can anyone help

[sci-man]

I need help with making a perpetual motion machine and I will use any ideas 

[sci-man]

I need help with making a perpetual motion machine and I will use any ideas 

I have ides but they wont continue to go mostly cause of the battery 

 

Edited October 5, 2017 by sci-man

[hypervalent_iodine]

I'm a little confused. In another thread you indicated you already had an idea you wanted to patent? 

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, sci-man said:

I need help with making a perpetual motion machine and I will use any ideas 

How about the idea that the present Laws of Physics don't allow it?

[sci-man]

hypervalent_iodine i have it ready except for the battery they all burnout 

J.C.MacSwell thnx for the post

but i cant find a solution so help...

[J.C.MacSwell]

9 minutes ago, sci-man said:

hypervalent_iodine i have it ready except for the battery they all burnout 

J.C.MacSwell thnx for the post

but i cant find a solution so help...

+1 for the first honest perpetual motion claimer ever!

[Raider5678]

22 minutes ago, sci-man said:

I need help with making a perpetual motion machine and I will use any ideas 

I have ides but they wont continue to go mostly cause of the battery 

 

So planning phase it is.

First, be very aware it is highly likely this is not possible without some sort of advanced physics due to the laws of thermodynamics.

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

If you are using up batteries to power your perpetual motion device, then it's not a perpetual motion device. 

[Raider5678]

2 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

If you are using up batteries to power your perpetual motion device, then it's not a perpetual motion device. 

Actually, if the perpetual motion machine runs off the battery yet charges the battery with even more power then it put out, then you have a perpetual motion machine.

 

 

However, using a battery means you're GOING TO LOSE energy when you store it and retrieve it. Which means even if you did stumble across a perpetual motion machine, if you're using a battery there's a good chance you wouldn't know it.

[hypervalent_iodine]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

Actually, if the perpetual motion machine runs off the battery yet charges the battery with even more power then it put out, then you have a perpetual motion machine.

 

 If that were the case, the batteries wouldn't constantly 'burn out.' 

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

 

 If that were the case, the batteries wouldn't constantly 'burn out.' 

I was interpreting it as burning out due to overcharging. 

[Strange]

7 hours ago, sci-man said:

I need help with making a perpetual motion machine and I will use any ideas 

There are lots of ideas here: https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

[studiot]

7 hours ago, sci-man said:

I need help with making a perpetual motion machine and I will use any ideas 

 

It would be a good idea for you to find out what is meant by the words you are using before embarking on this quest.

Do you know what is perpetual motion, becuase perpetual motion itself is not only not forbidden by the Laws of Physics, it is required in appropriate circumstances. (Newton's First Law).

However constructing a  P.M. machine, even in theory, is an entirely different ball game.

Do you know what a machine is?

Originally it was a device for "putting work into a convenient form" - It does not change the amount of work required.

With the discovery of further forms of energy it came to mean a device for transforming energy from one form into another.

Formally this became the Science of Thermodynamics and from this it was realised first that "You can't get something for nothing" which lead to the idea ( and prohibition of)  a

Perpertual Motion Machine of the First Kind, which is a device that does exactly that. It produces energy with no input.

Further development lead to proposals for more sophisticated machines that did not create something from nothing, but did output useful work directly from heat energy.

These were called a P.M. Machine of the Second Kind.

This was then discovered to be also impossible and a heirarchy of forms of energy was established to explain why.

 

[Vmedvil]

There are many people that have claimed perpetual motion devices all of these are impossible beside one I have found, it breaks many laws about the Conservation of Energy, that being said "If this person was being honest the perpetual motion device did pump more water flow against gravity than energy used from starting the device." The man had been working on this device for a very long time in India, but most of them are just very complex energy storage devices releasing stored energy over a long period of time making it seem as if the device were generating energy.  Me and the Creator of this such device had a very long conversation as me being the person saying "This was Impossible" , but if the man was honest, no the initial energy input was many times the amount of energy released.  This should break Electromagnetism in the maxwell equations "if he was correct and honest." , but normally no this is impossible. He did say many times that he did not fully understand the math of physics being a more experimental engineer and not a science person his name is Anil Uttam, here is a link to my discussion with him. Anil claims a perpetual motion device that generates energy.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, studiot said:

 Do you know what is perpetual motion, becuase perpetual motion itself is not only not forbidden by the Laws of Physics, it is required in appropriate circumstances. (Newton's First Law).

