new perpetual motion machine

[Thomas Kirby]

There are many ways to do it. Conceptually it is no different from using any source of heat at any temperature. The key element is using a significantly colder heat sink. The colder the potentially more efficient.

 

The problem' date=' of course, is that the heat sink must be significantly colder than ambient, unlike for higher temperature heat sources.[/quote']

 

You're kidding me, right? All this describes is a heat engine of some kind, not a perpetual motion machine or overunity device of any kind. Redesigning the heat engine is good. I don't think we really know for sure how well it can work.

[J.C.MacSwell]

You're kidding me, right? All this describes is a heat engine of some kind, not a perpetual motion machine or overunity device of any kind. Redesigning the heat engine is good. I don't think we really know for sure how well it can work.

 

You are right that it's not a perpetual motion machine. Perpetual motion machines are not possible. We don't know how well a heat engine could work, but we do know that there is an upper limit on how efficient they can work depending on the temperatures involved and that the entropy of a closed system will only increase.

[Kyrisch]

I used to think of loads of ideas for perpetual motion machines. All of them used electromagnets, which created some sort of motion, which was connected to a turbine, which powered the electromagnets. The problem with any ideas using the same idea as this is that no matter how many ways you try to recapture the energy created by the motion of whatever metal being affected by the electromagnets and turn it back into electrical energy for the electromagnets, there will always be less energy coming back to the electromagnets than being created by them; you can't capture 100% of the energy given off by the motion/friction caused by the metal being influence by the magnets. This is why I gave up on perpetual motion about a year ago.

[asdfasdf]

I have designed a working perpetual motion that uses simple magnets, magnetic sheilding and a wheel. I'm not going to post how it works right now, not because I fear you will steal my design, but because I fear it will spark an argument that will end with everyone calling me a crackpot. I really just want to ask you guys these questions:

 

If I manage to make this machine, what should I do? Should I hide from assasination attempts? Should I patent it? Who should I sell the patent to?

 

Honestly, why should inventors have to deal with these things?

[ydoaPs]

i don't think you thought it all the way through. when i was younger i thought i had a load of perpetual motion devices thought up. they range anywhere from a complicated system of springs to a genorator rigged to a motor. then i learned about what is called science.

 

energy is always lost. sorry, but it's true. if you post your design, we could tell you why it won't work.

[swansont]

I have designed a working perpetual motion...

 

No. You may have designed something, but it isn't a perpetual motion machine.

 

...that uses simple magnets' date=' magnetic sheilding and a wheel. I'm not going to post how it works right now, not because I fear you will steal my design, but because I fear it will spark an argument that will end with everyone calling me a crackpot. I really just want to ask you guys these questions:

 

If I manage to make this machine, what should I do? Should I hide from assasination attempts? Should I patent it? Who should I sell the patent to?

 

Honestly, why should inventors have to deal with these things?[/quote']

 

"Designed" or "built"? The proof of perpetual motion would be in the building, not the designing.

 

If all you've done is designed it, then you won't get a patent, because the design is flawed. And it's up to you to prove that it isn't, by building the thing and showing that it works.

 

You need not fear assasination attempts, and inventors don't generally have to deal with such things.

[YT2095]

There are many ways to do it. Conceptually it is no different from using any source of heat at any temperature. The key element is using a significantly colder heat sink. The colder the potentially more efficient.

 

The problem' date=' of course, is that the heat sink must be significantly colder than ambient, unlike for higher temperature heat sources.[/quote']

 

Hmmm... that sounds a little bit like these gas powered fridges, or the fliud cooled heatsinks that use the semiconductors heat at an offset to warm up the fluid that then creates movement towards the cooler area and thus continues the cycle (think Lava Lamp in aluminium).

am I right?

[MIG]

- when i was younger i thought i had a load of perpetual motion devices thought up

Me to.

We need to build devices that will use energy witch is here and it’s no cost or low cost

try to focus on this

[Thomas Kirby]

At least we're not the government here. If we were, if our permanent magnet motor didn't work, we'd just buy bigger magnets.

 

If anyone can win this game it's going to be the person who builds a working model. I've read about a working model in the 1930s that generated 3500 watts. No one proved it to be a hoax, although it's not impossible to hoax something like a batch of semiconductor diodes that look like they are generating power. I could hoax it myself with a little bit of funding but it would only run for a few minutes.

[asdfasdf]

Ok, sorry I got carried away. I didn't mean to question whether or not anyone believes that a perpetual motion machine has been invented or even whether the possibility of one exists. I was simply imposing a hypothetical question: if an upstanding member of the scientific community were to stumble upon the key to perpetual motion and actually build the corresponding machine, how should he handle the responsibility?

[YT2095]

present it in the same way he did when he became and upstanding member of the scientific community and take it from there

[Thomas Kirby]

Thank 'ye Swansont.

 

 

 

You're speaking of blackhole evaporation correct? Don't you mean virtual particle pairs then?

 

As I understand it' date=' if you have a positive virtual photon, a corresponding negative virtual photon must also exist. This results in a net energy of zero. Even if one of these photons falls into the blackhole, while the other escapes, the net energy of the system remains zero. The photon that escapes takes with it the amount of energy equal to the mass lost by the blackhole. No energy is created nor destoryed and so conservation of energy is upheld.[/quote']

 

Yes, but if the virtual pairs are created, one falls in, the other escapes, doesn't the black hole gain mass? The trouble with this, as I understand it, is that it is a zero sum game. Virtual pair formation requires the black hole to contribute nothing, not heat, light, gamma rays, mass, any form of energy, not even zero point energy to the equation. If it does, I certainly don't understand the idea.

[swansont]

Yes, but if the virtual pairs are created, one falls in, the other escapes, doesn't the black hole gain mass? The trouble with this, as I understand it, is that it is a zero sum game. Virtual pair formation requires the black hole to contribute nothing, not heat, light, gamma rays, mass, any form of energy, not even zero point energy to the equation. If it does, I certainly don't understand the idea.

 

It takes the energy of the entire rest mass to create the pair, and for them to be real, the energy comes from the black hole. If only one falls in, you've decreased the energy by mc² of the other particle.