Talk:Perpetual motion/Archive 2

Initial comment

I have a problem with the current state of affairs. Most people think it is logical to produce energy from oil since when burnt, it produces more energy than the energy initiating the fire and if the burning is controlled, we can use that energy to power the car. Well, guess what, that is over unity.

The main difference with other over unity devices is that the fuel is finally consumed so it is a good business: you have to come for more oil in order to power your car.

Since the amount of oil is fixed and the oil sources are reduced it is guaranteed to be a good business, which of course means that we as consumers have to pay very high proces for energy.

Ok, but that's the economics of the consumer, how is it possible that to extract oil from the soil they have to extract it from deep underground and they never use the same oil (or another source of energy) to extract it? They would eventually have to use more energy to extract it than what they are using now.

But the fact that they use perpetual motion machines (oil pumps) to extract the oil is the reason why this is a good business.

Where can I find how this pumps operate? If I could just do that energy would be free, well almost.

Here is the idea of the oil pump, as you can see, it has no motor atached to it: http://www.roadsideattractions.ca/oilpump.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.45.15.192 (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.45.15.192 (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Those 'nodding donkey' pumps run on the oil they are pumping. They aren't perpetual motion - just good old fashioned internal combustion engines set up to run (very inefficiently) on crude oil. SteveBaker (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I just found this on the page. I take it that osmosis can not produce perpetual motion, so this passage is being deleted

Osmosis causes water particles to move from an area of higher concentration to an area of lower concentration. So in an u-shaped cylinder with a partially permeable membrane in the middle, the water level of one side will be higher than the other side. Then when the water level reaches high enough you put a bridge between the two and put another membrane in the middle, and the water will flow to the other side. Perpetual Motion is therefore achieved.

My problem with this is that you have to put a bridge between the two and put another memberane in the middle. Thus, it is not self-sufficient.

Osmosis moves liquid from a region of low concentration to high concentration. If you take the liquid from one side of the membrane and put it onto the other side, the concentrations soon even out and the liquid flow ceases. You can't get perpetual motion this way. SteveBaker (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you can set up a nice gandenken perpetual motion machine using osmosis. You set up a salt-water membrane at the bottom of a long column in the ocean. Because the density of fresh water is lower than salt water, even if it takes pressure to drive the osmisis at the bottom, the fresh water in the column will eventually rise higher than the salt water around it and you can (in principle) drive a continuous "waterfall" at the top. It's a good oral exam problem to let students chew on to see if they can find the problem. (Hint: there are two problems - one practical, one fundamental).Prebys (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Reversion

I made a number of (what I considered to be) corrections and clarifications to the article on 2005-12-13. User:Reddi performed a wholesale reversion, without comments, an hour later. Reddi, why did you do this, please? Gareth McCaughan 00:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You deleted alot of relevant content. J. D. Redding 15:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (PS., here is the ed diff ... please list the "much tidying" points, the way of "reorganization", and point out what is to be "cleaned up". Thanks.)

I deleted some mistakes and repetitions. I attempted not to delete anything that added value to the page unless I was also adding something that added the same value at least as effectively. One of my goals was to improve the focus and conciseness of the page. Here's a summary of what I did and why.

• Deleted last sentence of initial para ("Note that constant motion ...". This material was incorrect (really constant motion would be PM "of the second kind"; the Earth-Moon isn't truly constant because there is dissipation in the system) and redundant (with discussion elsewhere in the page of friction, dissipation, second law of thermodynamics, etc.); it's especially redundant with one of my additions noted below.
• Deleted first sentence under "Introduction" ("There are two subcategories ..."). This material was redundant with the later description of the classification of PMMs, and there's no way that the existence of a two-way classification is a good candidate for the first thing to be said in an introduction to the topic of PM.
• Moved the remainder of that paragraph ("Scientists and engineers accept ...") to later in the article. This material was misplaced, being (in my opinion) not in any useful sense an introduction to the topic but rather a discussion of some issues arising from it.
• Moved the following paragraph ("Serious discussions of perpetual motion ...") to keep it together with the moved material from the previous paragraph.
• Deleted the next paragraph ("In short, the entire reason ..."). This material was incorrect (perpetual motion is not "possible in theory" in any useful sense, and friction is not the only reason why it's impossible; "negative change in velocity" doesn't make sense) and redundant with added material about PMMs of the second kind later on.
• Moved a paragraph mostly about the second law of thermodynamics ("Perpetual motion machines violate ...") to nearer the start of the article.
• Moved the following paragraph ("Machines which claim not to violate ...") to nearer the start of the article. These two paragraphs make a much better introduction to the subject than the earlier muddled "introduction" (I'm excluding the very first paragraph, which I've basically left unchanged because it's pretty good).
• Added a new one-sentence intro to the first/second kind classification.
• Rewrote the explanations of "first kind" and "second kind". The old material was incorrect (a machine producing just "at least as much energy as it uses" need not violate conservation of energy; a PMM of the second kind need not convert heat into other forms of energy) and contained irrelevancies (the fact that many PMM designs use magnets, and the fact that a PMM of the second kind would be viewed with skepticism, do not help in understanding the distinction between the two kinds), and was ungrammatical (the explanation of the "first kind" ended "... and assume frictionless .", presumably because of a mouse-slip at some point).
• Added a paragraph about friction, dissipation, and so on. This replaces various material in the old version (friction, good approximations to PMMs of the second kind, Earth/Moon system, single particle in a Newtonian universe), bringing related things together in a relevant context. It does this more accurately, and using considerably fewer words, than before; and, I think, with just as much clarity.
• Added a section called "Just how impossible is impossible?", which is where the material about scientists' attitudes to PMMs and to the laws of physics moved to.
• Deleted an incomplete and inaccurate definition of "perpetual motion machines" from the "Inventions and patents" section. This material was redundant (there are definitions earlier in the article) and misplaced (a definition of PMM doesn't belong buried in a section on inventions at the end of an article on PM) and incorrect (a PMM need not "produce useful energy").

I think that's all the changes I made. I had (what I considered, and still consider, to be) good reasons for all of them. So far as I can see, no useful information was lost and no viewpoint skew was introduced by my changes; I think the article became shorter, more accurate, better organized, and clearer. Of course your mileage may vary.

Now, would you care to explain what about my changes justified a blanket reversion without comment? Thank you. Gareth McCaughan 01:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

These arguments appear conclusive to me. I've recverrted to Gareth's version. --Pjacobi 08:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

First off, I will apologize for the blanket reversion ... I may have jumped the gun (mabey the radical change was a bit jarring to me) ... your version is an improvement (atleast as to the focus). It does seem that you did not attempt to delete all relevant content (some content though should be readded). And thank you for the a summary of what was done and why. Below is some of the point that I would like to point out on the revamp of the article ...

• It would be nice to address "some mistakes" in the article more fully and keep some of the repetitions, though. YMMV on the "more accurately" and the "clarity" ... and it is not necesssary to use "considerably fewer words" (Wikipedia is not paper; an article _should go indepth_, not be "concise" [an editorial preference for expressing ideas in just a few words]). Some information is necessarily "redundant" (eg., useful repeated or duplicated information).
• adding of the one-sentence intro to the first/second kind classification. It was "There are two subcategories of perpetual motion machines which are referred to as perpetual motion of the first kind and perpetual motion of the second kind" and you changed it to "It is customary to classify perpetual motion machines as follows [the 2 types]".
• The rewrite of the the explanations of "first kind" and "second kind" is good. But ... mabey an explaination in the articel on how incorrect the statemnet "A perpetual motion machine of the first kind produces at least as much energy as it uses, Therefore, once started, the machine could go on forever, which appears to violate the law of conservation of energy" is ... you changed it to: "A perpetual motion machine of the first kind produces strictly more energy than it uses, thus violating the law of conservation of energy." I think it comes down to the "at least as much energy as it uses", and your redefition excludes "PPM" that do so (as you state, such a machine need not violate conservation of energy ... but that is why the "appears" is there).
• You deleted relevancies (which may have not been appropriate at the section they were at ... but is appropriate to the article in general) ... the fact is that many PMM designs use magnets (eg., Many of first kind designs utilize magnets as some kind of free energy source and are assumed to be frictionless), and the fact that a PMM of the second kind would be viewed with skepticism.
• Moving the remainder of that paragraph ("Scientists and engineers accept ...") to later in the article was good ... but the rewrite removes some relevant material of the original (it is, thjough, kinda hard to tell when such a drastic change in format as in your edit).
• Deleting the next paragraph ("In short, the entire reason ...") was not too good. All this material is not incorrect ... perpetual motion is "possible in theory" ... it may not be practical (eg. useful), though ... but that is entirely another point.
• As to the deletion of the "If friction were removed (which is impossible) then perpetual motion would be possible" ... mabey a list of reasons why it's impossible ... and the later potions of "negative change in velocity" is a part of kinematics and acceleration, this could be expanded ...
• The section called "Just how impossible is impossible ?" should be renamed.
• Deleted an accurate definition of "perpetual motion machines" from the "Inventions and patents" section. This material is not redundant. A definition of PMM as reguard to patent does belong in a section on inventions. "Perpetual motion machines are a class of hypothetical machines which produce useful energy "from nowhere" - that is, without requiring additional energy input." It's only incorrect if you set up the defintion to exclude such machines ... I also believe that this is from the USPTO website.

