John Phoenix

You ask " But how did it's potential energy change?" In both cases gravity is the acting force, except in example 1 ( The chair is also providing an equal and opposite force it seems because the ball does not move), the ball is not traveling through space ( distance). In example 2 it does, thus the potential energy becomes kinetic energy. So It's how I was defining energy also. ie. It seems it is to say, just because something has a field or a force ( whats the field made of.. waves? particles? waves that act as particles?) it in itself, is not considered a form of energy unless it's producing work. ( even though it had potential energy) Correct? How about this.. What's the closest thing science does agree on that is possible in terms of a machine that produces the most power ( or energy, ability to do work) for the least amount of energy put into it? What's the holy grail in terms of what is known to be possible?

Very interesting. apparently the information I have was written for either high school age 20 some years ago or it contains just the basics. I even did a web search and found sites that only talk about those two types of energy. Well I went and got me a copy of Physics for Dummies by Stave Holzner. I don't know how much help it will bring me because i'm horrible at math. I'll try to get through it anyway.

Mr Skeptic, I'll research that and answer you in my next post.. ( I have a good science book around here someplace) But I think the reason why I am not understanding everything you guys are saying is because, to me, I am looking at this as the magnetic force itself IS energy. The more I read you guys post it seems you make a clear distinction between the magnetic field's force and energy.... I have yet to understand why this is.. O.k... i'm going to find my reference materials.. granted they may be 20 years old.. i'm not going to use the web because I want to draw from the things I have been taught in the past. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThere are two types of energy, kinetic energy and potential energy. Kinetic energy is energy that is doing work as in an object that has been acted on by a force over distance. Potential energy is energy that is at rest or 'stored ' energy (as in an object at rest) waiting to be made into kinetic energy when it is acted on by a force over distance. Work is determined by force multiplied by distance. I think I was forgetting about both types of energy. Also it would have been helpful if I stated either kinetic or potential energy. I was thinking that the potential energy of the magnetic field could be used as kinetic energy.

Ah.. o.k. Explain this static field which does not radiate to me better.. To my thinking the magnetic field is 'radiating' away from the magnet as seen in diagrams of magnetic fields that seem to emanate from the magnet.. why is this not radiation? I didn't say perpetual motion device.. I said perpetual energy device... the only thing I imagine possibly moving here is the field itself as it ventures forth from the core of the magnet. I am trying to digest what you said.. if a magnetic force can "do no work" then how can one magnetic force push another thus causing the other magnet to move..? To my understanding, this is work being preformed. You mean say that you can't tap into the field as if to drain the energy from it to put it to work ..right? Do the two halfs of the field (from the two poles) balance each other out and thus they are in equilibrium themselves? If this is the case I can visualize why the field would be more 'static' than how I pictured the field before. Also, what about monopoles.. I know there are none found in nature but they have been theorized to exist.. if one were possible could you take the force from one and by directing it, use it to preform work?

O.k. so electrons are responsible for the magnetic field just not through the old atom model that they are zipping around to and fro around a nucleus but because they are spinning together with their electric charge and inertia.. " and the electrons would not be using or losing energy. Their energy would remain constant. Nothing is needed to keep them orbiting, their own inertia would do that." Is this a better way of looking at it? Now this same magnet, if sitting on a table undisturbed for a thousand years would still have the strength magnetic field.. ( because it did not use or lose its energy..) So would it then be fair to say that the magnet itself is a type of perpetual energy device? ( because unless demagnetized by an outside force it will always produce a magnetic field and thus a form of energy? ) You guys said it yourselves.. it does not lose or use energy.. yet it still produces a magnetic field.. which to me is a form of energy radiating from the magnet..So nature has already found a way to make a perpetual energy device in this manner has it not? Or am I still not understanding something about magnets we haven't talked about yet... Please answer if the above is correct. You see what i'm getting at is this.. forget the perpetual motion machine as classical science thinks of it.. perhaps that's not what the world needs to create an energy device that can help us lesson our dependence on fossil fuels. But perhaps magnets themselves can give us a clue how to look at the problem differently. If the spinning electron with it's electric charge and inertia can produce a magnetic field that does not lose energy, why not find a way to harness this to preform work.. Take these same principles, and magnify them thousands of times in a device of some sort.. possible? ( Just a side note but to me inertia implies movement.. I do not understand how an electron can have movement and not use or lose energy. Perhaps if I understood this better it too would provide answers to help solve my energy machine problem- Er.. perhaps I shouldn't have brought this up yet.. i don't want this to overshadow the discussion above. I understand inertia in he sense that an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force.. this is fine if you throw a ball out in space and it goes until it hits something or something hit it.. but inside a magnet there is a finite space with which the electron can move.. I assume its movement is circular and it follows a orbital path but then how does this along with the electric charge and spinning translate into energy in the form of a magnetic field?) ( That reminds me.. if our model of the atom today is different than our model in 1945, how then does that change our understanding of what happens when we split an atom?)

Interesting Janus.. that's the model I was taught back in the 80's. I suppose I will have to research the atom again.. But.. none of my questions about the magnet got answered.. if the magnetic field is not produced by electrons spinning around inside it, then what produces the magnetic field?

