PDA

View Full Version : Is Perpetual Motion Possible?



Canmoore
29 Jul 06,, 21:09
Science tells us that it is impossible, however people have always been curious about the possibility of making a perpetual motion device.

For those of you who dont know what Perpetual Motion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion) is (italics are taken from wikipedia)

As defined: Perpetual motion refers to a condition in which an object moves forever without being driven by an external source of energy

The reason why science prooves that Perpetual motion is impossible, is because it breaks two laws of physics.

First law of thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics): The increase in the internal energy of a thermodynamic system is equal to the amount of heat energy added to the system minus the work done by the system on the surroundings.

and

Second law of thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics): The entropy of an isolated system not at equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value. or in laymans terms Heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a hotter body.

However, science is always breaking new barriers and challenging previously unchallalangable laws...such as the earth being round, Theory of Evolution, Space travel..

Do you or dont you believe that Perpetual Motion is possible?

Confed999
29 Jul 06,, 21:12
Given enough time and space, anything is possible. :)

ArmchairGeneral
30 Jul 06,, 00:59
Theoretically speaking, I don't know of a reason why perpetual motion could not occur in an isolated system. We do know how to make a frictionless, or nearly frictionless liquid- one of the forms of liquid helium has no detectable friction, IIRC. If one could build a super insulated capsule with a pendulum lubricated with liquid helium, and shoot it off into deep intergalactic space, where gravity would drag on it and there's not much electromagnetic energy to heat the helium up, I expect we could keep the pendulum going for, say, a few billion years at least.

Of course, this is completely different from the popular notion of perpetual motion, which involves the machine involved performing work on some other object. This most certainly defies the laws of physics. Note, however, that laws of physics are merely descriptions of what we observe to be happening in nature. We devise theories to explain the observations contained in these laws, but if the laws are not valid because our observations are innaccurate, the theories are called into question. There is, however, no reason that I know of to expect that the laws in question will be disproved.

Canmoore
30 Jul 06,, 01:47
If one could build a super insulated capsule with a pendulum lubricated with liquid helium, and shoot it off into deep intergalactic space, where gravity would drag on it and there's not much electromagnetic energy to heat the helium up, I expect we could keep the pendulum going for, say, a few billion years at least.

but doing this would require an external energy source, so right there, it is not a true perpetual motion device.

ArmchairGeneral
30 Jul 06,, 05:09
but doing this would require an external energy source, so right there, it is not a true perpetual motion device.
No, it requires an initial input of energy, which any perpetual motion device would need. Even the most optimistic of daydreamer inventors assumed that you would have to pull a lever or something to get their invention to start. The difference is that a perpetual motion device can run on that initial energy input forever, rather than requiring continuous energy input to provide continuous motion. All it requires is that all sources of resistance are removed. According to Newton, objects in motion tend to stay in motion. It requires an external force to stop them. In the real world, there is always an external force, generally friction, that causes the machine to do work, thereby expending energy, thereby dissipating the energy of the system and causing it to eventually stop.

Space probes are probably the closest we have gotten to perpetual motion yet. Voyager will probably keep on going 'till it runs into a star, a very large external force. If not, it will eventually stop due to gravitational drag, or the infinitesimal drag of the near vacuum of space will slow it to a stop. Or, if it's lucky, it'll keep on going until the Big Whimper, or whatever happens at the end of the universe.

dalem
30 Jul 06,, 20:50
Entropy demands that no such thing as "perpetual motion" can exist.

-dale

Bill
25 Aug 06,, 19:56
There's no way to make a true perpetual motion machine, but using powerful magnets we can make a machine that once started will power itself for a very long time, producing useful energy throughout it's lifetime.

The USN had such engines they were playing with in the 60s. So far as i know the patent was bought up by an oil company and buried.(at least, that's the rumor, i've never really looked into it)

gunnut
25 Aug 06,, 20:01
Zombies are perpetual motion machines. They just keep going and going and going even without eating any brains. Watch Dawn of the Dead and you'll see what I mean.

gunnut
25 Aug 06,, 20:03
The USN had such engines they were playing with in the 60s. So far as i know the patent was bought up by an oil company and buried.(at least, that's the rumor, i've never really looked into it)

I bet the same people who said this also believe in internal combustion engine running on water. The only reason we don't have this is because the oil companies are keeping it from us.

I'm 100% serious. I actually know a leftist commie socialist hippie tree hugger who believes this crap.

Bill
25 Aug 06,, 20:24
Well the machine itself is quite simple and would obviously work.

It's a matter of mounting four donut shaped magnets on a non-magnetic pole (outer two fixed, inner two sliding on said pole) with their polarities opposed.

When you push the two center magnets together they will repulse, and then when they get to the edges of the central pole they'll repulse agianst the fixed magnets, and they'll be driven back to the center, where they'll once again repel, etc, etc, etc until the magnets wear out.

If you attatch a rod to the inner magnets, they can do work 'almost' for free, and for a very long time.

highsea
25 Aug 06,, 20:56
Friction would cause them to reach a static equilibrium long before the magnets were demagnetized. Even if you suspended them in a frictionless magnetic field, induction would cause them to find an equilibrium pretty quickly.

Dale is right. 2LOT means no perpetual motion machine is possible- even the universe itself will wind down someday.

Bill
26 Aug 06,, 02:08
Friction would cause them to reach a static equilibrium long before the magnets were demagnetized. Even if you suspended them in a frictionless magnetic field, induction would cause them to find an equilibrium pretty quickly.

Dale is right. 2LOT means no perpetual motion machine is possible- even the universe itself will wind down someday.

Apparently not dude, because the engines worked(after a fashion). Me pappy saw one operated when he was in the USN in the late sixties.

Like this one:

"June 30, 2004
Perendev is Tooling Up for Magnetic Motor Mass Production in Europe

All-magnet motor poised to be first to reach market. German manufacturer licensed to manufacture 20 kw unit for Europe and Russia. Estimated cost for first units: $8500 Euros."

There is a full description with video on the website.(follow link)

http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2004/06/30/6900029PerendevPowerMagneticMotor/index.html

A snippet or two:

"A German company has licensed the manufacturing and marketing rights for all of Europe and Russia, excluding the U.K., and is in process of tooling up to begin mass production. Two other groups are in process of negotiating licensing terms with from Perendev. One is in the U.K., for rights to manufacture and market in the U.K., and the other is in Australia, for rights down under.

Brady brought a prototype to the Germans in mid March, and said they have been testing it since that time. The prototype has been undergoing testing by TÜV, a German consumer quality control agency."

There are links to follow up stories on the site too. :)

And perendev's website:
http://www.perendev-power.com/

I have NO IDEA if any of these things work...and am not endorsing any of them.

Here's a two hour lecture on the topic:
http://forums.hypography.com/49391-post8.html

Bill
26 Aug 06,, 02:47
And the ultimate 'prize'(folly?):

Magnetic engines for hyperspace travel:

http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=16902006

Welcome to Mars express: only a three hour trip
IAN JOHNSTON SCIENCE CORRESPONDENT

AN EXTRAORDINARY "hyperspace" engine that could make interstellar space travel a reality by flying into other dimensions is being investigated by the United States government.

The hypothetical device, which has been outlined in principle but is based on a controversial theory about the fabric of the universe, could potentially allow a spacecraft to travel to Mars in three hours and journey to a star 11 light years away in just 80 days, according to a report in today's New Scientist magazine.

The theoretical engine works by creating an intense magnetic field that, according to ideas first developed by the late scientist Burkhard Heim in the 1950s, would produce a gravitational field and result in thrust for a spacecraft.

Also, if a large enough magnetic field was created, the craft would slip into a different dimension, where the speed of light is faster, allowing incredible speeds to be reached. Switching off the magnetic field would result in the engine reappearing in our current dimension.

The US air force has expressed an interest in the idea and scientists working for the American Department of Energy - which has a device known as the Z Machine that could generate the kind of magnetic fields required to drive the engine - say they may carry out a test if the theory withstands further scrutiny.

Professor Jochem Hauser, one of the scientists who put forward the idea, told The Scotsman that if everything went well a working engine could be tested in about five years.

However, Prof Hauser, a physicist at the Applied Sciences University in Salzgitter, Germany, and a former chief of aerodynamics at the European Space Agency, cautioned it was based on a highly controversial theory that would require a significant change in the current understanding of the laws of physics.

