Is Perpetual Motion Possible?

[Canmoore]

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 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: 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: 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]

Given enough time and space, anything is possible. :)

[ArmchairGeneral]

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]

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]

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]

Entropy demands that no such thing as "perpetual motion" can exist.

-dale

[Bill]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/new...tor/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]

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]

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]

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