Newton's first law does not require perpetual motion. It simply states that the net force is zero if the object is in uniform linear motion (or there's a force if it is not). This does not require that no work is done on the object, just that there is no net work.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Newton's first law does not require perpetual motion. It simply states that the net force is zero if the object is in uniform linear motion (or there's a force if it is not). This does not require that no work is done on the object, just that there is no net work.

"A body will continue in its state of motion (or rest) (indefinitely) in its right line unless acted upon by. etc...."

 

I my view that is a pretty clear requirement,
It also offers conditions when it is not true.

 

I meant to say before there is a difference between perpetual motion and a pertual motion machine.

although I did indicate that a machine outputs work.

It is true to say that no machine is possible that outputs work with neither input nor direct conversion from another form of energy.
Or to put the Second Law in its original form, heat cannot be continuously converted into work with no other effect in the universe.

Edited October 5, 2017 by studiot

[Strange]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

"A body will continue in its state of motion (or rest) (indefinitely) in its right line unless acted upon by. etc...."

Referring to that as "perpetual motion" is not very useful. The term is understood to mean something that violates the laws of thermodynamics or conservation; dragging in an irrelevant definition just confuses the issue.

[studiot]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

Referring to that as "perpetual motion" is not very useful. The term is understood to mean something that violates the laws of thermodynamics or conservation; dragging in an irrelevant definition just confuses the issue.

Rubbish, the Laws of Thermodynamics do not forbid Perpetual Motion.

They forbid Perpetual Motion Machines.

Or perhaps you think the Kinetic Theory incorrect?

Or perhaps the Law of Conservation of Momentum?

[Strange]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

Rubbish, the Laws of Thermodynamics do not forbid Perpetual Motion.

But that is not what people normally mean by "perpetual motion".

[studiot]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

But that is not what people normally mean by "perpetual motion".

Of all members, no one is more vociferous than you in correcting folks who use popular expressions in place of proper Scientific Statements.

I also felt this thread was beginning to take on a witchhunt appearance, which is over the top against a young lad who has read to many superman comics.

He (hopefully) just needs nudging in the right direction of proper science and scientific expression.

[sci-man]

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

Of all members, no one is more vociferous than you in correcting folks who use popular expressions in place of proper Scientific Statements.

I also felt this thread was beginning to take on a witchhunt appearance, which is over the top against a young lad who has read to many superman comics.

He (hopefully) just needs nudging in the right direction of proper science and scientific expression.

i don't read superman comics I read batman 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

"A body will continue in its state of motion (or rest) (indefinitely) in its right line unless acted upon by. etc...."

 

I my view that is a pretty clear requirement,
It also offers conditions when it is not true.

 

I meant to say before there is a difference between perpetual motion and a pertual motion machine.

although I did indicate that a machine outputs work.

It is true to say that no machine is possible that outputs work with neither input nor direct conversion from another form of energy.
Or to put the Second Law in its original form, heat cannot be continuously converted into work with no other effect in the universe.

OK, I see your point. But the usual implication of perpetual (in this context) is that there are no inputs.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Of all members, no one is more vociferous than you in correcting folks who use popular expressions in place of proper Scientific Statements.

And, once again, that is what I am doing. You are taking the meanings of the individual words "perpetual" and "motion" and assuming the phrase can be applied to something that continues moving perpetually. That is not what the phrase "perpetual motion" means. It s a bit like saying that it is always "full moon" because the moon is always full of rock.

[J.C.MacSwell]

34 minutes ago, Strange said:

And, once again, that is what I am doing. You are taking the meanings of the individual words "perpetual" and "motion" and assuming the phrase can be applied to something that continues moving perpetually. That is not what the phrase "perpetual motion" means. It s a bit like saying that it is always "full moon" because the moon is always full of rock.

For "perpetual motion" I tend to think in the same context as yourself and Swansont when it regards machine design especially, or physics generally, but the term is also used in the context Studiot describes.

Wiki, for example, seems to look at it as Studiot does:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

 

Just my (overpriced no doubt), $0.02

 

[studiot]

Well this is a good test of who actually understands the basic laws of physics and knows how to apply them -  and who doesn't.

 

It is inappropriate here so I am starting a new thread offering a brain teaser question on the application of the Laws of Thermodynamics and associated laws.