"It would be amazing. I have been working on propulsion systems for quite a while and it would be the most amazing thing. The benefits would be almost unlimited," he said.

"But this thing is not around the corner; we first have to prove the basic science is correct and there are quite a few physicists who have a different opinion.

"It's our job to prove we are right and we are working on that."

He said the engine would enable spaceships to travel to different solar systems. "If the theory is correct then this is not science fiction, it is science fact," Prof Hauser said.

"NASA have contacted me and next week I'm going to see someone from the [US] air force to talk about it further, but it is at a very early stage. I think the best-case scenario would be within the next five years [to build a test device] if the technology works."

The US authorities' attention was attracted after Prof Hauser and an Austrian colleague, Walter Droscher, wrote a paper called "Guidelines for a space propulsion device based on Heim's quantum theory".

Bill
26 Aug 06,, 02:52
A Potential Breakthrough in Quantum Gravity (the science behind magnetic hyperdrive)

Saturday, March 25th, 2006

An effect that far exceeds what would be expected under Einstein’s theory of General Relativity has been produced in a laboratory. The fact that the effect — the gravitational equivalent of a magnetic field — is one hundred million trillion times larger than what General Relativity predicts has raised the eyebrows of more than a few researchers. But Martin Tajmar (ARC Seibersdorf Research GmbH, Austria) says that three years and 250 experimental runs have gone into this work, and encourages other physicists to examine and verify it.

If confirmed, the new findings could be a key result in the search for a quantum theory of gravity. We know that a moving electrical charge creates a magnetic field, and General Relativity assumes that a moving mass likewise generates a gravitomagnetic field, one that should, by the tenets of GR, be all but negligible. To test this, Tajmar and colleague Clovis de Matos (European Space Agency HQ, Paris) used a ring of superconducting material rotating 6500 times per minute. From an ESA news release:

Spinning superconductors produce a weak magnetic field, the so-called London moment. The new experiment tests a conjecture by Tajmar and de Matos that explains the difference between high-precision mass measurements of Cooper-pairs (the current carriers in superconductors) and their prediction via quantum theory. They have discovered that this anomaly could be explained by the appearance of a gravitomagnetic field in the spinning superconductor (This effect has been named the Gravitomagnetic London Moment by analogy with its magnetic counterpart).

The result: acceleration sensors placed close to the spinning superconductor show an acceleration field that seems to be produced by gravitomagnetism. In other words, a superconductive gyroscope seems to be capable of generating a gravitomagnetic field, making it the gravitational counterpart of the magnetic coil used in Michael Faraday’s classic experiment of 1831. In that groundbreaking work, Faraday moved a magnet through a loop of wire and observed electric current flowing in the wire, thus demonstrating electromagnetic induction.

Despite being far vaster than what General Relativity predicts, the effect is nonetheless just 100 millionths of the acceleration due to Earth’s gravitational field. It could, nonetheless, represent a breakthrough in engineering acceleration fields. “If confirmed, this would be a major breakthrough,” says Tajmar, “it opens up a new means of investigating general relativity and its consequences in the quantum world.”

Further research and confirmation of these findings will be a fascinating process to watch. The results were presented on March 21 at ESA’s European Space and Technology Research Centre in the Netherlands. The two papers to study right now are:

Tajmar, Martin, F. Plesescu, K. Marhold, and Clovis J. de Matos, “Experimental Detection of the Gravitomagnetic London Moment,” submitted to Physica C and available here.

Tajmar, Martin and Clovis J. de Matos, “Local Photon and Graviton Mass and its Consequences,” submitted to International Journal of Modern Physics D, available here.

-------------------

Marc Millis on Hyperspace Propulsion

Centauri Dreams asked Marc Millis, former head of NASA’s Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project, for his thoughts on so-called hyperspace propulsion, as recently published in an article called “Take a Leap into Hyperspace” (New Scientist, 5 January 2006). The article has received wide coverage because of its sensational implication that we may be much closer to a breakthrough in interstellar propulsion than anyone realized. And as discussed here in the last few days, it draws on the work of the German theoretician Burkhard Heim and the later refinements of Walter Dröscher and Jochem Häuser.

Millis’ response follows. But he leads it off with this qualification: “My assessments below are only a cursory response rather than the result of a full technical review. If I had done a full technical review, I would have submitted it to a journal. Given the level of interest, however, and the habit that many of us have to jump to conclusions (pro or con), I thought I should comment.”

With that necessary provisio, the podium belongs to Marc Millis:

First, there are many different approaches in the literature related to breakthrough propulsion, not just this one. Each is at a very early stage of inquiry. As much as we’d like the final answer NOW if any of these will lead to a real interstellar craft, that question cannot yet be reliably answered. Instead, we should be asking: “What do we work on next; what is the next step?” This is the context in which I’ve framed my comments.

On this particular approach, where Dröscher and Häuser build on the theories of Heim to suggest propulsive effects, the next logical step is to verify the assertion that the Heim theory correctly predicts the masses of subatomic particles; this assessment should be carried out in the open peer-reviewed literature so that the results and its verification are traceable (instead of by anecdote). A confirmation of this assertion, by itself, would be significant. Since this task only requires analysis, instead of experiment, this should not be too costly for the advocates to support themselves.

For those advocating the Heim theory, it would also be very useful to have a more tutorial version of Heim’s derivations (and in English) to help the greater community understand precisely what is being done. From the German 1977 paper and other text I read, I only found the assertions without the step-by-step explanations for how these were developed. The existing publications are insufficient to convey the theory.

Also, it should not be forgotten that the Heim theory and its propulsive implications are two separate issues. It seems that Dröscher and Häuser reintroduced dimensions into the Heim theory that Heim had dismissed, so even if the mass prediction claims of Heim are confirmed, there is no guarantee that the modified theory would, itself, be valid. Having this conversion step explained, and in the form of a peer-reviewed paper, would be quite helpful. As it is, I could not follow the details myself in my quick scans of the papers.

Regarding experimental tests: As much as I am a strong advocate for experimental tests, there is the issue of relative cost. Again, there are other options out there that might be worthy of support. With the Dröscher-Häuser experiments, I could not tell if their experiment was the least-expensive approach to validate (or falsify) their theory. When competing with lesser-cost options, this will be an issue. I strongly recommend that any experimental proposal be designed to be the lowest-cost experiment sufficient to clearly falsify or support the theory.

And this brings me back to the issue of the other options and research funding. Although I still track such developments in my discretionary time, the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project is no longer funded and I know of no other group within NASA that is authorized, qualified, and funded to support such on-the-edge propulsion physics. There are pockets of activity scattered across government, industry, and academia, but these are typically small discretionary efforts. If it turns out that there are any funding sources interested in such breakthroughs, I’d recommend having a competitive research solicitation to help identify the best prospects.

For those who do not already know, I recently published overviews of the approaches that I know about, including the work that NASA and others supported. But even these papers do not encompass all the possibilities. I also published a paper on the management methods for dealing with such visionary and provocative prospects in a constructive manner, including the criteria for competitive solicitations. I hope you find these useful:

(1) Summary of options:
Marc G. Millis, Prospects for Breakthrough Propulsion From Physics, NASA TM-2004-213082 (2004 May)

(2) Management methods:
Marc G. Millis, Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project: Project Management Methods, NASA TM-2004-213406 (2004 Dec.)

(3) Options, methods, and estimating benefits:
Marc G. Millis, “Assessing Potential Propulsion Breakthroughs”, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, (due out early 2006).

In closing:

This Dröscher-Häuser-Heim approach is in such an early stage of development that it is premature to judge its viability. Fortunately, relatively low-cost next-steps could be taken by its proponents to help others assess the prospects, such as confirming (in the open literature) the ability of the Heim theory to predict the masses of subatomic particles, and showing the derivations and equations necessary to comprehend the other assertions.

Also, it is important to remember that there are many other approaches out there. The best way to determine which of these might merit support is to conduct a competitive research solicitation. There is no NASA funding planned for such an assessment in the foreseeable future.

Centauri Dreams note: Those who continue to follow developments in deep space propulsion will already be familiar with the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project. BPP looked at such controversial topics as gravity control, space drives, faster-than-light travel, and vacuum energy, and did so in a credible and efficient manner. For a total investment of only $1.6M spread over 1995 to 2002, this project produced 14 peer-reviewed journal articles, addressed 8 different research approaches, posted an award winning Web site called Warp Drive When, and garnered over 100 positive press articles for NASA.