The overall revamp of the article was good ... and, again, I do apologize that I jumped the gun. I also do appreciate that you took the time for a summary of what was done and why. I'll go though the diffs in the history and look at it more closely though at a later time. Thanks again. Sincerely, J. D. Redding (PS., a section on so-called "PPM" that do not violate the laws should be made ... not all PPM brake the law of thermodynamics, the "cox timepiece" is one example ... some devices are just called "perpetual motion machine" ... )

Taking those points in order:

• Indeed, having fewer words is not an improvement if it means having less information. I don't think I lost any useful information, though I gather you disagree. If you're right, the problem is with my judgement of what's useful, not with my preference for brevity when it can be attained without loss of information :-).
• I'm not sure what it is you don't like about the slightly changed lead-in to the classification. If you mean that I forgot one change in my list, then I plead guilty. I still think it was a good change...
• A PMM that produces exactly as much energy as it uses is a PMM of the second kind, not the first; the problem isn't that it violates conservation of energy but that it violates the second law of thermodynamics. Or, if you can cook up a situation in which it needn't do so -- such as that single particle moving in an otherwise empty Newtonian universe -- then indeed that would be a working "perpetual motion machine". I've added a sentence to the definition of a PMM of the first kind, which may clarify this relationship between the two. Maybe there's a better way to make it clearer.
• I still don't see what value there is in the isolated observation that many PMMs use magnets. However, I do see some value in a more general discussion of approaches PMM inventors have tried, and I've added one. It could use some expansion.
• It isn't necessary to say separately that a second-kind PMM would be greeted with skepticism, because it's already been clearly pointed out that any PMM would be greeted with skepticism. (If anything, a second-kind PMM would be met with less skepticism than a first-kind one.)
• What relevant material was removed in moving the "Scientists and engineers accept ..." paragraph?
• I stand by my claim that the paragraph about friction being the only problem with PM, and about its being "possible in theory", was just plain wrong. There were some right ideas underlying it (dissipation, although not limited to friction, certainly includes friction as a special case; a second-kind PMM is not forbidden by the most fundamental laws even though it is -- yes, in theory! -- impossible in the real universe), but I think those are present in the revised article.
• I'm not sure what you're proposing doing with the thing about "negative change in velocity". Extracting work from a moving object requires that it slow down (er, or lose mass) -- but that's there in the revised version already. The only difference between "without slowing it down" and "without a negative change in velocity" is that the latter sounds more technical but doesn't actually make sense (because velocity is a vector).
• I don't much like the title "Just how impossible is impossible?", but I haven't yet been able to think of a clearly better title. If someone else can do so, I'll be glad.
• I agree that there may be some benefit in saying in the "inventions" section what the USPTO's definition of perpetual motion is -- but only if it's explained that this is specifically the USPTO's definition, and only if it actually is their definition or at least an abridgement of it. I've done a bit of googling but not turned up anything specific enough to be useful here; maybe someone else will do better.
• I agree that it could be useful and interesting to have a section about things that are called "perpetual motion machines" but don't violate the laws of physics. I worry that it might encourage people who want to use the article to expatiate on their own pet schemes that do (unbeknownst to them) violate the laws of physics. Cox's timepiece is already mentioned explicitly in the article (in the "inventions" section) with a note that it doesn't actually violate any laws.

Gareth McCaughan 23:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the phact link, "finally died" is not a decent way to describe a person who was murdered.

"# Yule Brown scammed a lot of gullible investors in Austrailia for years with his Browns Gas claims. Eventually was picked up by Dennis Lee (who eventually declared him insane) and finally died in 1998." 82.217.41.25 09:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

2nd kind

Perhaps I'm getting something wrong, but the current definition of 2nd kind ppms looks strange to me. If it all, what is described there is a borderline case (and perhaps perpetual motion without excess energy to solve the world's energy problem should be handled seperately). In my understanding a 2nd kind ppm converts heat into mechanical or electrical energy. Not by a carnot process but just some reservoir gets cooler. The claimed observation that the apparatus or the environmental air gets cooler is sometimes seen as sign, that over-unity operation has been achieved [1]. --Pjacobi 23:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I've seen the definition of a PMMOT2K phrased in multiple ways, all of which amount to "machine that violates the second law". I think the "heat into work" definition is commonest, but the reason why a machine that converts heat into work is called a perpetual motion machine at all is that you could use it to make something that runs for ever without running down. Unfortunately, if you just say "heat into work" you're likely to get objections about the (perfectly straightforward and commonplace) machines that convert a heat difference into work; tightening the definition up seems inevitably to produce either something too specific (e.g., requiring a cyclic process) or something that's verbose or unclear or both. On the other hand, there are two distinct ways to make a machine just run for ever: a complete avoidance of dissipation (on which the existing text focuses) or a means of reversing it (which is really the main point of a PMMOT2K). So I've made some adjustments. See what you think; it's surely still possible to do better. Gareth McCaughan 09:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Just how impossible is impossible?

Moved from article

Serious discussions of perpetual motion usually occur only when dealing with the topics of open systems, aether theories, free energy, and vacuum energy.

A machine that spins for thousands of years might do useful work without fuel, work, or maintenence cost, much like spinning planets and electrons already do naturally. If the spinning object spins very strongly, any work benefitted from it would slow it down slightly, but a fraction of a second later, the magnetic/gravitational pull would cause it to continue its spin at the same speed as before it slowed.

"One day man will connect his apparatus to the very wheelwork of the universe... and the very forces that motivate the planets in their orbits and cause them to rotate will rotate his own machinary," ---- Nikola Tesla. This sounds similar to the use of natural currents of matter to push and turn wheels to perform useful work, like in windmills and water wheel mills. Windmills and water mills are near-perpetual motion machines because they continue to move/turn for manty years withou fuel or batteries until the machine parts wear out, wind stops blowing, or the river dries up.

Mainstream science tends to lump perpetual motion and near-perpetual motion together, in a belief that it is impossible. However, science is constantly learning new facts and physical secrets at a quick pace. At one time, all mainstream scientists were certain that an object heavier than air could not fly; the law of gravity made this a scientific certainty. Today, airplanes weighing tons fly faster than the speed of sound. The law of gravity was not broken - it is impossible to break a law of physics. Instead, new laws of physics were discovered: laws of lift, drag, speed, and aerodynamics. These new forces countered and exceeded gravity's force. In similar ways, many other laws of nature can countered by other opposing physical forces. In the future, it is likely that scientists will do things that are certainly impossible by the pysics of today. So, perpetual motion is impossible by our modern technology, but may not be impossible by future technology.

____________ Not sure who originally wrote the text above, but it's a shame that it was taken out of the article. With slight revisions, it would really improve the explanation and help set the context of the discussion of PMMs. As the article stands, it's sort of heavy-handed, and takes the position that "laws" (as they're called in the article) are somehow discovered and clearly defined. That might be, but there's very little proof of it, and the idea that these "laws" were waiting to be discovered is no less speculative than the position that the laws (or regularities, relationships, etc) are constructed according to human perception and understanding. The point above about being careful not to simply define PMMs out of existence is also a good one. The section in the article now that discusses the clock that runs on atmospheric pressure changes takes a patronizing tone, as if only the scientifically naive would call that a PMM. But one can be acquainted with science, and philosophy of science, and still be willing to draw distinctions between a sense of "perpetual" that means "for all intents, given the span of human life, and so on..." and a sense of perptual that means "from the time of the Big Bang until the universie collapses in on itself, if not after that..." In this case, the fact that some machines do continue to operate for very long times, without the conventional need for human intervention, in the form of adding fuel, should count for something. To simply dismiss such machines is probably to make a number of assumptions about what it means to be a "machine," and what the nature of "perpetual" is in the context of machines. C d h (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove the text of which you speak, but I agree with whoever did. The author is clearly not well acquainted with physics. The first excised paragraph is simply untrue. Perpetual motion is routinely discussed in engineering and thermodynamics classrooms from high-school up. It receives plenty of serious discussion quite apart from vacuum energy theories and the like. The second paragraph appears similarly inaccurate; at the least it is very imprecise. One obviously cannot "do useful work...without work," nor does a spinning planet, slowed by resistance, automatically recover it's previous momentum through some mysterious "magnetic/gravitational pull." Physics is a mathematical science, and there is a substantial conceptual difference between a machine that runs for a long time and contains much energy (the open Sun/ecosystem/river/watermill system, for example) and one that runs forever or contains infinite energy. One is entirely consistent with theories of thermodynamics backed by experiment, the other is not. It is the author of the deleted text, not mainstream science, that lumps perpetual-motion and near-perpetual-motion together.

The paragraph written by C d h is much more coherent than the text he defends. However, the proposition that physical laws are (perhaps incompletely) discovered facts about nature, rather than human constructions, is fundamental to all scientific inquiry. The scientific method is about discerning facts and laws concerning nature, not just constructing them. It depends specifically on the notion that some claims are true about the world, others are false, and experiments can distinguish between the two. If this weren't so, experiments as we know them would be impossible. (Also, if it weren't true that some statements are false, it couldn't be true that the statement "some statements are false" is false. But I digress.) It all hinges on the idea that some theories are *wrong* and others are *right,* which means laws are discovered, not just made up. Some philosophers disagree with this approach, but it is the generally accepted one, and I doubt the article on perpetual motion is the proper place to discuss skepticism about objective reality.

To simply dismiss long-but-finitely running machines, or, equivalently, closed systems that produce only slightly less energy than they consume, in a discussion of "perpetual motion machines" is indeed to make an assumption about what "perpetual" means. Specifically, it is to assume that the word means forever or indefinitely enduring, ceaseless, continuous. Well, that's the word's definition. We have to make assumptions about what words mean to understand them at all. Communication would be impossible if we didn't all agree on the meanings of phrases like, for example, "communication would be impossible." If we want to describe a machine that lasts a long time but *not* forever, we have other words to describe that. This article is about perpetual motion machines, and the introduction of the article makes it clear what is meant by that. The ensuing discussion strikes me as authoritative, but not heavy handed.0nullbinary0 (talk) 06:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

This section has one and a half main problems:

1. Serious: The question of near-perpetual motion is possible, but you cannot extract siginificant work from it - that would end it's near-perpetual motion.
2. Stylistic: The lamenting about new things possible discovered in the future

Pjacobi 23:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

If such a thing could be duplicated in a lab, man-made near-perpetual motion could become a reality.

Aren't the voyager space probes examples of man-made near-perpetual motion? Bobby1011 19:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You cannot change the second law of thermodynamics to allow for perpetual motion machines. It explicitly states that 100% or over is impossible. You might get away with some wiggling of definition of perpetual motion as in "harnessing the motion of planets as stated above" to allow a machine to run without stop, but its efficiency is not 100% as by making the machine work you slow down the planets.

not so long ago heavier than air flight was considered impossible. just as people today ignore the fact the moon rotates around the earth perpetually, people then ignored the fact that birds can fly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.84.25 (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

None of those things are true.

