as I've always understood, produces energy, also. The system stated here "produces" [more accurately manipulates ... as all energy is conserved] the output energy from their induction input and inner transformations [ie., more voltage is release than the input voltage inducted]. Though no violation of thermodynamics occurs, because the immense potentiality of the earth's field is what is taken as input [space time is filled with energy [see the quantum flux]]. I would like to ask ... Why is using environmental resources not perpetual motion?

A windmill would disqualify simply due to it's moving parts and the friction that it creates, thus causing loss [and BTW the winds are not present all the time, the EMF of the earth is] ... so that is a strawman arguemnet IMHO, but i would like a clarification please if you could. reddi 17:26 13 Jul 2003 (UTC) ... more later ...

BTW ... ALL machines must take into account of the conservation of energy ... this machine does not violate this [if i didn't make this clear ... i will here] ... the machines as i stated them takes energy in a step down transformation, capacitates the energy in a storage bank, and then transforms it in a step-up reaction ... all this occuring incredibly fast [the speed of electromagnetic fields]. reddi 17:43 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Lets play the game .... see if these hold ... [0] stay in [1] can't win (2) can't break even [3] you can't get out.

A LCR circuit is set up 100 ft into the atmosphere and grounded out ... it's tuned to the geomagnetic field of the earth [or you can tune it into the lightning strikes around the world that can be picked up anywhere] ...

- Two systems in thermal equilibrium with a third system, all must be in equilibrium with each other.

... all components are in equilibrium of the environment ... it's gonna get energy [induction from the earth's field if nothing else] ... this may cool it some or heat it some [energy flowing over circuits can heat or cool circuits] ... but the environemt will keep the equilibrium ... definitely stayin in here ....

- The sum of heat flowing into a system, and work done by the system is zero.

In the LCR circuit there is a transformation similar to the one here ... thus there is a hetrodyning self-regenrative effect [similar to what occur in a transitor / triode / vacuum tube] (works off similar concepts of flyback transformers)... not much heat coming in but alot of energy is able to be released ... won alil bit ...

- A system operating in contact with a thermal reservoir cannot produce positive work in its surroundings [Kelvin]

Consider a small system [the LCR circuit] in thermal contact with a large system [the world itself] .... it can produce energy [lightning struck outta o' the top of the LCR circuit [as diagramed here ... it is well documented in the patent [look it up ... it's one of his early-1900s wireless transmission patents] (notice the capacitor on the bottom coil)] ... breaking even (and then some ... considering i didn't do anything but put the LCR inductor up into the atmoshpere) ...

- As temperature goes to 0, the disorder of a system approaches a constant

the temperature may approach 0, but nothing is violated here .... didn't get out ... but didn't need to (kinda wanna stay in, gettin some energy) ...

Mabey electrodynamic tethers should be investigated more =-D ...

more later ... reddi 03:30 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The first 2 paragraphs of the article contradict each other. Perpetual motion machines are impossible because they would violate the laws of physics, but true perpetual motion machines wouldn't. Eh? Evercat 19:29 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The laws of physics are so desperately wrong and tragic. Quantum Power Cyclesgives full details of resonant perpetual engines.

Alan Cresswell 24 June 2005 17.30 hours

Brownian motion an is undectable and unprovable phenomenon that was invented by physicists to fill a hole in their knowledge. The second law of thermodynamics is a similar guessalogical event.

In a few hours A PERFECT ELECTRODYNAMIC ENGINE will be up. The site is there already.

It gives far more detail of just the diagram 3 engine. Have a very nice day.

Alan Cresswell 5 July 2005 15.30 hrs

electro mechanical infinite energy

Isaac Newton and the laws of physics are the ultimate recipe for an early intellectual brain death.

Flush them down the toilet and apply a new regime of commion sense and hey presto, things happen. Many times over and some are detailed at www.thewebspert.com/cresswell/.

At [1] there is a new meaning to sun and planet motion. The reasoning can supply infinite energy for a wheelchair drive.

Moved from free energy:

See also User:Sterlingda/Free Energy

Free energy generally suggests kinds of electromagnetic energy that are "free" (i.e. do not cost anything). "Free energy" generally means that a primary energy source is free for consumption. In a technical sense, free energy means an energy source supplied directly by the environment in unlimited quantity (and this can not be depleted). Free energy, in a strict sense, is energy directly transceived from the environment, and utilized without any artificial aid. This type of energy is sometimes refered to as "radiant energy".
Free energy has a number of consequences. Examining normal physical processes with knowledge of free energy phenomena can lead to interesting insight. During discussions of perpetual motion, the topic of free energy usually encourages serious inquiries.

I just made a minor edit to the article. I've been trying to figure out in what sense the brownian ratchet gizmo "does not work". All accounts I have read say the thing is in motion, perpetually for all I can tell. My guess is that it is not considered perpetual motion because is does not violate the second law. Did I guess right? If I guessed wrong could someone clue me in? Chris 06:54, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The brownian ratchet works as long as the temperature of the environment is higher than the temperature of the ratchet. As the ratchet gets hotter, it has a higher chance of moving out of the way because of thermal fluctuations and letting the wheel turn backwards. When the temperatures equalize, the rate at which air molecules in the air push the wheel in the right direction equals the rate at which the ratchet malfunctions letting the wheel turn in the wrong direction. This is the explanation of why the ratchet does not violate the second law even though it seems to. So, it does not work as a perpetual motion machine of the second kind. This is a hint that one could state the second law as saying "one cannot extract work from thermal fluctuations". Miguel 19:47, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)

Thanks Miguel. I found this to be rather a good explanation. It might be worth working it into the article since I don't remeber seeing anything quite as clear online...and now I see that you are in the process of doing so. Excellent! Chris

The explanation is "rather good" because it is Feynman's own. It is unfortunate that people would quote this example from his Lectures but explain it wrong. Miguel 20:03, 2004 Feb 25 (UTC)

I made a slight alteration to the sentence in the opening paragraph:

"There is an exceedingly remote chance that the accepted laws of physics are wrong, but a lot of evidence is needed to regeneralize these."