Since funding for BPP was deferred in 2003, Millis has been actively pursuing the creation of a foundation that can serve as an alternate venue to continue and enhance research and public education toward practical interstellar flight. Centauri Dreams will have more on this work as it develops. For now, background information on the foundation (including a document outlining its charter) may be found here.

Bill
26 Aug 06,, 02:54
All i can say....its' a good thing not everyone dismisses crazy ideas out of hand.

Or we'd still be riding horses.

A slew more articles on the magnetic hyperdrive(and a validated solar-magnetic plasma drive NASA is considering for manned trips to mars)

http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=16902006

joey2
26 Aug 06,, 17:10
u cannot have a perpetual motion like tht.first we need is a frictionless inertial system which can accelerate for infite time upon the application of a single force.
this kind of system is very much in dreamland in the exa-universal system. but deep down inside who knows how some unknown particles behaving or behaves.. :)

dalem
26 Aug 06,, 18:28
u cannot have a perpetual motion like tht.first we need is a frictionless inertial system which can accelerate for infite time upon the application of a single force.
this kind of system is very much in dreamland in the exa-universal system. but deep down inside who knows how some unknown particles behaving or behaves.. :)

First we need people to communicate in complete sentences.

-dale

Harish Kumar
29 Aug 06,, 20:44
You dont really need a perpetual motion machine.What you need is just a machine that does a lot of work for very little input.The birdie which drinks endlessly a toy we see in most houses is a good example of a near perpetual motion machine and that should be enough.It would be great even if we just found some gift motion machines , which use inexhaustible natural forces to do work , eg: hydroelectric power station under waterfalls , solar sails , etc...

Bill
31 Aug 06,, 00:29
You dont really need a perpetual motion machine.What you need is just a machine that does a lot of work for very little input.The birdie which drinks endlessly a toy we see in most houses is a good example of a near perpetual motion machine and that should be enough.It would be great even if we just found some gift motion machines , which use inexhaustible natural forces to do work , eg: hydroelectric power station under waterfalls , solar sails , etc...
That's what the magnet motors supposedly are- very low power input force amplifiers.

highsea
31 Aug 06,, 19:41
Anything that puts out more than you put in is by definition a perpetual motion machine. IOW, it is a violation of 2LOT.

Like the country bumpkin said when he saw his first giraffe at the zoo: "There ain't no sich animal."

Hydropower is "free energy", because we don't pay the sun to shine. But even the sun is not a perpetual motion machine.

Dreadnought
01 Sep 06,, 17:58
Science tells us that it is impossible, however people have always been curious about the possibility of making a perpetual motion device.

For those of you who dont know what Perpetual Motion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion) is (italics are taken from wikipedia)

As defined: Perpetual motion refers to a condition in which an object moves forever without being driven by an external source of energy

The reason why science prooves that Perpetual motion is impossible, is because it breaks two laws of physics.

First law of thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics): The increase in the internal energy of a thermodynamic system is equal to the amount of heat energy added to the system minus the work done by the system on the surroundings.

and

Second law of thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics): The entropy of an isolated system not at equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value. or in laymans terms Heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a hotter body.

However, science is always breaking new barriers and challenging previously unchallalangable laws...such as the earth being round, Theory of Evolution, Space travel..

Do you or dont you believe that Perpetual Motion is possible?


What about a compass yes it reads an ouside magnetic source but its the natural "pole" of the earth and its rotation? :confused:

FOG3
02 Sep 06,, 00:15
A compass has an external force acting on it creating the impulse.

The closest thing we have to a Perpetual Motion machine is a pendulum. The basic idea is no loss of KE, which is impossible as no process can be 100% efficient nevermind have greater efficiency, according to thermodynamics. It's not really possible to get closer then a pendulum in minimizing inefficiencies, sorry.

It doesn't have to do with the fact your car will require refueling and maintenance preventing it from running indefinitely, which is analogous to a compass as you used it.

The Chap
19 Oct 06,, 21:20
"Perpetual" is the key. As has quite rightly been alluded, it is in theory possible to create a device that will simply continue to function within a closed environment until such environment ceases to exist. "Perpetual" suggests, nay requires, an open system in positive and negative temporal terms thus necessitating a steady state universe.

Even within the bubble universe that is The Orthodoxy within the cosmological
and indeed astronomical community, infinities are paradoxically confined within the space-time posited.

Getting useful work out of something that goes on and on and on is an experience confined to the yack and credit card bills of my ex-girlfriend.

You know you were all waiting for that.:redface:

On a more local level many over parity ( in terms of thermodynamics ) devices
involving such eclectic disciplines as hydrodynamics, civil power engineering, comercial electronics etc. continue to through up the most disturbingly consistent anomolies.

Very high tension coupled with very high frequency is the most recalcitrent of any mugs line up.

To dismiss this - as is usual - as Tesla madness is idiocy of the highest order. In my lowley estimation.

Recently in New Scientist there was an artical ( Fortean Times reported yonks ago) about a reactionless drive that exploits, quite cunningly, relatevistic asymetry.

More things in heaven and Earth Horatio ... !

omon
04 Nov 06,, 04:44
why not our own earth is spinning (sun gives it energy), so why can't we make a machine that uses the same energy as earth.

The Chap
05 Nov 06,, 13:24
why not our own earth is spinning (sun gives it energy), so why can't we make a machine that uses the same energy as earth.

You may need to re-phrase that sir.:biggrin:

Nanovae
09 Nov 06,, 04:38
science have proven for century perpetual motion is a myth.
It's not a question to know if it's possible or not, it's a question to know why it's not possible.
thermodynamical laws answer that easily.

omon
09 Nov 06,, 20:15
science have proven for century perpetual motion is a myth.
It's not a question to know if it's possible or not, it's a question to know why it's not possible.
thermodynamical laws answer that easily.

It also say evolution is imposible
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=9944

Nanovae
09 Nov 06,, 20:51
It also say evolution is imposible


evolution of perpetual motion ?
I don't get it Omon, could you refine a bit please (the thread link is sooooo big ...)

Sombra
10 Nov 06,, 14:34
It also say evolution is imposible
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=9944

;) You would be right if both theories would contradict each other . Alas, the writer of the original article has 2 fundamental flaws in his thinking.


1. Earth isnt a closed system
2. Even in a closed system you can increase the order in a part of the system as long as the order of the whole system goes down.

Believe me if two well accepted theories contradict each other scientists are the first to yell and discuss about it... Not resting until they find a better way to explain both... They don´t say: God made it that way dont question it.

They ask and ask and sometimes they come to conclusions which contradict common sense and well known truths... This is why so many people dont like scientists.

brokensickle
12 Nov 06,, 00:38
In a finite scale it seems we are seeing perpetual motion in the fluctuation of our universe. The ebb and flows from hot and cold, creation and destruction always seem to be in constant flux. Will they someday come to equilibrium and cease to exist? It is anybodies guess. But who started that pendulum rocking? That is the greater question. Science is always changing its views because it lacks absolute knowledge, this is why scientist can not be absolutist. When we plumb the depth of the heavens for answers we will be doing so infinitely, because the stuff of the universe is infinitely changing, changing ones point of reference. So the answers are like humanity, they are but a vapor, here today and gone tomorrow. Science is for the day but G>D is forever, His ways never change, He is absolutely infinite.

~~~~Ivan~~~><//>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

P.S. "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings is to search out a matter."--Solomon, Proverbs 25:2

brokensickle
12 Nov 06,, 05:38
Hey Sniper,

I'm still amazed at the great amount info on the net on science and tech. And you seem to find it. Although I don't believe that the engines described in the articles you linked were considered P.M. type
One thing that needs to be understood about the machines your Dad saw in the USN that seemed to be perpetual motion, is that there were copious amounts of energy employed to create the magnets initially used in the machines to create a finite effect of perpetual motion. The engines described in the article would probably take great amounts of energy to travel those great distances but with a exponentially greater amount of efficiency because of its employing other dimensional travel. I am encouraged by these types of articles as it relates to the ability to "Escape the surley bonds of this solar system". Your enthusiasm is Infectious.