People have been watching birds and insects fly since the dawn of time. Anyone who ever thought that heavier than air flight was impossible was therefore an idiot. Plenty of people believed that heavier than air flight by humans was probably impossible - but only because it was too difficult - not because any laws of physics disallowed it. Clearly, no law of physics could ever have said that heavier-than-air flight is impossible because we could see birds doing it. As for the moon orbiting the earth "perpetually"...it's long been known that the moon does not orbit "perpetually". We know that the moon is only temporarily (on a galactic time-scale) the partner of the earth - it's gradually getting further and further away and will eventually disappear off into the distance. The idea that the moon is in perpetual motion is not one that science subscribes to - it's an idea that people who have almost zero understanding of science subscribe to because it seems (superficially) to be an example of perpetual motion. Sadly, those people are in the same class as the ignorant people who claimed that heavier-than-air flight was impossible when it was CLEARLY obvious that it was possible.

The Voyager probes are not examples of perpetual motion - they are examples of Newton's laws of motion. They are affected by gravity - but happen to have been launched with enough velocity to propel them out of the earth's gravitational field. Once far enough away for gravity to be essentially negligable, they will only be in motion in the sense of motion relative to the earth. In their own inertial frames, they are stationary. You should probably read some of Einsteins works!

So, in answer to your comment, there have been heavier-than-air flying machines since ancient times...kites have been around for at least 2,800 years - and the moon and the voyager probes are not examples of perpetual motion. SteveBaker (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit Tag

Some parts of the article are written in poor English and are too ambiguious to make sense of. I'm too tired to fix it up right now so, I'm leaving this tag. Bobby1011 19:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you point to specific sections? Many of the concepts discussed in this article are difficult to describe, but hard to understand doesn't always mean bad writing. KarlBunker 21:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

While we're waiting for further input, I'll remove the copyedit tag. I read through this article and didn't find it to be poorly written or ambiguous. KarlBunker 01:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

WMC POV edit

WMC editing in a POV fashion ... "prefer the version before Reddi's fiddling".

The content is not in dispute ... but it is a POV edit and violation. J. D. Redding 21:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be silly. You've added nothing useful, but increased the number of words, adding dups re friction and nonsense such as Atmospheric electricity is the regular diurnal variations of the Earth's atmospheric electromagnetic network (or, more broadly, any planet's electrical system in its layer of gases). William M. Connolley 21:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If "silly" is the only thing you can say ... it's sad ... do you know that it's cited for perpetual motion (and near-perpetual motion machines ...)

Atmospheric electricity is used often in these machines ... but need coils and structures to utilize them as the patents state in the articles (this dates back to 1860s for heaven's sake) ... and historians of technology know this ...

Telluric currents are often used in these machines ...

Atmospheric changes are often used (and don't mention the second part, that you need a barometer!!!) ... the Cox timepiece was a near-perpetual motion machine (commonly known if you liik and read a damn book on it) and this technique done before the timepiece itself independently discovered ...

ZPE, Vacuum energy, and Quantum Flux is purported technique commonly cited recently ...

You hurt wikipedia by POV pushing and removing ("prefer" to obfusacate the) facts ) .... if you cannot "debunk" the claims ... don't remove them because you don't like the facts ... as you repeatedly do. J. D. Redding 03:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC) (... not an ignorant fuq of the history; read a bit of history sometimes ...)

Reddi, you are wiki's most notoroius POV pusher of psuedoscience, so much so that you've managed to get an arbcomm judgement restraining you - happily for all the rest of us William M. Connolley 11:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Attack the messenger ... ignore the discussion points ... nice ... J. D. Redding (PS., facts are "not made" by concensus)

Where do magnets come into play? Are they considered an external power sources or just too easy? I mean, really. A wheel with several magnets spaced at regular intervals powered by a nearby magnet would probably rotate forever... and it wouldn't catch on fire or violate the laws of thermodynamics if you stopped it manually every once in a while... later.

-Willis

It's hardly perpetual if it requires outside intervention to keep working. And no, magnets do not produce the kind of perfect motion required for such a wheel to maintain velocity ad infinitum. --Agamemnon2 10:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahh But if you were to set up a heavy magnetic ball and attach it to a wheel, when the wheel turns it turns some gears sorta like a turbine the power coming from that charges an electro magnet up the top of the wheel, this brings the ball back up to the top, when the ball gets to the top it stops moving which cuts off the power to the electro magnet ball falls down again. Process repeats. Not bad for a high school student eh ?

You didn't sign your comment, and your suggestion doesn't work. The process of getting power from the wheel is less than 100% effective. The process of feeding the power to the electromagnet is less than 100% effective. So, in the end you have less energy than is needed to get the ball back to the top (you would have to add energy for that). So, as Agamemnon2 pointed out this isn't perpetual motion. (Although I note the gullable add money to schemes like this all the time...) |Nahaj 20:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Nahaj makes a good point. Would it be out of place to include in the article mention of the many perpetual motion scams? --MrFlit 15:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Illustrations

Could we get more pictures on this page? It would be enriched much more by diagrams. Minglex 10:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Drinking bird

Needs a reference to the "Drinking Bird". I recall some free/alternate energy board discussion about using many thousands of these toys -- or perhaps just one, but a hundred feet tall -- to generate electricity. Sans feathers and top-hat, of course. -Wfaxon 07:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Superfluids?

superfluids flow endlessly (among other odd behaviors). If one can maintain the superfluid, one can maintain a state of zero friction/viscosity and no energy is wasted through motion. These properties are actively used in high precision measurement.

Now, arguably this is not a "perpetucal motion machine" in either of the classical definitions put forth in the article. It does not produce energy from nothing, and it does not convert waste energy back into useful energy (as there is no wasted energy in a flowing superfluid or supersolid).

Not to stir up any trouble, but these sort of weird quantum phases of matter probably deserve mention somewhere on the page.

(oops, forgot a signature) - Toastydeath 05:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I know it's hard to believe, but me and many scientists have discovered how to use superfluids to make electricity through fluid turbines. We are currently accepting donations...

Latest scoop

A couplee of days ago in the British Times newspaper, there was a report of an engineer claiming he had discovered a perpetual motion machine. When the reporter asked to see it, he was refused admission. THe inventor has decided to patent it before releasing details, but he said it worked by an magnetic field 'anomolaly' that he has just discovered!. Can we mention this in the art as it is from a reliable source?--Light current 00:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

John Galt's motor?

The device in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged works by drawing static electricity from the air. Would that qualify to the "Perpetual motion in pop culture" section? - Stormwatch 06:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so - such a machine depends on there being electrical gradients in the air, and is therefore ultimately solar-powered. Tevildo 23:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This would fall into the "apparent perpetual motion machines" category. EpiVictor 12:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed bit about MythBusters

I removed this:

The Discovery Channel program MythBusters attempted to build a perpetual motion machine consisting of several propane tanks arranged in an overbalanced wheel, supposedly to draw energy from a heat difference between two ends of the device (with the lower end moving through water heated by the sun). Technically it did work, but its movement was barely perceptible and created so little electricity the hosts declared it a failure. Since it relied on the sun to heat the water beneath it, the device was essentially an overly complicated solar power generator. They also examined other methods of gathering "free energy". These methods generally failed, were not cost-effective, or were too unwieldy to be feasible. They did generate a spark that zapped one of the show's hosts during the investigation of a radio based device.

for the very simple reason that it's not a perpetual motion machine - it's a very inefficient heat engine taking advantage of the difference in temperature between the heated water and the ambient air. --Robert Merkel 09:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The Mythbusters wer not trying to create a prepetual motion machine.They were simply trying different ways of obtaining energy without paying a providor --Cbennett0811 20:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Then what about invading Iraq to get free oil? That should yield more energy output than input if done right, or not? --217.87.94.28 14:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a totally inappropriate remark which neither adds to this discussion nor aids the article. Please try to stay on the topic.I55ere (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Definition

I think we need a new definition at the top of the article. Since you cannot prove that something will continue *forever*, you don't need any law of thermodynamics to prove that nothing can possibly satisfy the definition as is. Dave 20:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Lutec overlooked

Lutec Australia Pty. Ltd.[2] have a perpetual motion concept based on magnets which they claim will manufacture over-infinity production of electricity, perhaps worth a look for this article? Jachin 23:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Specific claims go into history of perpetual motion machines, but only if reliable third party sources can be found. --Pjacobi 08:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Over infinity. Good thing it doesn't work, it would blow up the Earth! And that's where I keep all my stuff! Maury 15:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Abrupt gravity field changes?

An interesting hypothetic case would be moving a body in and out of two nearby regions of space with markedly different (or even of opposite directions) gravity, by producing useful work by letting the weight to be "pulled down" in the high gravity region, and "pulling it up" in the low or reversed gravity region, while sliding it between regions would be done with a motion perpendicular to the gravity force lines, thus with no (or very little) energy expenditure.

This approach is known not to be possible with electric and magnetic fields, as it's not possible to produce the abrupt field intensity changes required (the distribution of electric and magnetic force lines would arrange itself as to preserve field conservativity in any case, but would something similar happen for gravitational fields too?