O.k. guys lets change this track a little. For one I never said anything about creating energy out of nothing.. I never believed this was possible ( unless your God but that's another matter). And I have said many post down that I changed my mind about my magnet idea having learned more about magnets.. so lets put that behind us. It is my understanding that a magnet produces a magnetic field because of electrons spinning around inside it. Right? ** What causes these electrons to spin? Are they using energy while spinning? I assume so, if so, are they also losing energy? This I also would assume to be the case. Is this correct? If so, where is the magnet getting the energy from to replace this lost energy? After all, nothing is acting on the magnet.. it's just sitting there. - If the magnet is Not losing energy then what is happening inside the magnet? Lets say I take a magnet and sit it on a tabletop and wait for a thousand years.. will the magnet still have the same magnetic field or will all the energy run out thus effectively demagnetizing the magnet? I will continue with this train of thought after you answer the above questions...

That's well said.. but if you read enough post on here you will see that a lot of scientist don't ACT as if that is true... <grin>

I would like you to invent or discover: Scientist who are open minded to the point where they believe that they don't know everything, that they should always challenge the so called laws of physics because these laws can always be wrong or at least upgraded given new understanding. These Scientist should always say " 'blank' appears to be not possible now with our present understanding of science" and never say " 'blank' is impossible, my understanding of science is so absolute I can never be wrong and my science can never fail" because in 100 or 200 years when the worlds perceptions about science changes all these guys will look really foolish with all the 'knew' they were right about. After all this is what has happened to science in the past few hundred years. History will always repeat itself. I am convinced if we had more of this type of scientist we would have already solved the worlds energy and hunger problems and quite possibly by on our way to traveling the universe through hyperspace ships and beaming down to the planets we wish to explore. Yes, invent for me or discover these types of scientists. The world could benefit from this more than it could benefit from anything else.

No, I would not do such on an open forum. That is very rude and uncalled for. I don't know these people and they don't know me. Hence there is never cause for blatant name calling. I would like to think my parents taught me better than that. Scientist have to be able to look at things objectively from all directions. This is why it is hard for me to understand why some scientists would do so. Anyway, sorry for the off topic post.

I first thought that ken's article had a sarcastic tone but then i read this at the bottom. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ken Amis is the founder and CEO of Entropy Innovations. He has devoted his life to the quest for perpetual motion and holds several patents for key ideas and mechanisms that could contribute to this goal. He has worked apart from the more visible proponents of over-unity devices, free energy, anti-gravity and reactionless drives, for he doesn't want to be bothered with publicity or take the time required to respond to "clueless critics" of perpetual motion. Mr Amis does not have a web site, but has generously shared this and a few other documents for use on this site, granting us permission to edit and polish them into appropriate format. Serious inquires and questions may be directed to the address shown at the right. Important: Put Entropy Innovations on the subject line of your email to ensure that it reaches the correct department. Ken has asked us to screen these to weed out frivolous or abusive email. We will forward interesting or original queries to Mr. Amis for possible reply. Some visitors to The Museum of Unworkable Devices have complained that the whole tenor of this site is negative—discouraging to folks who might wish to pursue the holy grail of perpetual motion. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ah ha, for all your so called 'brains' you still haven't evolved enough from refraining from calling a fellow human 'Stupid'.. shows how much you know. Point taken Janus but I think your missing my point that there could be errors in our physics laws yet undiscovered and thus one day a different system, a new paradigm could provide the answers to make a perpetual motion machine happen. I will never understand why people think we are so correct in our knowledge that we stop questioning our beliefs and thwart our advancement. If no one did this years ago we would not even be where we are now.. it's a history thing.. over the years whenever man knew he was right about something, something else would pop up to prove man wrong. I just think we haven't discovered this 'new way' of looking at physics yet. All we can say is it ( a perpetual motion machine) won't work with our present understanding of physics. There is nothing concrete anyone can point to that will prove that our present understanding is absolute. History proves this over and over. I have heard of scientific studies in quantum mechanics that are already seeing where the laws of relativity break down and fail to explain the outcomes. Remember, we call them laws but all are really just theories until something comes along to change our way of looking at them. This was taught to me in school as a basic principle of science. Do you guys mean to say you no longer follow this principle of science and that your belief in your laws are so absolute that science has now become your religion? Hasn't any one of you discovered a situation that challenged your preconceived scientific beliefs? Oh and smart people, don't chastise me if my ideas are not so scientific, I told you once I have a 20 year old high school understanding of science.. that's why I am here.. to learn. Perhaps some of you are familiar with 'Simanek' being an inside joke but if I fail to notice because I don't run in your circles that does not give you the right to treat me as any less of a human being. This behavior in an enlightened society astounds me.

Ah, I understand more about the magnets now. Thanks to everyone who answered...and Pantaz thanks for the link. On that site I found a great article that supports my belief that perpetual motion may be possible. http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/kamis.htm Now the trick is to study the failures and get to know the why's of them so well figuring out what would really make a perpetual motion machine work would be much easier by designing one around what's known to work within the realm of physics. I don't believe that physics itself demands that a perpetual motion machine is impossible, just that the ways it has been tried in the past have been the wrong ways. Perhaps new discoveries in quantum mechanics or superconducting technology will hold the answer and not in classical science.