~~~~Ivan~~~><//>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sombra
21 Nov 06,, 13:58
In a finite scale it seems we are seeing perpetual motion in the fluctuation of our universe. The ebb and flows from hot and cold, creation and destruction always seem to be in constant flux. Will they someday come to equilibrium and cease to exist? It is anybodies guess. But who started that pendulum rocking? That is the greater question. Science is always changing its views because it lacks absolute knowledge, this is why scientist can not be absolutist. When we plumb the depth of the heavens for answers we will be doing so infinitely, because the stuff of the universe is infinitely changing, changing ones point of reference. So the answers are like humanity, they are but a vapor, here today and gone tomorrow. Science is for the day but G>D is forever, His ways never change, He is absolutely infinite.

~~~~Ivan~~~><//>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

P.S. "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings is to search out a matter."--Solomon, Proverbs 25:2

The moment we see or observe perpetual motion in the finite or infinite the laws of thermodynamics would be broken and therefore one of our most basic laws of physics.

Most indicators point at an universe which will expand forever, getting "colder" and not contract again leading somewhere in the far future to a new big bang.

snc128
21 Nov 06,, 14:12
actually i voted no but when u achieve to eliminate external effects, a perpetual motion can be possible.an isolated system can help for the aim.but the question is how can u form an isolated system .

omon
22 Nov 06,, 19:35
whould you call tesla's black box perpetual motion machine?

omon
22 Nov 06,, 21:19
according to this patent, it's reality and it has been proven,recorded and patented.
http://www.rexresearch.com/johnson/1johnson.htm
the problem is you'll never see any company manufacturing them, big oil corparation will make sure of that.

Sombra
23 Nov 06,, 13:52
"We don't grant patents on perpetual motion machines," said the examiners at the U.S. Patent Office. "It won't work because it violates the law of Conservation of Energy," said one physicist after another. But because, inventor Howard Johnson is not the sort of man to be intimidated by such seemingly authoritative pronouncements, he now owns U.S. Patent No. 4,151,431 which describes how it is possible to generate motive power, as in a motor, using only the energy contained in the atoms of permanent magnets. That's right. Johnson has discovered how to build motors that run without an input of electricity or any other kind of external energy!

Proven? The prototypes have been mysteriously stolen....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1659094/posts

If somebody gave a patent for this kind of machine he should look for a new job.

omon
24 Nov 06,, 05:10
Proven? The prototypes have been mysteriously stolen....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1659094/posts

If somebody gave a patent for this kind of machine he should look for a new job.

does it sound strange that every discovery of that kind is mysteriously stolen and inventor is nowhere to be found,he wasnt the only one (though he didn't vanish but others did), if the inventions were hoax would anybody care enough to steel the machines and snach inventors,
After a year of hearing nothing but silence from Johnson, Greyhound agents tried to contact him-only to be notified that he had passed away unexpectedly. This is a particularly troubling part of the story, since he had been in his early fifties and in robust health. Later, Greyhound learned that shortly before he died, Johnson had inexplicably moved our of his laboratory in the middle of the night and taken all of his motors and technology to California.

Another bizarre fact then surfaced: The U.S. Department of Energy had placed a restraining order on Johnson's company, Magnatron, Inc., prohibiting it from producing the Magnatron engine
imo perpetual motion machines were invented many times it's not question if it's posible ; it is posible, but somobody powerfull will not let them exist.

snc128
25 Nov 06,, 10:23
nowadays ,patent applications being done by some local Turkish scientists for a machine called 'kuvvet makinası' ...just google it to see the news

brokensickle
27 Nov 06,, 06:32
The moment we see or observe perpetual motion in the finite or infinite the laws of thermodynamics would be broken and therefore one of our most basic laws of physics.

Most indicators point at an universe which will expand forever, getting "colder" and not contract again leading somewhere in the far future to a new big bang.

:) That may be so, but like the scientist I enjoy avoiding making hasty decisions.:)

Sombra
28 Nov 06,, 13:28
@Omon: The inventor claims that his machine has been stolen. Tunring around the argument I would say a nice way to prevent anybody to to verify his claims :)

@Brokensickle Everyone his opinion :) Perhaps some day when we understand the rules of the universe betteand r we will be able to sidestep certain rules a bit.

omon
29 Nov 06,, 19:25
@Omon: The inventor claims that his machine has been stolen. Tunring around the argument I would say a nice way to prevent anybody to to verify his claims :)

which one did that? if one claims his invention is stolen, i would think that he could make another one. he invented it.if he cant, then his a fake.

brokensickle
04 Dec 06,, 08:06
@Omon: The inventor claims that his machine has been stolen. Tunring around the argument I would say a nice way to prevent anybody to to verify his claims :)

@Brokensickle Everyone his opinion :) Perhaps some day when we understand the rules of the universe betteand r we will be able to sidestep certain rules a bit.

I would like to start a thread on time travel paradoxes to see a little of what WAB posters can think up.

Ivan

omon
22 Dec 06,, 21:24
Under certain circumstances, the second law of thermodynamics does not come "into play"
The second law of thermodynamics is exactly that . . . a special law regarding only thermodynamic processes. That doesn't make it any sure thing that perpetual motion machines are possible, but it doesn't prohibit them either, if they aren't designed around thermodynamic processes.
If one thinks it impossible, it will be, at least to that person.
If one is willing to examine what the goal is without prejudice, then it is possible, somehow.

Martin
08 Jan 07,, 05:15
I have invented a device which has an energy efficiency of 111%. This will allow unlimited, free energy for all!

Please make a cheque payable to....................... And the unit will be dispatched within 24 hours.


;)

Ironduke
08 Jan 07,, 10:34
Martin speaks the truth. ;)

Sombra
08 Jan 07,, 12:54
Under certain circumstances, the second law of thermodynamics does not come "into play"
The second law of thermodynamics is exactly that . . . a special law regarding only thermodynamic processes. .


Bold statement Omon. Can you tell me under which circumstances for example "thermodynamics" don´t come into play?
Or with other words: Which movement or work you can do without the involvement of energy?

omon
08 Jan 07,, 14:44
Bold statement Omon. Can you tell me under which circumstances for example "thermodynamics" don´t come into play?
Or with other words: Which movement or work you can do without the involvement of energy?

no work can be done without energy, not all energy, is a termodynamics process
energy of permanent magnet.

Sombra
08 Jan 07,, 16:23
no work can be done without energy, not all energy, is a termodynamics process
energy of permanent magnet.

Ok here is the seed of our different world view. IMO all processes involving energy are related to the laws of thermodynamics per definition.

You are saying that the magnetic force is some kind kind of energy? It seems you are using a different kind of definition whats energy than I do.

y_raj
08 Jan 07,, 16:26
I couldn't understand your statement.
if you mean a magnet works without involving thermodynamics then you are violating laws of modern physics.

omon
08 Jan 07,, 18:36
Ok here is the seed of our different world view. IMO all processes involving energy are related to the laws of thermodynamics per definition.

You are saying that the magnetic force is some kind kind of energy? It seems you are using a different kind of definition whats energy than I do.

yes magnets have power to repel and attract, without any input, their internal energy does the work. there are numerous patents, and working models to prove that internal energy of pm can do work, they may not be good enough to give us any use yet(some more some less),that is just one example.
in my defenition of energy(i don,t even know official one) is that energy is power that is used to do a work, it could be in many forms, electricity, heat, light, could be produced either by td procces or not.
as far as i know pm dont require any td procces to repel and attract. do they?

omon
08 Jan 07,, 18:38
I couldn't understand your statement.
if you mean a magnet works without involving thermodynamics then you are violating laws of modern physics.

which laws?
yes, magnets work without involving thermodynamics.
than i guess i am violating laws of modern physics.:biggrin:

highsea
08 Jan 07,, 20:10
... yes, magnets work without involving thermodynamics.
than i guess i am violating laws of modern physics.:biggrin:Omon, energy went into the creation of the magnet.

Electromagnetism (more accurately the electroweak force) does not violate 2LOT. Not even in nuclear decay/fission, where you get a lot of energy from a very small amount of matter.

dave lukins
09 Jan 07,, 18:19
Omon,be careful that the physics-cops dont come to arrest you for breaking one of their laws!!!!Thermodynamics:the science of the relations between heat and other(mechanical.electrical etc)forms of energy..Energy:the capacity of matter or radiation to do WORK or ,the means of doing WORK by utilizing matter/energy.Radiation:the emission of Energy as Electromagnetic waves........just to make things clear!!!