I wonder whether something "strange" would happen during the transition from one gravity field to another, e.g. a very rapid gain or loss of energy which would prevent "freeloading", assuming of course it was somehow possible to produce such controlled and space-limited gravity fields. EpiVictor 14:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

All inverse square forces, including electricity, magnetism (same thing) and gravity are "conservative". There is simply no way to construct a field layout as you describe. No magic involved, it's like trying to touch your right elbow with your right hand, you just can't do it. Maury 15:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know they are conservative and, at least magnetism and electricity cannot be "cheated" because no matter how complex their configuration, they will eventually "close" (magnetism) or terminate on another charge/object (electricity), thus preserving the "conservative" property. But gravity field lines (if such a thing exists) haven't yet been proven to "close" or "bend" like electrical and magnetic lines do, and neither that such extreme configurations are impossible, like two intense and opposite direction gravity fields existing very close and perfectly parallel with each other. Gravity and its propagation methods and field properties still haven't been thoroughly studied and explained, as opposed to electricity and magnetism (it's not even known if it is linked or not to electricity or magnetism) and as a force field, it's in general a lot weaker than electrical and magnetic fields, and it's only manifested macroscopically when generated by large bodies as planets, in a mostly neutral electrical and magnetic environment. EpiVictor 10:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"gravity field lines (if such a thing exists) haven't yet been proven to "close" or "bend" like electrical and magnetic lines do"

Let me repeat myself: all inverse square law forces are conservative. Gravity is an inverse square law force. Therefore it is conservative. Full stop. This isn't due to the nature of gravity, it's a trivial mathematical demonstration. You need to do your homework. Maury 15:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think if we find a black nearby we could exploit the acceleration of matter into black hole/or radiation given off the acceleration.

To the above: why would you want to do that? The sun powers life on earth already. Also to the first post: what are you talking about? If you move perpendicular to gravity potential lines, by definition you do *NO* work nor receive any since you have not changed its potention energy, if you gain no potential energy, then you will gain no work when you let the object fall. As well, changing "gravity" as you suggested would require energy input as well. As well, gravity field lines do exist. Do you mean to tell me that you believe the gravity 1 light year away from earth due the earth is the same as you are experiencing right now? See, if they are different then gravity field lines would exist since there is a gradience, ie. inverse square law.

Let's forget about that, ok? It was just a hypothetical question based upon the (somewhat lax) work hypothesis that gravity fields could be constructed and manipulated at will, up to the extreme of having two extremely close regions with confined gravity lines of opposite directions, with no or very limited mutual interaction, e.g. from a hypothetical "gravity source" device to a "gravity sink" device (again, something that has been proven NOT POSSIBLE with electric/magnetic fields, but not yet with gravity fields, e.g. none has proved that gravity lines would bend or arrange themselves in such a way to prevent "cheating" the laws of thermodynamics, or that gravity cannot be generated and controlled artificially just with the expense of energy). EpiVictor 11:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...that would lead to other questions too: if a "non-controversial" gravity generator could be built (let's say, a sphere that according to its energy input, behaved like a controllable spherical mass), would the energy required to produce a given gravity intensity depend upon other masses placed within its range? E.g. the device is "off" and isolated, and suddenly it's turned on, requiring a constant amount of power to generate e.g. a field comparable to Earth's in intensity and uniformity, at least away from the sphere. Now, if another mass was present within it's action range, and the sphere was bound, the other mass would "suddenly" acquire some potential energy relative to the generator the moment the latter would be turned on. Where does this energy come from? Would there somehow be an extra "effort" by part of the "gravity generator" compared to the "unloaded" case? If we were discussing electromagnetic fields, the answer would be "the energy comes from the generator of these fields, and there would be extra energy expense, period", but what evidence is there that something equivalent would happen with gravity? And by letting said weight "fall" on the gravity device, would that energy return to the device, somehow? EpiVictor 11:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding

Ok, if you turn the electricity into motion amplify the motion (big gear besides little gear,) add some grase, throw it into a vacume chamber and turn the motion back into electricity, you will probibly get more electricity

$E\Rightarrow M\times (\mho \div \nabla )\Rightarrow E\times (\mho \div \nabla )$

Nabla = Bigger gear, M = Movement, E = Electricity, Mho = Smaller gear.

David Knott

David, you need to look up what a gear does. It does not change the amount of energy, it changes the force (or torque) being produced by that energy. Since the process of meshing teeth always has losses, the energy at the end of a gear train is always less than what you put in. Honestly, if it were this obvious, do you really think you'd be the first person to come up with the idea? Maury 15:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

hehe, well, I guess you're right.

david knott —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.158.184.99 (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Gravity

The enermy that the gravity have to move should be taken from the Big Bang?

Entire Universe

Isn't the universe as a whole a perpetual motion machine? Matter and energy cannot enter or leave, and all particles are always moving. Nate | Talk ^Esperanza! 22:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No. You actually answer your own question in the third word of the second sentence. A perpetual motion machine needs extra energy. Since the universe does not gain or lose any energy, it is not a perpetual motion machine, at least not the kind being discussed here. Yet, the terminology is confusing, particularly if you consider most modern versions often don't even have moving parts. Maury 15:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The Universe is not a perpetual motion machine for a very simple reason: it will eventually "stop". This is the concept of heat death. After a (long) while, all gradients will have been exhausted, so no "interesting" stuff will occur any more. You'll still have some random brownian motion, but nothing from which you might extract some work. The reason is exactly the same as the reason why perpetual machines of the second kind are impossible: the 2nd law of thermodynamics.--Thomas Arelatensis 13:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If we are to assume the universe will eventually stop. Should we not assume it originally started? 82.217.41.25 09:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

---

:There are two possible answers to that question: 1: It started with the Big Bang 2: It started without the Big Bang. The second alternative is much easier to program. WFPM (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Villard de Honnecourt's device

Does anyone see how Villard de Honnecourt's device was supposed to work? It appears to be some sort of variation of the overbalanced wheel, but I don't see the overbalanced! Maury 00:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Air-powered car

An air-powered car has been presented by the discovery channel. If they can get an air compressor that is powered by the compressed air, it will potentially become a perpetual motion machine, will it not? 71.193.162.2 05:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)=Dragonryth

And compressed air is compressed by power of compressed air which is compressed by the power of compressed air which is compressed by the power of compressed air.See any inefficiency?

I don't actualy see any point in what you said. Looks like a random cycle of blabber to me. If you actualy watch the episode, you might get what I said.(It's called Futurecar) 71.193.162.2 04:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Compressed air requires around a 5hp motor to compress enough air to do 1hp worth of work. This is part of how you size air compressors when you buy them in industry (for large air tools). So, you are using far, far more "fuel" when you have an air powered car, because you had to do 5x the amount of work you are actually using. - Toastydeath 06:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Compressed air motors have been used, e.g. in torpedoes, where it is used to move pistons or a small turbine that moves the propeller in turn. There are also airguns and compressed air tools, but none of these uses has anything to do with "perpetual motion". Compressed air just works as a "clean" and convenient (for certain uses) energy storage and transfer medium. Compressing air on the other hands requires energy, and there's no way to compress it with 100% efficiency (actually, even 50% efficiency would be an accomplishment), let alone getting more energy out of it than was used to compress it. EpiVictor 01:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Just how impossible is impossible? 2

GaylordBumBum 20:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Is this an appropriate heading for an encyclopedia?

I don't know if it's appropriate, but it is funny. And on topic? Not sure how much it matters, seeing as 78.24% of the folks who visit this page are just here to insert whatever crackpot scheme they have for perpetual motion. You know, IF I PUT HAMPSTERS IN A BLENDER AND INCLUDE MAGNETS???? WILL THAT WORK1!! kind of thing. - Toastydeath 23:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

GaylordBumBum 23:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)But my point is that it does not appear to be the style of an encyclopedia entry. Can't we use something else?

Sure! What do you want to use? If you have an idea that you feel is more appropriate and still fits the material under the heading, you don't need permission to edit it. Go for it. If someone disagrees, they'll change it back and it will get discussed further here. Chances are, no one will revert you. - Toastydeath 23:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I was the person who put that heading there. I prefer it to the more prosaic title that's there now, but I don't propose to revert it. I suspect it's possible to do better than either. (If you look right up at the top of this talk page you'll see that when I put that heading in I remarked that it's probably possibly to come up with a better one.) Gareth McCaughan 01:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

demons?

"Yet the Second Law is not violated because the demons pay their entropy cost in the hidden (mirror) sector of the world." what the heck is this? should be removed, or at least clarified.

128.189.250.239 00:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)wilyolio

I find that it's pretty clearly explained farther up as part of the Maxwell's Demons thought experiment, which IS used in physics classes. I didn't write it, but having read the information preceding it, I have no trouble understanding it. - Toastydeath 04:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Newton's First Law and Constant motion

I think this page should make it clear that constant motion is possible (Newton's First Law), but that an object cannot generate useful energy as it does so. It's a very common misunderstanding that objects slowly run out of 'thrust' until they stop, I think this article should make the situation clearer to non physics experts. Not sure how I can word it though. --Uberisaac 18:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the first sentence in the article is patently incorrect. Who wrote that, Ptolemy?

What wiki used to say is better. "Perpetual motion machines (the Latin term perpetuum mobile is not uncommon) are a class of hypothetical machines which would produce useful energy in a way which would violate the established laws of physics."

However some sources state that perpetual motion isn't impossible as it is defined as constant motion (no violation of C of E as in Newtons first law), but it is a practical impossibility (at least on earth) due to air resistance and friction. As a result of this perpetual motion in an everyday situation is effectivly a violation of conservation of energy.

Personally I prefer the "perpetual motion is technically possible, but is usually associated with impossible violations of C of E" line. What do other people think?81.179.241.128 16:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As there's been no response I took it upon myself to make the changes. I don't think it's perfect but it is better than how it was. I've got a couple of links to back up the interpretation but I am not an experienced editor and don't know how to put them in. I don't think it's complete either, it needs extending so that it includes non-mechanical devices. http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=perpetual%20motion http://www.hp-gramatke.net/perpetuum/frame1.htm 81.178.211.117 20:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

balancing act

The perpetual motion "ferris wheel" could not work, as it would simply balance itself.

"is claimed to" versus "does" in classification

I've just reverted an edit that inserted "is claimed to" into the descriptions of the two "kinds" of PMM. Here's why: what determines whether something is of the first or the second kind is what it actually does, not what it's claimed to do. (It happens that there don't appear to be such things as PMMs of either kind, of course.) If I had something that converted heat into useful work and I said "Behold my wonderful perpetual motion machine, which produces energy without limit for anyone to use!" then it would be a PMM of the second kind even though the claims being made for it match the definition of a PMM of the first kind. Gareth McCaughan 17:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

in space

can perpetual motion happen in space?

