Perpetual motion machine ?

[PurpleDragon]

A couple of months ago, there was a thing in the telly about a company (I think in central Scotland) that had created a perpetual motion machine.

The folk 'in the know' said this was a load of old twaddle and couldn't be done, but these folk stuck by their guns, to the extent that they challenged any scientist to come and prove them wrong.

They showed the machine, which was about the size of a car engine, and it was slowly rotating, and apparently had something to do with magnets.

I've heard nothing about it since - literally nothing! - and I am confused as to why.

If the scientists had examined it and found it wanting, it would have been publicised surely? But what if the machine actually DID work?

Anyone remember this?

[john]

Hi Purple Dragon,I too would have like to have seen this invention working as I'm an unknown inventor myself,who knows how to make a perpetual motion device. John. J.R.P.

[Muddypause]

It's very unlikely that a credible scientist would even have bothered looking at it. Perpetual motion is a myth; it cannot be done, and for very good reasons. It's not just a case of not having found a way to do it yet - it cannot be done by definition. It is a contradiction in terms. The Patent Office won't even consider an application for PM devices.

Ever since Newton described the three laws of dynamics (he didn't invent these laws, he just formalised a way of describing how nature works), people have been attempting to prove them wrong. Hasn't been done yet. Of course there are people who will say that this view simply represents the closed mind of mere science, which can't possibly know everything, and afterall, the world was flat before Copernicus said it was round (in fact there is little evidence that people ever thought the world was flat, but that's another story). Usually with little more than simple mechanical devices, which are easily understood in terms of dynamics, these people claim to be able to warp the fabric of the universe, change the way nature has, till now, functioned, and get something for nothing. When was the last time you dropped something and saw it fall upwards? Has nature ever been at varience about this? Why should it be different in the vicinity a PM machine?

Think of it like a form of economics - you can only spend money if that money comes from somewhere. Same with energy - you can only expend energy if there is energy in the system to be expent. If you don't put any energy into the system, how are you going to get it to do any work?

Search the web, and you will find a million devices that, it is claimed, will create energy from nowhere. Many of them are simply a con, trying to get money out of gullible, ignorant 'investors'. That always ends in tears. Have a look at the 'Free Energie' thread in this very forum. And yet not one single one of these devices gets into production. Not a single one of them has done anything to save the planet (in fact, the opposite is what would happen. The basic expression of energy is heat, so if we really can get energy from nowhere, if we really can generate heat without making something else colder, then we are going to head for catastrophic meltdown which will knock global warming into a cocked hat).

In terms of pure physics, the simple fact is that the equations always have to balance - total energy out = total energy in. How could it be otherwise?

[john]

Hi Muddypause again,so what you are saying is zero gravity does not exist in space,which would allow for something to travel upwards and downwards depending on what was up or down at the time of it being let lose to float. Plus I can't see no reason why a designed engin can't be driven by the use of magnets,all you need is a crankshaft with a adjustable weight in the flywheel,and piston heads to be drawn up and repeld to make the system work. Sometimes its best not to read books on how to do things,even though most people would be lost without them. as we would not know things which we now take for granted.
I must go to sleep now,otherwise I will be putting a nother idea of mine forward.
Good night,may we all live long and happy. John. J.R.P.

[Muddypause]

Hi Muddypause again,so what you are saying is zero gravity does not exist in space

Well, I wasn't saying that, but as it happens, I think that is probably the case. But even if there is a point in space where the gravitational pull of every body in the universe is exactly balanced, it would actually still demonstrate my point about every force in nature being accounted for - it doesn't mean that the laws of the universe don't apply there. Quite the opposite.

Plus I can't see no reason why a designed engin can't be driven by the use of magnets,all you need is a crankshaft with a adjustable weight in the flywheel,and piston heads to be drawn up and repeld to make the system work.

Well, it would be a genuinely interesting project to build, and see what happens. But I'm pretty confident that nature won't let you get away with something without paying for it first.

Sometimes its best not to read books on how to do things

Quite so. But sometimes it is best to try and understand things before you can expect anyone else to agree with you. And it's usually best not to assume you can out-smart nature.

Good luck to you, John.

[hedgewizard]

I'm an unknown inventor myself,who knows how to make a perpetual motion device.

Ah John, you're a caution.

Another cat-based free energy attempt

[digiveg]

I invented a perpetual motion machine, once. Up it went, and I never saw it again. Anyone wanna buy a bridge?

[The Chili Monster]

From Physics lessons of yesteryear:

Gravity is the attraction between masses. (I am rooted to the surace of the Earth because my mass is attracted to the Earth's mass, and vice-versa; now I'm a little on the rotund side but since the planet is so much bigger than me and so I'm glued here.) Likewise when messrs Armstrong, Aldridge & the co landed on the moon there would have been some attraction between their mass and that of the moon only since the moon is smaller than the Earth, the 'pull' is less. So, you see, Zero Gravity doesn't exist and is used interchangeably with "weightless-ness" (little on the moon, but I'd give Jupiter a wide berth.)
Even in parts of the universe where there is little in the way of matter, there remains an attraction between whatever's out there, albeit a very weak one that obeys the inverse square law.
'Up' or 'down' in space -if you're referring to direction then Newton's First Law (refined by Einstein's physics) determines that initially. However, if you're referring to the property of subatomic particles -that's just maths.
As for perpetual motion machines -they contravene the Laws of Thermodynamics. Sorry.

[john]

Hi Chili Monster,so what you are saying is we can't have any type of perpetual motion because it would contravene the laws of thermadynamics. Working on what you said,every thing that exists attracts something,so with that in mind then perpetual motion can be obtained,if you have built into that attraction,for example magnets,which can be made to attract or repel something on a small or large scale,as long as there are moving parts,just like we can walk on the earth or the moon we are perpetual motion in action as long as life exists.
That's my thoughts for this year and in the future,no matter what all the experts say.
May perpetual motion always exist so every thing can try to live long and happy. John. J.R.P.

[den_the_cat]

I think you might be talking about a different definition of perpetual motion though John :)

[The Chili Monster]

You are entitled to your view, John, but if all it takes to make a perpetual motion machine is a couple of magnets, then Pierre Curie would have mastered the technology 100 years ago.

[hedgewizard]

Like I said, a caution.

[john]

Like I said, a caution.

Hi Hedgewizard,what's that suppose to mean? John. J.R.P.

[hedgewizard]

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/caution

[Muddypause]

Have to say, I've never heard that use of the word before. Which, I suppose, means you, HW, are also a bit of a caution.