omon
09 Jan 07,, 20:25
phisycs veiw of the world changes every 100 years or so.
no energy is created or destroyed, we simply convert it depeding on our needs, it's all around us, we know how to tap into it by many means,hydrelectic plants, nuclearplant, ic engine..ect, there are just as many ways that we don't know.
permanent magnets are sources of energy, we can tap into their energy, and converte it into movment, which can then be converted to electricity, there is no machine that creates energy, only transfers from one form to another, so it's imposible to make pm machine that takes no energy while giving it, however it is posible to use energy, that is not as obvious as gas, or coal, or water flow, if we can't see it it doesn't mean it's not there.
a machine that takes free energy, like magnetic, gravity..., that we don't pay for, and gives us usefull energy, like electricity, light,motion, heat..., can be considered a pm machine, or free energy machine. no need to brake any laws of phisycs,
btw hydroelectic plants are free energy machines, they'll run as long as there is water flow,there is no burning or fusion involved, and we don,t pay for water flow.

As defined: Perpetual motion refers to a condition in which an object moves forever without being driven by an external source of energy. key word external, but there is such thing as internal energy.

GGTharos
10 Jan 07,, 01:05
.
a machine that takes free energy, like magnetic, gravity..., that we don't pay for,


What do you mean you don't pay for magnetic energy?
The field is always induced by -something- or other - without going into details of how a permament magnet works, you don't get to use it for *free*. That magnet must be created and that costs energy. Just because you found it lying around doesn't mean it's 'free' - jsut because YOU did not pay the cost, doesn't mean its free.
If someone gifts you a car, is it free? Only to you, because you didn't pay for it in any way - such as building it, or well, paying the cash.

Similarely, you just buried your argument by including gravity. Again, it is not *free*. You have to spend energy going *up* to get some coming back down. Worse yet, you're going to get less energy out of coming down than you did going up, due to various losses.



As defined: Perpetual motion refers to a condition in which an object moves forever without being driven by an external source of energy. key word external, but there is such thing as internal energy.

That's right, there is, and it is radiated *outside* of the system no matter what you do. So your internal energy is reduced until it reaches such a point as to be unable to make your machine longer.
So there's no such thing as a perpetual motion machine. A 'free energy' machine, as you've defined it, is no perpetual motion machine.

Don't do this - you're confusing yourself and others by throwing this argument in here.

(By the way. That gifted car? All external energy to get it to you ;) )

omon
10 Jan 07,, 02:08
if you include energy that takes to build the machine, than i'd be clear to everyone that it's imposible, it would be just as clear as that rain is water, we don't debate about it, do we? however the question is if it posible to build the machine. energy spent on constacting it is not relavant.
every one uses 2lot, law of conservation of energy, to disprove one, not becouse it takes energy to build one, that is silly
yes it takes energy to make a magnet, so what? we are talking about machine that spins or does any kind of motion without external imput, building one takes energy, but that is out of our equation.
if your resons for a pm being imposible, is that it takes energy to build one, or the components will wear out, and someting is going to break, than you are far away from the point.
the key word is perpetual motion machine, not perpetual machine that lasts forever, it's the motion that lasts forever, as long as the machine works properly.

GGTharos
10 Jan 07,, 02:39
The machine can't work properly if it breaks down. if it breaks down then it is not conserving evergy - it's doing something with it that it isn't /supposed/ to.

Matt1006
14 Jan 07,, 23:09
Perpetual motion on earth in its definition is not possible with current thinking methods our science platform gives us. Friction and heat play a major role for a self supporting device.

I started experimenting with this concept a few years ago. After building contraptions that I should be locked up for, I have however built a machine that will produce more energy than it takes to run. It's current size prohibits powering large appliances but it will power the lights in my work shop. I have utilized current electronics to assist the prototype which a few years ago simply where not available. Will the bearings wear out, yes. Will the armatures wear out, yes however, imagine having a larger scale version in the back of your house lets say the size of a oven that will power your entire house! When I choose to go public with this device, maybe others can stand on my shoulders and perfect what I have not.

Julie
15 Jan 07,, 01:13
Patent it now.

omon
15 Jan 07,, 03:52
it'll be very hard to patent, and to get manufecturer to make it, there are numerous patents, and nothing in production. instead give it away for free, send bluprints everywhare you can, this way it'll be harder to cover up, you probably won't make any money, but you will be know to a lot of people, than.. you never know.

Julie
15 Jan 07,, 17:23
Let me tell you a family secret. The electric windows in cars.....my grandfather blueprinted. My grandfather was an architectural engineer for an industrial plant for 45 years, until his death. He happened to show them to an employee/friend of his at work one day. They went to miss out of my grandfather's desk, and the guy that stole the plans, had it patented, and sold it to a automobile manufacturer. Guess who?

HalAde
04 Feb 07,, 05:00
Science tells us that it is impossible, however people have always been curious about the possibility of making a perpetual motion device.

For those of you who dont know what Perpetual Motion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion) is (italics are taken from wikipedia)

As defined: Perpetual motion refers to a condition in which an object moves forever without being driven by an external source of energy

The reason why science prooves that Perpetual motion is impossible, is because it breaks two laws of physics.

First law of thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics): The increase in the internal energy of a thermodynamic system is equal to the amount of heat energy added to the system minus the work done by the system on the surroundings.

and

Second law of thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics): The entropy of an isolated system not at equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value. or in laymans terms Heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a hotter body.

However, science is always breaking new barriers and challenging previously unchallalangable laws...such as the earth being round, Theory of Evolution, Space travel..

Do you or dont you believe that Perpetual Motion is possible?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Science has not proved that perpetual motion is impossible. It has only confirmed by experiment and experience the possibility that it is impossible. All it takes is one event to disconfirm that conclusion. Those of us in the New Energy aggregate suspect there have been several events over the decades which indicated that Perpetual Motion of the Second Kind, tapping an unknown source of constantly renewing energy, has occurred: viz., the Earth's Magnetic Field, cosmic radiation from the stars, charges in the ionisphere constantly replenished by the Sun, and hardest to believe, tapping the energy from the Quantum Vacuum per Wheeler, Dirac, Heaviside, Plancvk, Forward, Prigogine etc.

I believe that Perpetual Motion of the FIRST Kind, creating energy from nothing at all, is something only God can do.

Hal Ade
Gatineau.

Sombra
12 Feb 07,, 12:52
I think there are quite a lot contradictions in your post HalAde.

1. Perpetual motion is per definiton a device which keeps on working without the surplus of external energy whatever. Laws of thermodynamic say that impossible. If you have proof the laws of thermodynamics are wrong please show that.

2. Un known source of constantly renewing energy. Fine, thats like creating energy from nothing or?

Regarding the your examples of these kinds of energy:

- Earth magnetic field : Ahem , well earth core is cooling slowly , rotation of earth gets slower. Well, you can say the energy is spent slowly as it should.

- Cosmic radiation whatever kind you want to use its now that the energy will stay always on the same level. The cosmos gets cooler all the time.

-Quantum vacuum. Interessting thought. I think you refer to the "fact/thought" that the laws of quantum mechanics forbid the existence of a total vacuum . In these cases sporadically matter will appear simply said and destroy itself immeadtely. Its kind if a 0 sum game to fullfill the need of quantum mechanics. AFAIK

omon
12 Feb 07,, 17:13
I think there are quite a lot contradictions in your post HalAde.

1. Perpetual motion is per definiton a device which keeps on working without the surplus of external energy whatever. Laws of thermodynamic say that impossible. If you have proof the laws of thermodynamics are wrong please show that.

2. Un known source of constantly renewing energy. Fine, thats like creating energy from nothing or?

Regarding the your examples of these kinds of energy:

- Earth magnetic field : Ahem , well earth core is cooling slowly , rotation of earth gets slower. Well, you can say the energy is spent slowly as it should.

- Cosmic radiation whatever kind you want to use its now that the energy will stay always on the same level. The cosmos gets cooler all the time.