No, not the type of perpetual motion that people "care" about. Many systems (black hole spin, in particular) are predicted to continually move/emit power long after the universe is predicted to end through one means or another. We can create truly frictionless systems here on earth if necessary, through the use of superfluid bearings. But, it isn't perpetual motion. - Toastydeath 03:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by perpetual motion, taken litterally (forever movement) yes. Taken in the way it is normally meant, more energy out than in, no.

what happens in space, stays in space ==Electricity== It was James Clerk Maxwell"s concept that Electricity might be the "fluid" that permitted the perpetual motion of the atoms that led him into the study of electricity that resulted in Maxwell's equations about electromagnetic fields. WFPM (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

reversing the process

If it were possible to make a device that produces more work than it operated on, could the perpetual motion process be reversed so instead of creating energy, it destroyed it?

No. - Toastydeath 14:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

One can mix hot and cold fluids OR run a heat engine on them. Just mixing them obviously destroys the potential but both methods have the same end product. 82.217.41.25 09:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Intro reworded

Someone put a false sentence into the intro that said words to the effect of "A perpetual motion machine would entail a device or system that when put into motion continued to move for a sustained period of time thus outputting much more energy than was put into it". This is wrong, newtons first law states that an object will remain in motion unless an outside force acts upon it, it wouldn't necessarily require a continuous supply of energy to keep an object in motion if there were no losses. I changed it so that it fitted in with the rest of the paragraphs theme

"New physics which would allow perpetual motion"

I removed this section:

* If hypothetical mirror matter exists, some Maxwell's demons can be made operational. Yet the Second Law is not violated because the demons pay their entropy cost in the hidden (mirror) sector of the world.
* Forms of pure energy (aka free energy) with no other relations of physics attached to it.

I don't know anything about mirror matter and cannot comment, but if this is something which really is taken seriously by physicists (which I kind of doubt), there should definitely be more than two sentences demonstrating this and some sort of reference. I'm assuming the second bulletpoint is referring to zero-point extraction, which as I understand it is generally regarded as pseudoscience. Regardless, this is all highly speculative at best and seems way too credulous in its lack of any qualification or skepticism, and in the headline's implication that these "would" allow perpetual motion (as opposed to "might hypothetically"). 71.248.179.8 02:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The quartz crystal on everyone's watch is a perpetual motion machine. The crystal oscillates at regular intervals with no acknowledged power applied. This could also be classified as an "Over-Unity" device.

• The quartz crystal oscillates because electricity is applied. That's (one reason) why your watch needs a battery. See Quartz_clock#Explanation and Piezoelectricity.

Increasingly scientists believe the power is drown from the "zero point energy" fields. Also know as "Dark Mater" or "Either". Google "zero point energy".. There are working examples of zero point batteries constructed of minerals. Plus many other proliferations of this such as Over-Unity motors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.250.5 (talk) 03:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• No, see above. The power is drawn from the battery in your watch. There are no over-unity motors nor "zero point" batteries. If you want to know why, read the article.

Third kind?

I have never heard about a "third kind" of perpetual motion machines. There are some Google hits, but they seem to be about machines using a zero Kelvin heat sink and a perfect Carnot cycle, not at all like what is described in this article. I think the one in this article is original research, and I plan to remove it. --Apoc2400 09:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong explanation for "Float Belt" in Gallery

In the text below the "Float Belt" picture in the gallery, it is explained as "because of friction and vapourisation of the water, the perpetual movement could not be done." I think this is wrong. The machine doesn't work because it required energy to push the floaters into the water at the bottom. --Apoc2400 09:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, every explaination in the gallery is wrong. For instance, the overbalanced wheel is supposed to work because the longer lever arm on one side (right in this case) means there is more force on that side of the wheel. Making matters worse, the sand version predates the arm version. Etc. Maury 18:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please correct the explainations if they are wrong. Thank you.--Vintei 18:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see now that the gallery was added just recently. That explains it. We will get explanations right with time. --Apoc2400 04:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

All of the explanations are flawed, some significantly. I'll put the right explanations in when I have time

The role of energy

Would anyone mind if I added a section (suggestions on names greatfully accepted) explaining how the understanding of the topic changed over time with increased understandings of physics? I think it would help the casual reader better understand the issues, as well as answer some obvious examples.

For instance, the woodcut at the top of the page doesn't work. However in the 1650s the tools for analyzing the problem were extremely limited. Even the understanding of forces, let alone energy, would likely be of limited use. For instance, people were well aware that water wheels generated significant force, but exactly how much was not widely understood, and especially the amount of force needed to power the pump. The later is related to the amount of water in the screw, so if the pump lifts the same water that falls, then water will never even reach the top of the pump before the force is more than the wheel can supply.

In a modern explaination the problem is obvious. The amount of energy needed to lift the water is the same as gained by letting it fall. But if one examines the apparatus you can see that the top of the pump is actually higher than the tray, so more energy is required. Additionally, the water only powers the wheel through a limited portion of the "free path". So even in the absence of friction, the system would quickly run out of water, pouring over the now-stationary wheel.

Does this sort of thing seem useful?

Maury 21:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This sort of thing would probably be more suited to the History of perpetual motion machines article.

But it's not really about history, it's about the physics. But I don't see any outpouring of interest, so I'll just drop it. Maury 14:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

How about "water fuel cell"

the article for water fuel cell links here. Perhaps there should be mention, at least of the patent awarded for this "perpetual machine". Tewner 19:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Waterfall

M. C. Escher's Waterfall seems to relate to prepetual motion very well. Should it be included? --Delta1989 21:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Though the painting is interesting, it is only an illusion of perspective made with lines in 2 dimensions. It doesn't really qualify as perpetual motion. It mostly a trigger for thought.I55ere (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Could be included in a potentially interesting "Perpetual motion machines in art" section or some-such, since PMMs can have metaphorical meaning in a fictional meaning that might be notable.

Obviously just creating the heading and sticking the image there is no good, someone would actually have to write a decent section on that to justify its inclusion, which I for one am not interested in doing and suspect others aren't either, but at the same time it would be an interesting addition to the article.

134.173.58.89 (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The "Overbalanced Wheel"

In the gallery at the bottom, for the Overbalanced Wheel, I have a question about the explanation. Is it meant to work how it says, by spinning clockwise because the weights on the right will spin "because of gravity", or is it meant to spin counter clockwise because their are twice as many weights on the left hand side as there are on the right hand side? JayKeaton 00:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Superconductors

Does current in superconductors warrant a mention? 129.46.148.92 22:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Consider this: would motion in vacuum or the constant magnetic field of a permanent magnet warrant a mention? EpiVictor 12:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Access to space was not an option 200 years ago, but now there is even an international space station where people conduct experiments and live. Does access to space haven an effect on the "laws" of perpetual motion? JayKeaton 20:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No, none of these things are perpetual motion machines or need to be mentioned. - Toastydeath 01:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

So perpetual motion isn't possible in a vacuum or in space, or it doesn't warrant a mention? JayKeaton 03:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes to both. Superconductors and superfluids are not perpetual motion machines, just very efficient storage/transfer devices, and they require input to function. There are still particles in space, and there is still drag. Just a teeny tiny amount. Those subjects are all covered by related wikipedia articles. Neither category should be mentioned, because they're just misinterpretations on the laws of physics, not efforts to create perpetual motion machines. - Toastydeath 06:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The quartz crystal on everyone's watch is a perpetual motion machine. The crystal oscillates at regular intervals with no acknowledged power applied. This could also be classified as an "Over-Unity" device.

Increasingly scientists believe the power is drown from the "zero point energy" fields. Also know as "Dark Mater" or "Either". Google "zero point energy".. There are working examples of zero point batteries constructed of minerals. Plus many other proliferations of this such as Over-Unity motors.

No. Quartz crystals are not perpetual motion machines. See Piezoelectricity → Frequency Standard. — NRen2k5 18:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Patent NonsenseKmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 17:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ubiquitous Energy section

The "ubiquitous energy" section needs a lot of clean up to be meaningful, and the heat pump stuff doesn't belong there at all. The question is, does any of it belong in this article? I'm tempted to just delete it.Prebys (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You gave no justification as to why it is "not meaningful". The point of the section, which screams out loud to any competent reader, is to introduce to the reader what is not perpetual motion, yet relies on tapping an source of heat that is exists in sense that cannot be considered as having some intrinsic temperature or some "heat reservoir" status, the chemical and nuclear energies of matter. With an article with so much pseudoscience, this might as well be thrown in to direct young readers to real sources of energy.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 17:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the concepts of entropy and thermodynamics can be (and are) generalized to atomic and nuclear reactions, so that any source of useful energy can be described using consistent language. Second, the first paragraph is a mischaracterization of the source of petroleum energy, or at least an oversimplification. While it's true that heavy elements form in supernovae, the chemical energy that's released when hydrocarbons are burned comes from the photosynthesis taking place in plants a few hundred million years ago (ie, from the sun), not directly from supernovae. The energy from supernovae is tapped directly during nuclear reactions (which are not mentioned). Finally, the factoid on heat pumps, while true, is ordinary thermodynamics, so it doesn't belong in this section. I'll see if I can improve the wording to make the section less opaque.Prebys (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 22:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Failed patents

I added Joseph Newman's failed patent under the Patent section. This is the only case I know of where a perpetual motion machine patent has gotten as far as being tested for a US patent. Are there any others?Prebys (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Searl effect generator"

I just removed the following, which was dumped into the middle of a paragraph: "However there is one device that has altered the use of the magnets and other techniques that causes perpetual energy with the use of magnets it is called the searl effect generator or (SEG)"; it's unclear, out of place in the middle of an explanation of something else, provides no information beyond "someone has given such-and-such a name to some unspecified kind of alleged PE device", and seems to endorse rather than merely mentioning its claims; and there's already an article on the "Searl effect generator", correctly enrolled in the "Perpetual motion machines" category.

It's possible (though I'm skeptical) that this article might be improved by a reference to the SEG article; I don't know how prominent the SEG is among those who believe in this sort of thing.