"an exceedingly remote chance" gives the impression that such things can be measured to some degree (statistically perhaps). I've changed the wording so as not to feign objectivity. Chris

Casimir Cones

I didn't find any mention of "Casimir Cones" using Google, except of course Wikipedia and clones. Please cite some sources. In the meantime, I removed it from the article. -- Pjacobi 20:43, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Could be related to this The Casimir Effect on the Light-Cone hep-th/0208220 ... or this Casimir effect around a cone... don't really known though, nvr heard of it ... J. D. Redding

How can link a translated page?

I translated it to portuguese language, you can check it out at http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moto_cont%C3%ADnuo but I don't known how can I link it. Please if you known how to do this, don't just do it but tell me how :) Thank you.

Definition in introduction

The first sentence of the current edit states "Perpetual motion machines [...] are a class of hypothetical machines which would produce useful energy in a way which would violate the established laws of physics." This isn't much of a definition, as it implies that any machine that produces energy in violation of the laws of physics in a perpetual motion machine.

Perhaps we could use something like:

"A Perpetual motion machine is a machine that, once started, will remain in motion indefinitely without the input of any additional energy. Such machines, whether or not they produce additional useful energy, are generally considered impossible, as they would violate the established laws of physics."

A distinction between "true perpetual motion" (not requiring additional input) and "free energy perpetual motion" (requiring input from environmental or other sources) could be useful as well. JHCC (talk) 20:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The universe is in motion, for a rather long time, the galaxy is rotating, earth is rotating around the sun. The machine has to violate the first or second theorem. Either a net energy output, or transforming heat into usable energy output. The "free energy perpetual motion" are only a smoke screen. --Pjacobi 20:18, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Well, how about "A Perpetual motion machine is a theoretical machine..."? We could even (since the title of the article is Perpetual motion) say "Perpetual motion describes a theory that motion, once initiated, can be sustained without the input of additional energy. According to this theory, it is possible to build a machine that would remain in motion indefinitely. Such machines, whether or not they produce additional useful energy, are generally considered impossible, as they would violate the established laws of physics (in particular the first and second laws of thermodymanics)." JHCC (talk) 20:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I must have been unclear. To stay in motion indefinitely is impossible for a machine, because of frictionm and other losses. To achieve this goal, and as a goal in itself, what is typically labelled a perputal motion machine, has to be a net source of energy. --Pjacobi 21:51, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

How about this:

"Perpetual motion describes a theory that motion, once initiated, can be sustained without the input of additional energy. According to this theory, it is possible to build a machine that would remain in motion indefinitely. However, since all machines lose energy to friction and other losses, a true perpetual motion machine would have to either generate more energy than it loses (in violation of the first law of thermodynamics) or convert the heat from that friction into usable energy output (in violation of the second law of thermodynamics). Since perpetual motion machines violate these established laws of physics, they are generally considered impossible."

We can then add a bit somewhere to the effect that "Machines that take in energy from gravity, magnets, free energy, or any other external sources are, by definition, not perpetual motion machines."

I know that all of this is impossible, but that shouldn't stop us from giving a good, clear description of the theory itself, as well as its refutation. JHCC (talk) 04:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Free energy (disambiguation) shouldn't be treated equal to gravity and magnets, as the thermodynamic one isn't won't drive a perpetuum mobile and the obscure uses of the term are, ahem, obscure. Also machine that take their energy from gravity and magnets is a misleading formulation. Letting objects fall into in a black hole is perhaps the most effective source of energy for an advanced civilization, OTOH the very classiv perpetuum mobile designs like [2] try to suck energy from energy while going around. Variations of these are still popular in the magnetic domain: Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy. So the very idea, that some mechanism can via some intermediate steps restore its initial state with the only change, that magnetic or gravity fields have done sume surplus work, is the very mainstay of perpetuum mobile construction. --Pjacobi 07:37, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Okay, how would you phrase a proper definition in the first paragraph? JHCC (talk) 19:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well I've attempted a definition which refers to work being done, rather than actual motion, since it is NOT actually impossible for motion to be sustained without an energy imput: I refer you to Newton's First Law of Motion. 212.100.3.56 16:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Superconductivity ring

Shouldn't the superconductivity ring be regarded as perpetual motion? Under favorable conditions, the electrons should race around without being hindered by any resistance.

Although this impies perpetual motion, it cannot generate power, so it can only be used for storage.

Problem with definition

IN the lead para perpetual motion is defined as the property of something that keeps going whilst also doing work.ie there is a net energy gain from the system. Later in the article, perpetual motion is discounted merely becauase of friction tending to slow things down indicating that to have perpetual motion, it is simply necessary to have no losses in the system. It is quite easy to think of frictionless perpetual motion (planets rotating etc)the t does no work.

So what sort of perpetual motion is the article talking about?--Light current 02:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)