-Quantum vacuum. Interessting thought. I think you refer to the "fact/thought" that the laws of quantum mechanics forbid the existence of a total vacuum . In these cases sporadically matter will appear simply said and destroy itself immeadtely. Its kind if a 0 sum game to fullfill the need of quantum mechanics. AFAIK

1 you just made up new defenition of perpetual motion, congrads.
2 unknown sources are not nothing, it's just that you don't know about them.
earth emf, who cares it slowes down, it still be spinning in a mil. of years, oil will run out too, but it doesn't stop us from using it.
cosmic radiation, so what it's on the same level,(don,t see the point here) still present, still source of power, if we know how to tap it.
none of what you said is a proof of anything. sorry.
did you try to make a pm machine, numerous times and failed? i doubt it.
those ancient attemps to build it using gravity alone, is not what pm of second kind is.
nobody said you can make power out of nothing, taping perpetual power sources is the way to make pm machine of second kind.
tell me this, what happens when solenoid is deenergized?

dave lukins
12 Feb 07,, 17:21
I believe that Perpetual Motion of the FIRST Kind, creating energy from nothing at all, is something only God can do.


Maybe you have found the answer..as God was created from nothing and God created energy....:biggrin:

Sombra
12 Feb 07,, 20:10
1 you just made up new defenition of perpetual motion, congrads.
2 unknown sources are not nothing, it's just that you don't know about them.
earth emf, who cares it slowes down, it still be spinning in a mil. of years, oil will run out too, but it doesn't stop us from using it.
cosmic radiation, so what it's on the same level,(don,t see the point here) still present, still source of power, if we know how to tap it.
none of what you said is a proof of anything. sorry.
did you try to make a pm machine, numerous times and failed? i doubt it.
those ancient attemps to build it using gravity alone, is not what pm of second kind is.
nobody said you can make power out of nothing, taping perpetual power sources is the way to make pm machine of second kind.
tell me this, what happens when solenoid is deenergized?

1: As defined: Perpetual motion refers to a condition in which an object moves forever without being driven by an external source of energy

From the english wikipedia website:

A perpetual motion machine of the first kind produces strictly more energy than it uses, thus violating the law of conservation of energy. Over-unity devices, that is, devices with a thermodynamic efficiency greater than 1.0 (unity, or 100%), are perpetual motion machines of this kind.
A perpetual motion machine of the second kind is a machine which spontaneously converts thermal energy into mechanical work. This need not violate the law of conservation of energy, since the thermal energy may be equivalent to the work done; however it does violate the more subtle second law of thermodynamics (see also entropy). Note that such a machine is different from real heat engines (such as car engines), which always involve a transfer of heat from a hotter reservoir to a colder one, the latter being warmed up in the process. The signature of a perpetual motion machine of the second kind is that there is only one single heat reservoir involved, which is being spontaneously cooled without involving a transfer of heat to a cooler reservoir. This conversion of heat into useful work, without any side effect, is impossible by the second law of thermodynamics.The argument of the scientists is that no work can be done withou any external help. The perpetual motion also refers to violation of newtons I Law(Copyrighted by Pavan Kumar P N). According to perpetual motion, the direction of a body moving with a constant speed can be changed without the application of external force.

Or you can use the orginal word : which is roughly perpetual = eternal, without stop.

Point is : As soon as you use external energy to drive your machine its not a perpetual machine.

2. What is your 2nd point about a coil of wire: Maxwell isin´t vogue anymore too?

omon
12 Feb 07,, 20:25
sombra. some pm machines were made, and ran. while i agree no movement can be made without energy, some materials have internal energy, permanent magnets. using flux flow it is posible to make a motor that runs on perm. magnets.
there is also consept of electicly driven machines, that produce current, and constantly reuse it.
many think it's imposible, you are probably one of them, which is why my question still stands.
what happens when solenoid deenargized?

omon
12 Feb 07,, 20:28
read post 58. i don't find it unreal. do you?

Sombra
12 Feb 07,, 20:39
read post 58. i don't find it unreal. do you?

Omon, he say<s he did build a machine whcih produces more energy t. AS far as I am

concerned . Its impossible. If it was possible we can throw many decades of physics in the trash and right now I am not convinced.

omon
12 Feb 07,, 20:59
Omon, he say<s he did build a machine whcih produces more energy t. AS far as I am

concerned . Its impossible. If it was possible we can throw many decades of physics in the trash and right now I am not convinced.

every decade or so it happens anyway.

any ideas on solenoid?

Sombra
12 Feb 07,, 21:57
every decade or so it happens anyway.

any ideas on solenoid?


Omon what do you think happens?

and what is up with the "solenoid"?

omon
12 Feb 07,, 22:58
Omon what do you think happens?

and what is up with the "solenoid"?

my bad, not decade, but century. limits give way, new ways of acheving undoable emerge.
as for solenoid, forget about it, i take it, you don.t know the answer.

HalAde
13 Feb 07,, 07:16
I think there are quite a lot contradictions in your post HalAde.

1. Perpetual motion is per definiton a device which keeps on working without the surplus of external energy whatever. Laws of thermodynamic say that impossible. If you have proof the laws of thermodynamics are wrong please show that.

2. Un known source of constantly renewing energy. Fine, thats like creating energy from nothing or?

Regarding the your examples of these kinds of energy:

- Earth magnetic field : Ahem , well earth core is cooling slowly , rotation of earth gets slower. Well, you can say the energy is spent slowly as it should.

- Cosmic radiation whatever kind you want to use its now that the energy will stay always on the same level. The cosmos gets cooler all the time.

-Quantum vacuum. Interessting thought. I think you refer to the "fact/thought" that the laws of quantum mechanics forbid the existence of a total vacuum . In these cases sporadically matter will appear simply said and destroy itself immeadtely. Its kind if a 0 sum game to fullfill the need of quantum mechanics. AFAIK

***********************************

On contradictions in my post, please state those contradictions.

Because of time constraints, I'll reply to Item #2, and answer the other points later. Did you think that I believed that energy could be created from nothing? At the present time, I do not believe that, but there are those scientists/engineers who believe just that, for good reason. I refer you to a peper by David G. Yurth and Donald Ayres of the Nova Institute of Technology (Nova Institute of Technology (http://NovaInstituteofTechnology.com))

http://www.pureenergysystems.com/academy/papers/Y-Bias_and_Angularity/Y-Bias_Monograph_Preview_Edition_25Apr06c.doc

They are fit to argue their point; I am not.

Please refer to my previous post when I said quite clearly that it is widely accepted in physics that there are two versions of the concept of perpetual motion. This not something I have contrived, but it is a notion I have accepted from physicists I respect. I mentioned very clearly that there ios Perpetual Motion of the First kind, that being th concept that energy coyuld be created from nothing at all. Even within the Free Energy Community to which I belong, again with good reason, I would darte say that over 98% of t proponents do not believe that, simpl,y becuase we have never seen eveidence for it. As for Perpetual Motion of the Second kind, yes indeed, we believ that it is not only possible, but over 99% probable that a generally unknown source of constantly renewing energy can be tapped, that being energy from the Quantum VAcuum. As you mentioned, no sooner does a photon of energy come into existence than a counter or anti-photon anihilates it. Indeed, for every proton there is an electron, and for every North Pole of a magnet there is an opposite South Pole as far as we know, since some have mooted the existence of monopoles. The trick, though is to grab these virtual photons from the Vacuum into our 3D world, our material world, for our use, before they can "disappear". Also, in accordance with the First Law of Thermodynamics, these photons do not really disappear from existance, but return to the Quantum Vacuum for re-use, hence the concept of constantly renewing energy. If there is only a finite, and not an infinite amount of energy in the Vacuum, there are Billions of PetaWAtt-Years of it according to physicists Wheeler, Puthoff, Feynman, Schwinger, Sakharov and other respected scientists. Would you challenge their viewpoints?

BTW, the SECOND Law of Thermodynamics is indeed called into question. We F-E people contend that there is not only entropy, but under certain circumstances, NEGentropy as well.

My final point is that I no longer consider any law or theory in science as fact, as immutable, as I used to. I consider that such "laws" apply MOST of the time, but not necessarily all the time.

Hal Ade

Sombra
13 Feb 07,, 08:37
my bad, not decade, but century. limits give way, new ways of acheving undoable emerge.
as for solenoid, forget about it, i take it, you don.t know the answer.

The answer is 42 but what is the question but I think you wont like it.

Sombra
13 Feb 07,, 08:37
my bad, not decade, but century. limits give way, new ways of acheving undoable emerge.