Gareth McCaughan (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

RED ELFS?

... radiant energy devices electrostatic longitudinal fields ...

... radiant energy devices extremely low frequency ...

... Grounded Electrodynamic tethers?

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) ...

J. D. Redding 18:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines

Can this be integrated and keep relevant items and removing inappropriate ones? J. D. Redding 18:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

FCC Stuff

That paragraph about hobbyists seems to be growing and it strikes me as non-sequitur. It's uncited (except for the relevant FCC rule). Unless someone can cite a case of this actually happening, I think it should be deleted.Prebys (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a section on RFI and the illegality of intentionally generating same should be added to the article on Tesla coils... a lot of "free energy" types seem to think that Tesla's lightning makers were somehow "overunity" devices. Jeh (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Patent 7,095,126

Yashaika just posted a bit about US patent 7,095,126. This appears be the motor->generator->motor device that every reasonably intelligent child "invents" at least once by age 12. I was convinced this was some kind of joke patent site, but it appears to be legit. What am I missing? Why on earth would the USPTO patent this thing?Prebys (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's legit... generally such things get in by NOT claiming perpetual motion, but some other characteristic. And they are hopelessly overburdened. It could likely be challenged on a "not useful" basis (an invention has to be useful to be patentable), but since it isn't useful, why bother? ;) Jeh (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It's legit (or else the USPTO website has been hacked), and language clearly claims it produces energy with no external power source, so I guess they were just asleep at the switch. After all, not all patent clerks are Einstein. Oh well, it's a nice one to keep one's back pocket as an example of just how meaningless patent is in this area.Prebys (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the violation? I would like to know? Plese point out the apsects (from the patent) that had them "asleep at the switch" ... thanks ...

I'll look at the claims of the patentand see if it says anything that would be meaningless in the real world ... seems a 'skeptical attack' and not real skepticism, JIMO. J. D. Redding 16:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read the patent? It clearly shows a motor running an alternator, which runs a motor. The abstract says "Once the system has started it is not necessary for the battery to supply power to the system. The battery can then be disconnected. The alternator and electric motor work in combination to generator electrical power.". If that's not a perpetual motion machine, I don't know what is.

Like I said, every reasonably intelligent child comes up with this idea before the age of 12, and many even try to build it (I know I did), so even completely ignoring the laws of physics, it's been established in thousands of experiments that it doesn't work (I assume we can at least agree on that??). Since the USPTO expressly doesn't patent perpetual motion machines without a working model, and there was clearly no working model, it's hard to justify granting this patent.

Reading it carefully, the only "weasel room" I can see is that it doesn't explicitly say the device keeps running after you disconnect the battery, it only implies it. Maybe that was the loophole.

Skepticism? No, this isn't skepticism, it's a simple statement of fact.Prebys (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The crucial thing to recognise about a patent is that it does not purport to show that the device works - or even could theoretically work. You can patent almost any old pile of junk. In the USA (in particular), a patent officer spend an AVERAGE 7 minutes on each patent application - which includes reading the patent, checking the references to prior art and doing the paperwork to pass or reject it. This average includes patents for things like important drugs that may take a team of officers many weeks of effort to approve - so you know for sure that a typical patent gets little more than a cursory glance. The fact that some device or process is patented proves nothing whatever. If the patent officer happens to notice that this is a patent for a perpetual motion device, he or she will probably reject it - but on a busy day, with appropriately obscure terminology and no outright claim of over-unity operation - the patent will almost certainly be granted. Here on Wikipedia, we have to be very clear about the occasions when a patent can be used as a reference. The only thing that the patent tells us is that the person named as the author did indeed claim these things to be true at the time they filed the patent. But that's about all a patent is worth in terms of information. SteveBaker (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

So of you don't have to show it works, could someone just patent a bunch of possible future technologies? Like a computer that can take voice commands and figure out what you mean, a teleportation device, flying cars, a way to communicate through brain waves, etc? I wouldn't know how to invent these things, but I'll patent them in case someone figures it out, then they'd have to pay ME! Adam Carolla (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

complete and consistent?

... using mathematical logic? A complete and consistent set of axioms for all of mathematics is impossible ... J. D. Redding 22:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to the reference to Noether's theorem, it does not require a "complete and consistent set of axioms for all of mathematics." It only requires the physical laws that govern the behavior of the machine or device in question to be constant. It doesn't require that they be known, either. Jeh (talk) 07:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No I am not inparticular ... just commenting on how many substituted mathematics for experiments and wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. J. D. Redding 16:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You are referring to Godel's theorem - and you appear to be the victim of a horrible misunderstanding of what it actually means. It doesn't mean that mathematics is wrong and it doesn't mean that mathematics cannot ever be trusted or used reliably. It simply means that there are some theorems that can neither be proven or disproven. Not all theorems - just some very weird ones. There are some very special kinds of theorems that mathematics is forced to shrug it's shoulders at and say "I don't know". Mathematics won't ever say that one of those is true when it's not or that it's false when it's really true - it'll simply be utterly unable to say whether it's true or not.

However, the mathematics that physicists use to back up the laws of thermodynamics (for example) are most definitely not of that kind. These are theorems in the class that can be proven...quite easily without any risk whatever of them ever being found to be false or dubious or flakey.

What Godel did to show that there are unprovable/undeniable theorems out there was to produce a piece of pure mathematics that (in effect) says "I am a theorem that is false". This is just like the more well-known Liar's paradox "Everything I say is lie"...if the theorem is true then it's false, if it's false then it's true. Mathematics can neither prove nor disprove that particular theorem...but it doesn't prevent us from asserting (for example) Pythagoras' Theorem with 100% certainty (for the set of axioms over which it's defined).

So if math can prove the theorem "perpetual motion is impossible"...then that theorem can't be in the set of weird unprovable/undeniable theorems that Godel got so excited about - precisely because it had been proved!

It's not even clear whether general-purpose theorems ever fall into the class of not-provable/not-deniable theorems. Every example we've found has been a variation of the liars' paradox (a 'diagonalization' argument). For example, Russell's paradox talks of the set of all sets that do not contain themselves. If that set contains itself then it doesn't - if it doesn't then it does. The theorem: "There exists a set that contains all sets that do not contain themselves" is therefore an ikky Godel thing that mathematics has to shrug and say "I don't know".

Just as the human mind - when faced with a paradox - cannot come up with a clear answer - the same is true of mathematics. That doesn't mean we don't sometimes know that something is definitely true or definitely false.

To put this more simply, Godel said that a formal logic system cannot be BOTH complete AND consistent. That doesn't mean that it can't be consistent. Mathematics is consistent - but in order to be consistent, it MUST be incomplete - and that incompleteness entails being unable to resolve the liar's paradox. You can change the 'axioms' of traditional mathematics to include the liar's paradox as an axiom. You could (for example) come up with a system of mathematics in which the statement "Everything I say is a lie" is defined to be true. Sadly, Godel then goes on to prove that such a system might be complete - but it would then be inconsistent...that comes as no surprise because a system that says "Everything I say is a lie" is true is kinda crazy...and there are bound to be inconsistancies. However, if you build a system that's admittedly incomplete - then it CAN be 100% consistent...and that's what traditional mathematics is. (That's why we call it "Godel's incompleteness theorem" and not "Godel's inconsistancy theorem").

SteveBaker (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

US Patent 7379286 Quantum Vacuum Energy Extraction

In preparation to go see a "real" perpetual motion machine, I was shown this patent which was filed called "US Patent 7379286". I know the patent offices have been getting patents like this by the hundreds (ie. US Patent 6362718, the Motionless electromagnetic generator) but apparently this one is related to the machine I will see. The inventor that I've been in contact with implied that Nassim Haramein's research was used in the making of this machine. I will be looking at it in more detail when I get the time. In the meantime, at the risk of repeating yourselves, show me whats wrong with it and whether it actually shows anything. Ace blazer (talk) 05:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to see an inventor's product you might start thinking about how to test his claims.

This might be some interesting reading ahead of time.... http://www.randi.org/joom/challenge-info.html http://www.randi.org/joom/million-dollar-challenge-blog/challenge-correspondance/the-perpetual-motion-parade-2.html

Think through a simple test that you might ask the invetor to demonstrate. I would love to see a simple 100 watt light bulb running off their machine for an extended period of time (without batteries attached of course).

I wouldnt bother trying to penetrate their patter / technical jargon. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Randi is a rather huge can-o-worms. He wants the inventor to sign away his rights before the tests. Not the rights to the invention, the rights to take Randi to court if anything happens.

There have been numerous people who tried to get an appointment but it never materialised.

What the challenge boils down to is inventors subjecting themselves to the Randi forums. Of course the consensus there is that calling people crank is uber.

Not a place most inventors would stick around. I'm sure you can read about the application process some place, see the examples. It's quite surprising.