I understand that your post above explains why the equilibrium occurs, but I fail to understand how that same situation would remain if your magnets pushing the wheel were much stronger than the magnets on the wheel; to answer the question won't a stronger force overcome a weaker force.. When the magnet on the wheel comes back around to the starting position wont it then not take as much energy and the stronger magnet continue to push through it.. granted because there will be some force to overcome but wont the stronger force prevail? If not then there is surely something I am not understanding here because I thought a stronger force will always overcome a weaker force.

Thank You for your answers thus far. Why do the forces 'must' equalize.. I thought my experiment failed because I did not have different types and sizes (strengths) of magnets to experiment with. What would happen if I had smaller magnets on the wheel and larger more powerful magnets around the wheel? Why must the forces reach equilibrium then? Or perhaps different types of magnets made from different materials. Wouldn't a stronger force overcome a weaker force? I tried to find software for creating a simulation that had various types and strengths of magnets so I could test this but it seems no one has made such software. I feel we cannot know in our stage of development all there is to know about the laws of physics nor that all of our laws must be 100% correct. I feel there may be a way around the equilibrium problem we just haven't discovered yet. I believe thinking like this is healthy and to think otherwise would thwart new discoveries. I am not saying I have to be right, I am saying i'm not ready to give up on this vein yet. Even if it isn't this magnet idea, I believe a perpetual motion machine even due to poor materials ( like metal or ball bearings wearing wary) a short lived one, is possible. Or if not truly 'perpetual' by definition, a machine that would run a very long time before it broke down. I can't tell you why from any scientific standpoint I believe that, it's just a strong gut feeling.

Hi, I'm new here and I'm not a scientist, mathematician or engineer. I have a few thoughts on perpetual motion machines I would like to share, and then open this to discussion. (By the way I started this exact discussion on a popular physics forum and got banned for life without explanation except to say I was a discussing "crackpot spam." I trust the forum mods here will not be so short sighted. As you will see there is nothing crack pot in a serious discussion of perpetual motion machines.) I remember back in the 1980s as a school boy learning about perpetual motion machines. The teachers said they were impossible. I have always been convinced otherwise. Laying aside the subtle intricacies of the second law of thermal dynamics, a practical perpetual motion machine is one that is a machine that is self sustaining and provides the ability to do work and does not require more energy from an outside force to continue doing that work. I say ' practical' because even if the device does break down in a thousand years it will have well served it's purpose giving us a thousand years of free energy. To me, A perpetual motion machine is not impossible. We have them all around us they are called galaxies. One form. Yet we have another form they are called Atoms with electrons and protons spinning around a nucleus. Atoms can be split in two, galaxies can be swallowed up by massive black holes over time but energy is never really destroyed, it just changes forms. The thing is, I believe I have invented such a device. At least in theory. To me the theory is sound and I almost had a working prototype except I cannot get the materials to build and test a good model. I am not a scientist but merely a layperson with mechanical experience. You take a wheel that's allowed to spin freely via a shaft in the middle. You place magnets all around the outside of the wheel at angles. You then place magnets around the outside of this wheel with these other magnets not touching the wheel. The wheel will be made to spin because of the repelling effect the magnets around the wheel have on the magnets attached to the wheel. There is your perpetual motion machine. Next all you have to do is apply Faraday's electromagnetic induction principles to a shaft in the middle of the wheel and Poof, you have free electricity. You can then take this small amount of free electricity and charge capacitor banks/step up transformers to power a larger motor or perhaps make an electromagnet that you then feed back into the first spinning wheel for greater output from the electromagnetic induction. Either way this perpetual motion machine will be self perpetuating and it will produce energy. Simply put Magnetic Force provides the starting energy. I truly believe in my heart that this could work. One may say that well of course if it has not been done this means it cannot be done but I refuse to believe such nonsense. After all, the world was flat, communication and sending power over long distances was impossible as well as flying machines, and of course it would only take the power of the gods themselves to put a man on the moon. I don't think this has been tried in the past because we did not have the man made magnets ( small strong magnets) we do now or the strong lightweight materials that can be used for other parts of the device. I got the idea one day when playing with magnets and a plastic transparent tube. I could make a simple anti-gravity device by placing a magnet at one end of the tube and dropping another magnet on top of it to watch it 'float'. I thought, why couldn't I figure out a way to put this to work. All you have to do first to prove a real perpetual motion machine is possible is make the wheel spin, that's it nothing fancy. You tell me whats so crackpot about that? I know this concept seems very simplistic compared to others but the point is to prove what is easily possible. Heck, if teachers built models of this idea and taught it in schools then it will help the world overcome these power hungry governments and corporations which seek to halt the progress of free energy devices. I wish I had a way to build a simulation in 3D to help show how this idea works but for now all I can do is describe it and hope you understand the concept. Please let me hear your thoughts on this matter. Thank You