as for solenoid, forget about it, i take it, you don.t know the answer.

The answer is 42

Sombra
13 Feb 07,, 11:22
***********************************

On contradictions in my post, please state those contradictions.

Because of time constraints, I'll reply to Item #2, and answer the other points later. Did you think that I believed that energy could be created from nothing? At the present time, I do not believe that, but there are those scientists/engineers who believe just that, for good reason. I refer you to a peper by David G. Yurth and Donald Ayres of the Nova Institute of Technology (Nova Institute of Technology (http://NovaInstituteofTechnology.com))

http://www.pureenergysystems.com/academy/papers/Y-Bias_and_Angularity/Y-Bias_Monograph_Preview_Edition_25Apr06c.doc

They are fit to argue their point; I am not.

Please refer to my previous post when I said quite clearly that it is widely accepted in physics that there are two versions of the concept of perpetual motion. This not something I have contrived, but it is a notion I have accepted from physicists I respect. I mentioned very clearly that there ios Perpetual Motion of the First kind, that being th concept that energy coyuld be created from nothing at all. Even within the Free Energy Community to which I belong, again with good reason, I would darte say that over 98% of t proponents do not believe that, simpl,y becuase we have never seen eveidence for it. As for Perpetual Motion of the Second kind, yes indeed, we believ that it is not only possible, but over 99% probable that a generally unknown source of constantly renewing energy can be tapped, that being energy from the Quantum VAcuum. As you mentioned, no sooner does a photon of energy come into existence than a counter or anti-photon anihilates it. Indeed, for every proton there is an electron, and for every North Pole of a magnet there is an opposite South Pole as far as we know, since some have mooted the existence of monopoles. The trick, though is to grab these virtual photons from the Vacuum into our 3D world, our material world, for our use, before they can "disappear". Also, in accordance with the First Law of Thermodynamics, these photons do not really disappear from existance, but return to the Quantum Vacuum for re-use, hence the concept of constantly renewing energy. If there is only a finite, and not an infinite amount of energy in the Vacuum, there are Billions of PetaWAtt-Years of it according to physicists Wheeler, Puthoff, Feynman, Schwinger, Sakharov and other respected scientists. Would you challenge their viewpoints?

BTW, the SECOND Law of Thermodynamics is indeed called into question. We F-E people contend that there is not only entropy, but under certain circumstances, NEGentropy as well.

My final point is that I no longer consider any law or theory in science as fact, as immutable, as I used to. I consider that such "laws" apply MOST of the time, but not necessarily all the time.

Hal Ade

Al Hade, first disagreement is simply a point of semantics. Perpetual motion is for me per definiton without tapping into outside sources of energy renewing or other. See my post above for details.

The 2nd point we disagree is simply if you can trick the "2nd law" of thermodynamics. You believe its possible , for all I know I havent seen proof thats its possible or even I see a big discussion about it in the scientific community. I think serious doubts regarding one of our fundamental laws of physics would draw a lot of attention (Nobel price , etc.)

But as science isnt about dogmas who knows?

Regarding vacuum energy the problem is right now that

a. its a theoretical construct

b. we dont know any way to tap into such an energy

c, buest guees is that to tap into this energy we have to use more energy than we can get out of the process.

omon
13 Feb 07,, 13:16
it's the same as arguing about religion, pointless, sombra. what would it take for you to belive? probably not anything, what would it take for me to loose my beliefs, probably nothing as well.
as for solenoid, when it's deenergized, magnetic field collapses, and converts back to electricity,(energy used to energize it, not holding energy) that is why every sol. driver must be protected against this power feedback, no energy is created or destroed, also what prosses goes on around wire when current passed thru it? like it's mentioned in post 58, currently there are curcits avaible that wasn't avaible 20 years ago,
research these, Gray motor, Tesla's experiments with the Faraday wheel. Bearden. John Searle. ecklin's generator.
read about switched reluctance, apply it to a solenoid.
read Ed Leedskalnin's "MAGNETIC CURRENT".
i'd like you opinion on all this, if you are not laizy to do the reserch.
what are your belifs are based on? laws and theories?

Sombra
13 Feb 07,, 14:30
it's the same as arguing about religion, pointless, sombra. what would it take for you to belive? probably not anything, what would it take for me to loose my beliefs, probably nothing as well.
as for solenoid, when it's deenergized, magnetic field collapses, and converts back to electricity,(energy used to energize it, not holding energy) that is why every sol. driver must be protected against this power feedback, no energy is created or destroed, also what prosses goes on around wire when current passed thru it? like it's mentioned in post 58, currently there are curcits avaible that wasn't avaible 20 years ago,
research these, Gray motor, Tesla's experiments with the Faraday wheel. Bearden. John Searle. ecklin's generator.
read about switched reluctance, apply it to a solenoid.
read Ed Leedskalnin's "MAGNETIC CURRENT".
i'd like you opinion on all this, if you are not laizy to do the reserch.
what are your belifs are based on? laws and theories?

I see science as nothing like religion.

My point of view is:

You claim something is possible. => Perpetual motion .

I say from the actual accepted laws of physics its impossible. You can now prove that these laws are not valid for your case or prove that the law is false.

If you can provide an experiment that can be repeated by other scientist which disapproves the laws of thermodynamic I will change my point regarding pereptual motion.


It would be helpful to see clear claims regarding the experiments you mention. Up to now most websites I looked up regarding the key words you provided:

- claim that they have found new form of energy : "cold energy" for
"gray" motor

- claim that their research is surpressed ny an all powwerful agency "ecklins motor" etc.

As you made various references coils and magnetic field (solenoid)

Sincerly I dont see your point there. Electricity,coils etc I think are well know and understood. What is your point regarding the "olenoid" what happens what you claim contradicts the laws of thermodynamic?

Science can change. But science is not religion. There are no unchangeable dogmas. You dont have to believe. Science is about challenging the satus quo. Provide an experiment , and application which works, can be oberved and doesnt disappear when somebody wants to examine it and you will leave a big footprint in history.

Militarythinker
27 Feb 07,, 10:31
I haven't had time to read everyone's post so forgive me if I am repeating anything.

My understanding is that our interest in a perpetual motion machine is the possibility of creating one and then somehow capturing it's motion to produce an endless supply of energy. I think that making that type of machine would be years behind the first perpetual motion machine.

As for a simple PMM I think that eventually it would be possible however perhaps not in the techical definition. Technically a perpetual motion recieves no additional energy after it is started. By following those guidelines I don't think it is possible. But if you use gravity as a constant source of energy, I think it might be possible to create a PMM.

Honestly though I think that it would require an enormous amount of research and money to even come close to making one. Any benefits besides it just being cool to watch and the "look what I did" factor would be even farther off. Like I said, it is one thing to make a PMM, and an entirely different thing to actually gather energy from it which is the only purpose I could see in making one.

-M

execrable
28 Feb 07,, 13:12
But if you use gravity as a constant source of energy, I think it might be possible to create a PMM.

Gravity is in itself a form of energy and as such dependant of external sources of stored energy (planets and dark matter etc) so it's still not Perpetual motion.

execrable
28 Feb 07,, 13:18
as for solenoid, when it's deenergized, magnetic field collapses, and converts back to electricity,(energy used to energize it, not holding energy) that is why every sol. driver must be protected against this power feedback, no energy is created or destroed,

Yes, the energy changes from one form into another - the problem is the state it changes into is less usefull and we use a shorthand description to say it has no energy left. That energy hasn't gone - it's simply changed state.

HistoricalDavid
28 Feb 07,, 18:36
But if you use gravity as a constant source of energy, I think it might be possible to create a PMM.

Hm, nope. For gravity to be invoked, GPE has to be converted from has to be converted from some other form of energy.

omon
28 Feb 07,, 19:22
as it has been proven by thousands of attempts, gravity, as a driving force alone, isn't working, combining it with other means (permanent magnets..or something else might do the trick), there were a few permanent magnet machines that work, the thing is not to look at magnet as south and north pole, repeling or attracting, what you have to look at, is flux as a wind.

Militarythinker
28 Feb 07,, 19:48
Gravity is in itself a form of energy and as such dependant of external sources of stored energy (planets and dark matter etc) so it's still not Perpetual motion.