Gdewilde (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be very difficult to why Randi would enter into an agreement wherein he would agree to pay $1M for a successful demonstration, and agree to be sued for a failed demonstration. The whole point of the challenge is to agree to a set of controls such that both parties agree to accept the outcome. For a true perpetual motion machine, this should not be difficult. Please cite references for your "numerous people who tried to get an appointment". I looked through the logs (which they've only kept online for the last few years), and the only perpetual motion machine claim I could find was this, where the JREF people clearly had the moral high ground. Presumably you have other expamples where they've been less reasonable? Prebys (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

So far the only response to this has been the Randi website. I'm feeling that something like WP:SNOWBALL is going on here: its as if I'm trying to get a response from the ArbComm. The use of zero point energy would technically not constitute a perpetual motion machine but still provide over-unity. Potentially a paradox. 207.34.120.71 (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually read zero point energy? I don't think you can have. It says (with a pretty decent reference) "Because zero point energy is the lowest possible energy a system can have, this energy cannot be removed from the system." - so, no - you can't extract energy from the vacuum. The machine can't work as claimed - and therefore there is no paradox. There are far too many so-called "inventors" who see the word "energy" and immediately leap to the conclusion that we have a route to limitless free energy. Clearly, those people never bother to read any further into the material. The patent you describe appears to be the consequences of an EXCEEDINGLY common error - the assumption that "Force" and "Energy" are the same thing. They are not - plenty of things in the universe exert forces without consuming, producing or containing energy. The Casimir effect is the hook onto which most of these "inventions" are hung - but the casimir effect is a FORCE. It's like the magnetic force - you can't extract energy from a magnet - even though it exerts a force. Ditto with the casimir effect. Hence, no vacuum energy, no zero point energy - no such thing as a free lunch. What's happening in this discussion is the consequence of the rules under WP:FRINGE that says that we MUST represent the mainstream view and avoid inflating the importance of fringe theorists by giving them undue weight. The mainstream view is that there is no such thing as the effect that this patent claims to use. I really wish the energies of these VERY energetic people were put into inventing better windmills or viable tidal power stations - what they are actually doing is simply a waste of human effort - and worse, it's deluding people into believing that we're just a stones' throw away from obtaining free energy when in reality, smart, thinking people have determined without any room for doubt that there aint no such thing. SteveBaker (talk) 06:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course I've read zero point energy but like most claims (and inventors), the possibility of using it is just dismissed as pseudoscience. What this patent says is that useful work CAN be extracted. More later on Casimir effect... Ace blazer (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

... Which also does not allow "over-unity" devices. Please respect the notice at the top of this page that it is to be reserved for proposed improvements to the associated article. As Wikipedia in general is not the place to change scientific consensus, I would like to archive this thread unless anyone else thinks that it is going somewhere. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Randi shouldn't be the authority to go to concerning such revolutionary devices. Randi is a better suited to be involved in certain child abuse cases.... as the suspect.

Wish you all good luck finding love. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SiriusAldebaran (talk • contribs) 13:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of the Term Impossible and Perpetual Motion: Reliability of Astronomical Evidence that the Laws of Physics are Constant

This generally well written article contains the following paragraph:

"Of course the universe does not have to conform to our belief of how it works. In this case it is easy to check whether or not the theory is correct. Using telescopes we can examine the universe in the distant past; the fact that stars even exist and are, to the limits of our measurements, identical to stars today, is a direct visual demonstration that physics was similar in the past. Combining different measurements such as spectroscopy, direct measurement of the speed of light in the past and similar measurements demonstrates conclusively that physics has remained substantially the same, if not identical, for all of observable history spanning billions of years."

This strikes me as problematic. The use of telescopes to observe the distant past assumes, for example, that the velocity of light and the nature of the Doppler Effect, are the same throughout space and time as what we observe on Earth today. Since these observation depend on the assumption that the laws of physics are relatively constant, they shouldn't be used to prove that fact. In addition to being quite dubious, this paragraph is apparently original research.

I don't really think the laws of nature are especially fickle, but this "demonstrates conclusively" language is too strong.0nullbinary0 (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

A simple change in the speed of light in the past would mess up our calculations of how far into the past we were looking.

One question: How? Give an example.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 22:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The doppler effect is a consequence of light being wave-like, it could only change BECAUSE the speed of light had changed.

Not true. Doppler effects do not require a change in the speed of light.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 22:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

So - if (for example) light moved more slowly in the past then we'd be looking further into the past than we thought.

Not necessarily the case. The slower moving of light could simply mean the objects were closer than we thought. For example, if the redshift of very distant galaxies was less than we expected based on its brightness and object type (in relation to the accepted model), then we could just begin with the assumption that the object has less redshift then we expected based upon the Big Bang model of the time, such that there could be something causing it to happen, like dark energy for instance, and of course, what I just said here also reflects the current situation in cosmology!Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 22:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

But if in making that observation, we find that the universe obeyed the same laws back then as it does now - then the precise AMOUNT of time we were looking into the past would not matter much. However, a change in something as fundamental as the speed of light would result in DRAMATIC changes in what we'd observe from that time - we wouldn't see the same spectral lines in light emitted from far distant objects as we do from those close to us - and that's simply not the case.

Is the PATTERN in the spectral line affected by the speed of light?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_level

Assume an electron in a given atomic orbital. The energy of its state is mainly determined by the electrostatic interaction of the (negative) electron with the (positive) nucleus. The energy levels of an electron around a nucleus are given by :

$E_{n}=-hcR_{\infty }{\frac {Z^{2}}{n^{2}}}\$,

where $R_{\infty }\$ is the Rydberg constant (typically between 1 eV and 10³ eV), Z is the charge of the atom's nucleus, $n\$ is the principal quantum number, e is the charge of the electron, $h$ is Planck's constant, and c is the speed of light.

The Rydberg levels depend only on the principal quantum number $n\$.

If the laws of physics are constant in the manner you suggest (regarding the frequency of radiation), then, any change in the speed of light may or may not affect the actual spectral pattern for specific chemical or nuclear events! Granted, if the only thing that is changing here is the speed of light, then I believe we should observe differences from actual observations. Since that is not the case, the only way the speed of light could change is if other things also change, so that the same spectral lines we observe would not be affected by a change in the speed of light.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 22:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

We can infer the speed of light in those far distant objects in dozens of ways that are independent of the time the light that carries that information takes to get to us.

Those ways must be consist with a constant speed of light. An obvious reason for this is that the light year is used to measure astronomical distances. That is not actually proof of the speed of light constancy in all regions of the universe. Rather, that they are used in such a way that does not violate c is consistent with the fact that no other speed of lights are assumed in their formulation.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 22:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That's how we know that the laws of physics and the fundamental constants (such as the speed of light) have not changed in all that time.

So your "problematic" argument is specious. We've tested the very things you think might screw up our measurements. If we're trying to measure the speed of light in the past - do you really think the scientists involved were too stupid to realise that the very means of observing would be affected by the result? I mean, really: DUH!

It would be nice to have a nice referenced quotation from a named scientist to this effect - but what has been said is not incorrect or untrue. It's mainstream science - it's not OR. It merely needs some better references. Sadly, this is true of at least 99% of Wikipedia.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The redshift is defined by our measure of the shift of the spectral lines relative to how the spectral lines are observed from chemical and nuclear reactions directly studied on Earth. The patterns of glowing Hydrogen on Earth match those in other Galaxies, although those have been shifted. The cause of that shifting is explained through an increase in the wavelength of light proportional to some factor, which is equal to (z+1), where z is the redshift. To determine the speed of a photon, you would need to know how long ago it was observed, how long ago it was formed, and how far between was the source at time of origination vs. the location of the observation point at observation. To determine the distance of the object, the various methods used in the cosmic distance ladder are to be used.

If the calculated distances and time in which the photons have traveled are the same regardless of the speed of light:

In that, even if the speed of light could be a trillion times faster in certain regions of space, it would not alter the chances that some galaxy is not as far, or close, as expert cosmologists think it is.

Then it can be shown that our measurements of distances and times in which the light travels is in fact independent the speed of light.

Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 21:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you completely miss the point. The speed of light is embedded in so many physics equations that the universe wouldn't be just a little bit different if 'c' changed - it would be RADICALLY different. Let me quote math.ucr.edu

The quantum theory of atoms tells us that these frequencies and wavelengths depend chiefly on the values of Planck's constant, the electronic charge, and the masses of the electron and nucleons, as well as on the speed of light. By eliminating the dimensions of units from the parameters we can derive a few dimensionless quantities, such as the fine structure constant and the electron to proton mass ratio. These values are independent of the definition of the units, so it makes much more sense to ask whether these values change. If they did change, it would not just be the speed of light which was affected. The whole of chemistry is dependent on their values, and significant changes would alter the chemical and mechanical properties of all substances. Furthermore, the speed of light itself would change by different amounts according to which definition of units you used. In that case, it would make more sense to attribute the changes to variations in the charge on the electron or the particle masses than to changes in the speed of light.

So we wouldn't just see different spectral lines for particular elements - we'd see completely different stable isotopes - wildly different basic chemistry and so forth. As for the doppler effect - it's a side-effect of the wave nature of light - it's not even a separate phenomenon - it's nature is locked to the speed of light - they aren't independent variables. SteveBaker (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now that's the type of satisfying answer I'm looking for. Thanks!Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 01:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough reply, Steve. After discussing this with some other former physics majors, I had reached the same conclusion. You're correct about the science, but I do want to answer this.

"If we're trying to measure the speed of light in the past - do you really think the scientists involved were too stupid to realise (sic) that the very means of observing would be affected by the result? I mean, really: DUH!"

Really, what scientists involved am I supposed to accord such respect? If there had been a solid citation in this section to begin with--some kind of evidence that scientists actually were involved--then I probably wouldn't have raised the issue. But unfortunately, enough people add their own clever-sounding but incorrect ideas to Wikipedia that we can't really give them the benefit of the doubt as you suggest. Citations are important; this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a message board.0nullbinary0 (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Laws of Perpetual Motion (Proposed) OPEN FOR DISCUSSION

See WP:OR and WP:RS. --Steve (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:RS. Commentary on a wikipedia talk page is never a "reliable source", even if you carefully explain everything and other editors discuss the ideas with you. --Steve (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, more specifically, please read WP:SYNTH. --Steve (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This kind of nonsense is PRECISELY why we have the No Original Research rule as one of our core principles. If everyone who has a wild-assed theory on a boring Sunday afternoon got to stick it into an article, the place would be a total mess. The act of convincing scientists that this is indeed a valid theory - and then getting it published in a peer reviewed journal - is a CRUCIAL part of the scientific process. Once you've done that - come back and point out your article and we'll be only too happy to write about it. If you can't get science journals to publish your article - then you should ask yourself why that is? The answer is - there are severe problems with your theory. If I could be bothered, I could pull your theory into tiny little shreds - it simply won't stand up to close investigation. Let's take just ONE of your statements:

"The First Law of Perpetual Motion takes into account that the Second Law of Thermodynamics ignores the effects of self gravity."