Well yah like I said it probably wouldn't be technicaly be a PM machine by the word for word definition. But in a practical sense I would consider anything that after initial starting energy, continues to work on its own without any additional energy. Now I think gravity and magnets (nice Omon didn't even think of that) don't count as adding energy.

Also it just came to me, how do those particle accelerators work? You know the ones that they use to smash atoms together? I heard it is a chain of magnets arranged just so. The particle is moved through the tube by their fields. I could be totally wrong or they may be electromagnets in which case it is pointless. But if it was possible to create a sort of one-way tube lined with magnets couldn't you send a metal ball through it essentially until the magnets died (if that even happens)? Of course in zero gravity with that fancy zero resistance stuff talked about.

Dunno just an idea.

omon
28 Feb 07,, 20:01
Well yah like I said it probably wouldn't be technicaly be a PM machine by the word for word definition. But in a practical sense I would consider anything that after initial starting energy, continues to work on its own without any additional energy. Now I think gravity and magnets (nice Omon didn't even think of that) don't count as adding energy.

Also it just came to me, how do those particle accelerators work? You know the ones that they use to smash atoms together? I heard it is a chain of magnets arranged just so. The particle is moved through the tube by their fields. I could be totally wrong or they may be electromagnets in which case it is pointless. But if it was possible to create a sort of one-way tube lined with magnets couldn't you send a metal ball through it essentially until the magnets died (if that even happens)? Of course in zero gravity with that fancy zero resistance stuff talked about.

Dunno just an idea.

magnets in particle accelerators are electromagnets, they keep plasma from touching walls, superhot plasma would melt the particle accelerator if it were to touch it.

as for one-way tube lined with magnets, it has been done, and it works, check this site there is planty of good info.

Rex Research: suppressed, dormant,emerging unconventional alternative technologies: Free energy, Over-Unity, Antigravity, Inventions, Alchemy, Transmutation, Cannabis Hemp Marijuana" (http://www.rexresearch.com/1index.htm)

brokensickle
02 Mar 07,, 08:18
I believe that Perpetual Motion of the FIRST Kind, creating energy from nothing at all, is something only God can do.


I agree totally.


Maybe you have found the answer..as God was created from nothing and God created energy....:biggrin:



"] If God was created from nothing, then who created Him?.



The bible says, God said," I am the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. I don't think God was created from nothing. But God created things from nothing. God was and is and will be forever in the past, ever present, and forever in the future. God in essence always was. IMHO?.



Ivan

execrable
02 Mar 07,, 09:39
"] If God was created from nothing, then who created Him?.

Perpetual Motion of the FIRST Kind, creating energy from nothing at all, is something only God can do.


I agree totally.

Hi Ivan, doesn't that then relegate "God" to something that equally doesn't exist and isn't likely to either?

omon
02 Mar 07,, 11:50
The bible says, God said," I am the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. I don't think God was created from nothing. But God created things from nothing. God was and is and will be forever in the past, ever present, and forever in the future. God in essence always was. IMHO?.



Ivan[/QUOTE]

that is very intersting, if anything could be created from nothing, wouldn't it brake laws of physics, sice we know nothing can be created out of nothig, doesn't it prove that our laws are wrong. and if they are, that pmm might just be posible,

execrable
02 Mar 07,, 13:46
that is very intersting, if anything could be created from nothing, wouldn't it brake laws of physics, sice we know nothing can be created out of nothig, doesn't it prove that our laws are wrong. and if they are, that pmm might just be posible,

You seem to contradict yourself!

Some people say the fact that bumble bees can fly break the laws of physics (or even aerodynamics) - does that imply God exists? Does that imply further that Perpetual Motion itself is acheivable?

omon
02 Mar 07,, 14:35
You seem to contradict yourself!

Some people say the fact that bumble bees can fly break the laws of physics (or even aerodynamics) - does that imply God exists? Does that imply further that Perpetual Motion itself is acheivable?

i don't see it that way. read cerfully, the whole thing, not the parts.
it implyes, that our laws of physics, are not too acurate, and aerodinamics laws, have more exceptions than we realize, or may be, there are other laws that we have no idea about.

it also implys that thing that we consider imposible are in fact posible.

Sombra
02 Mar 07,, 17:05
i don't see it that way. read cerfully, the whole thing, not the parts.
it implyes, that our laws of physics, are not too acurate, and aerodinamics laws, have more exceptions than we realize, or may be, there are other laws that we have no idea about.

it also implys that thing that we consider imposible are in fact posible.

Well the bumblebee not being able to fly is an old joke between aeronautic engineers but we know quite well why she is able to fly.

Omon, if you insist on creating a perpetual motion machine. Take a cup of water put in front of you and wait till its starts to boil for your tea without you doing nothing. Or take an drink with ice cubes and they stay exactly as they are or forming more ice inside a warm room...

Do you expect these things to happen?

omon
02 Mar 07,, 18:03
Well the bumblebee not being able to fly is an old joke between aeronautic engineers but we know quite well why she is able to fly.

Omon, if you insist on creating a perpetual motion machine. Take a cup of water put in front of you and wait till its starts to boil for your tea without you doing nothing. Or take an drink with ice cubes and they stay exactly as they are or forming more ice inside a warm room...

Do you expect these things to happen?

how does tea cup experement resamble pmm? i never said you can get something without any energy input, the thing is not all energy is straigt forward, there are sucssecfull permanent maget motors made, it's a fact,
http://www.fdp.nu/thebook/rpmm.txt
Calloway PPM Secrets - 06/19/01 (http://www.fdp.nu/thebook/calloway.asp?URL=calloway.asp)

did you ever try to buid one, i doubt it, instead of telling everyone it,s imposible, just coz it is by some theory or another, try to find a way around them, remember airplane was tought imposible too, not anymore.

dave lukins
03 Mar 07,, 00:11
[QUOTE=execrable;350560]You seem to contradict yourself!

Some people say the fact that bumble bees can fly break the laws of physics

The very simple reason that "bumble bees" can fly is because they have TWO sets of wings ,not ONE set as once thought:)

omon
03 Mar 07,, 02:53
[QUOTE=execrable;350560]You seem to contradict yourself!

Some people say the fact that bumble bees can fly break the laws of physics

The very simple reason that "bumble bees" can fly is because they have TWO sets of wings ,not ONE set as once thought:)

yes the same second set of wings, makes the bee not fall down when it hits the wall, if we only could duplicate that.

Vinod2070
03 Mar 07,, 06:12
I think there was some discussion going on in this forum about how GOD created the universe out of nothing. How do we account for all the matter and energy in the universe that we observe all around us.

I had read an interesting explaination on this I think in a Stephan Hwaking boook. It says that the sum of all the -ve potential energy in the universe (on account of the work that will be required to move the matter to infinite distance from all the other influences) is equal to all the energy in the universe. So the sum total of all the energy in the world is ZERO.

The creation that we see all around us is a play of the Heinsberg's uncertainty principle.

brokensickle
03 Mar 07,, 08:08
Hi Ivan, doesn't that then relegate "God" to something that equally doesn't exist and isn't likely to either?


No.


Ivan

brokensickle
03 Mar 07,, 08:53
The bible says, God said," I am the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. I don't think God was created from nothing. But God created things from nothing. God was and is and will be forever in the past, ever present, and forever in the future. God in essence always was. IMHO?.






that is very intersting, if anything could be created from nothing, wouldn't it brake laws of physics, sice we know nothing can be created out of nothig, doesn't it prove that our laws are wrong. and if they are, that pmm might just be posible,[/QUOTE]



Omon,

I love your optimism. If something could be created from nothing it would break the laws of physics as we now understand. But as you and I know science has not yet arrived. There are countless examples of what was once thought to be science fact that is far from being factual. To say we understand the laws of thermal dynamics completely would be a mistake. If any man says he understands anything completely he is foolish, diluted or God. But since many of the men who believe they can make confident assertions on unproven theories or "LAWS OF SCIENCE" don't believe in God that would by their own belief leave them foolish or diluted. Many times advances that have been made in science are usually made by some guy who refuses to believe the nay sayers. The visionaries usually break the "LAWS OF SCIENCE" and silence the critics and leave them scratching their heads. The creative usually wins the day. I am not sure if perpetual motion is possible. But I think with God all things are possible, even making something from nothing. Keep being optimistic, you will be well served by it IMHO.


Ivan