What is this "self" gravity? The gravity an object applies to itself? It's no different from any other gravity. Stars collapse under their own "self gravity" into black holes. Yeah - science knows ALL about that - and the laws of thermodynamics have not been in any way invalidated by thet. Well, it doesn't matter. The laws of thermodynamics are about ENERGY. Gravity is a FORCE. By far the most common error made by self-taught free-energy/perpetual motion people is to confuse the meaning of FORCE with ENERGY as you just did. They are totally - UTTERLY different phenomena. This confusion explains why so many people think they can extract energy from the force of gravity, magnets etc - and it explains why they are all wrong! So it doesn't matter what you're saying here - gravity isn't relevent to thermodynamics because it's a FORCE and thermodynamics is about ENERGY. So - there you go - shredded - a meaningless proposition. I promise I can do this with every single sentence you wrote in your long diatribe above. It's ALL utter nonsense, OK. If you'd like to be physicist, first you need to get familiar with the body of work you're writing about. Now - go read some physics textbooks - I recommend "Feynman's Lectures on Physics" - volumes one through three.

Let me remind you of the quote in the article:

"The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation. — Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)"

Yes - this means you!

SteveBaker (talk) 03:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Jehkque,

Your unorthodox theories may have merit--they may even be entirely right--but even so, Wikipedia is not the proper forum for promoting them. That is why nobody will address the claims in detail here, it has nothing to do with bias. The people who created Wikipedia have very specifically said that it is not intended as a vehicle for original research, and we ought to respect their wishes. Start your own website! Don't try to turn Wikipedia into your own private forum.0nullbinary0 (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Perpetual motion of third kind

Article says: "A perpetual motion machine of the third kind would try to violate the third law of thermodynamics, which says that nothing can be cooled to absolute zero and that entropy approaches zero as the temperature of a system approaches absolute zero."

I have such a machine. It's called ice, which any condensed-matter physicist knows has extensive zero-point entropy. I don't have the reference for this paragraph, so I'm reluctant to delete it, but it's certainly incorrect as written. --Steve (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I found some sources which all used a different definition of "PM of the third kind", cited them, and rewrote the section accordingly. It seems that more than one definition is in use, assuming Schadewald was described correctly. --Steve (talk) 03:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly like that sentence either - but it's not wrong.

I have no clue what you're talking about with "ice" - are you perhaps confusing zero degrees centigrade with zero degrees absolute? That would be an exceedingly bad error!!! Absolute zero is at −273.15 degrees centigrade. Ice is at or below zero degrees centigrade. Do you REALLY think the third law (which has been around for at least 100 years) would have survived that long without some scientist saying "Er...hey chaps...what about ice?" - at which point everyone slaps their foreheads and gives him a nobel prize! No...Ice is nowhere near cold enough to breach the third law. Absolute zero is the coldest anything could ever be colder than liquid nitrogen, colder than absolutely anything could ever be. It represents a state in which an object has no thermal energy whatever. Only at absolute zero could some hypothetical perpetual motion machine be able to avoid losing energy to "entropy". The third law says you can't ever take away that very list teeny-tiny bit of heat from an object and reach absolute zero. If you can't reach absolute zero then perpetual motion is impossible.

At absolute zero temperature of an atom the internal components are still in motion. And since there's no such thing as absolute zero translational motion, I dont see where the translational motion of the atom has anything to do with anything, unless there is a system of things with different amounts of translational motion where the laws of physics and thermodynamics then applies. WFPM (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason I dislike that sentence is that it's unnecessarily obscure. IMHO, it's enough to say that the much simpler first law is broken. If something theoretically breaks even one law of thermodynamics then it's impossible. It really doesn't matter what other laws it breaks...and in fact, I think it would be hard for a theoretical machine could possibly break just one of the laws - they are tightly related from a mathematical perspective. We only have to say "It breaks the laws of thermodynamics" - that's enough.

Please don't jump to conclusions and start messing with the article if you misunderstand the subject matter to such a huge degree!

SteveBaker (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

See the article residual entropy, which explains this. I gave the example of ice (see Ice_Ih#Proton_disorder), but there are other examples too, e.g. glasses. Anyway, the crystal structure of ice is such that there are a huge number of different states with the same, exactly-minimal energy. Thus, even at absolute zero, there is a finite entropy associated with an ice crystal.

I'm not disputing the third law of thermodynamics. I'm saying that the article mis-stated the law. Here's the definition from Kittel and Kroemer's book "Thermal Physics".

The entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches zero.... Except for glasses, there would not be any objection to affirming that [the entropy at zero kelvin] is essentially zero. Glasses have a frozen-in disorder, and for them [the entropy at zero kelvin] can be substantial, of the order of [kB times] the number of atoms....

Again, the entropy of a system does not necessarily go to zero at zero kelvin. The article was incorrect in stating otherwise. --Steve (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

SteveBaker your statement "If you can't reach absolute zero then perpetual motion is impossible." is petitio principii and is logical fallacy. Jehkque (talk) 06:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You're both misreading. It's true that there can still be entropy at absolute zero - but it's also true that there cannot be NO entropy UNLESS your at absolute zero - and that's what matters if you're trying to do perpetual motion. Hence, if you can't reach absolute zero, you still have some entropy kicking around - so no perpetual motion unless you're at absolute zero...and you can't be. SteveBaker (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, the article, before I changed it, said "entropy approaches zero as the temperature of a system approaches absolute zero." I wasn't misreading, the article was incorrect.

I don't understand why if you could (hypothetically) have a system with exactly zero entropy at finite temperature, then "perpetual motion" is possible. Could you explain this in more detail? I have a box whose contents are at a finite temperature but zero entropy. What do I do with this box to make a perpetual motion machine? I'm not being skeptical, just curious. (Presumably this is explained in Schadewald? I don't have a copy.)

I'm also not sure exactly how the statement "systems at finite temperature have positive entropy" relates to the third law of thermodynamics. I guess it's an indirect consequence of the third law for a system with positive heat capacity, but who says heat capacity can't be zero? --Steve (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Entropy is almost a BS concept. How many definitions are there for zero entropy anyway? How many for entropy itself? "I don't understand why if you could (hypothetically) have a system with exactly zero entropy at finite temperature, then "perpetual motion" is possible." is a valid statement, I agree. Heat capacity can also be negative. google it.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 11:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, I wouldn't agree that entropy is "almost a BS concept". It's been perfectly understood by physicists since the invention of statistical mechanics. Perhaps you weren't taught it well. --Steve (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What is zero entropy?Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 15:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

See Entropy (statistical thermodynamics). Zero entropy is when there is a single (and nondegenerate) microstate that is consistent with the macrostate (pressure, temperature, etc.) of the system. At absolute zero temperature, a typical crystalline solid has zero entropy because, in the ground state, each atom is stuck in a specific, well-defined location. At positive temperatures, there are always excited states that the system can be in, but if all the excited states require much more energy than the ground state (compared to kB * T), then the entropy can be arbitrarily close to zero. Anyway, I was asking SteveBaker about the relation of these ideas to perpetual motion; I have no problem with entropy itself, which has precise definition in statistical mechanics. --Steve (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Perpetual motion would require a universe that always returns to a low entropy state, no matter how high the entropy becomes. A forever cyclical universe would be a form of perpetual motion. Perpetual motion is impossible in an always expanding universe that follows the cosmological principle, or any other group of observations which require overall progress towards a global thermodynamic equilibrium. In order for us to return to the primordial state of the universe, the process of converting mass-energy into radiative energy would have to be reversed, requiring that radiation have some tendency to meet an uncertain, unseen area in the universe where their intensity is great enough to produce subatomic particles.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 16:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be getting off-topic. --Steve (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Just when I thought some one might mention something really relevant like Bose–Einstein condensates.--OMCV (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a state near absolute zero is a case against perpetual motion. Quote: "A perpetual motion machine of the third kind would try to violate the third law of thermodynamics, which says that nothing can be cooled to absolute zero and that entropy approaches zero as the temperature of a system approaches absolute zero." What kind of "perpetual motion machine" would be cooled to absolute zero? Why would no energy be unavailable at absolute zero (i.e. how the hell could all energy be available at absolute zero)? This is nonsense.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 19:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Universal perpetual motion

Is it not worth pointing out in this article that the entire universe is in a constant state of perpetual motion, all atoms and subatomic particles are constantly vibrating if nothing else. It would link to a very important principal of physics. If this point is not made here, then where in wikipedia is the point made? Flumstead (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This article here is about "perpetual motion" in the sense of "perpetual motion machines, violating laws of thermodynamics". It's not about all (or really any) other meaning of that phrase. And it's really (or at least not obviously) not true that "everything in the universe is in a state of perpetual motion" neither in the common-langauge meaning nor in the specific definition of terms used here in this very article. To have that sort of sentence be correct and useful to the reader, need to explain it in some detail, which gets off-topic for a page about perpetual-motion machines. Two quick illustrations of the problem:

1. "The rock is just sitting there."--it's not readily apparent that everything only means on an atomic scale or at least as measured on an atomic scale, so it needs to be well-clarified if we mean "maybe only atomic vibrations".
2. Given how we explicitly define P.M. and then go into detailed and cited explanation of why it's totally impossible, it's pretty obvious that nothing anywhere on any scale is in that state per definition. If we mean "motion that doesn't stop or is continuous", that's a different meaning of "perpetual" entirely, so it's off-topic for this article here.

As it says at the top, "For other uses, see Perpetual motion (disambiguation)." If there are other meanings for "perpetual motion" other than the thermodynamically-impossible one, they would get linked from there. Conversely, the whole "Basic principles" section does explain why motion of the type that is relevant to the topic of this page cannot be perpetual within the scope/meaning of this page and seems well-linked to the various related physics articles. DMacks (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not an "important principal of physics", it's nonsense. Sleep better, eat healthier and read postmodernist pseudoscientists less -- or better yet, not at all. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I took out "Whilst everything in the universe is understood to be in a state of perpetual motion" which seems to have been added against the (apparent) consensus shown here. I also removed "or while avoiding losing energy to friction and air resistance." from the end of the intro because the essential point made is that friction and air resistance aren't avoidable in any real system or device. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.66.121 (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)