perpetual motion machine

[John Phoenix]

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

Edited August 31, 2009 by John Phoenix

[Fuzzwood]

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.

Friction.

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.

An equilibrium will be found eventually.

 

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.

You cannot amplify electricity this way.

 

The magnets will eventually fail; their magnetic force (or energy) will diminish over time, hence not truly a perpetual device. Imo, that other physics forum did the right thing. And stop the conspiracy crap.

[Sisyphus]

Raising an unscientific idea is not crackpottery, it's healthy curiousity. However, insisting on that idea against all evidence is. We don't ban here unless you're actually disruptive, although we'll close topics that get too repetitive and/or ridiculous. Just a note.

 

Anyway, no, it won't work. It will quickly reach equilibrium and stop. If you don't believe me, build a prototype - that shouldn't be hard. In fact, many, many people have tried pretty much the same thing.

 

Also, neither galaxies nor atoms are "perpetual motion machines." Why would you think they are? You can never get more energy out of any system than what you put in + what is already there. If it were otherwise, the universe would be a very different place.

[Janus]

It won't work. What will happen is that the magnets on the rotor will just settle in positions halfway between the outer magnets.

 

But what you really have to ask yourself is:

 

If free energy were as simple to achieve as this device, why hasn't anyone one else already built one? Magnets have been around for a long time and there have been some pretty clever people during that time.

 

The truth of the matter is that this is not anything new. I can't count the times I've heard this idea already.

[mooeypoo]

Another note here: There's a very good reason for our skepticism (to say the least ) in this type of machine. Not only is it a well tried (and repeatedly failed) attempt - specifically with magnetics, as you propose - but also, it defies a very important principle in physics that is the preservation of energies.

 

For such a machine to be truly perpetual - and for it to have viable commercial outcome - it needs to produce more energy than it's using. Since it's considered a closed system, that's just not possible, physically. The energy must come from somewhere -- there's no such thing as a random production of energy. If you have an output of it, you somewhere in it have an input of it.

 

I can see why you would think galaxies and planet orbits are perpetual motion (I remove the word "machine" here, though) - they certainly seem to be moving undisturbed forever. But they're really not.

First off, they do not move forever. They do lose energy and the general orbit decays. It's true that this effect takes time -- a lot of time -- so we don't notice it as much, but that just shows that they still obey the laws of physics, conservation of energies and the laws of thermodynamics.

 

Second, these systems are not producing new energy output. Their movement depends on conservation of energy, so that makes them absolutely NOT a perpetual motion machine.

 

For that matter, if I were to kick a baseball into space, it would continue moving with its initial speed forever, unless something stopped it. Theoretically,since it's moving forever, will that be a perpetual motion machine? It will move (motion) forever (perpetually) so I guess one could make the case for it, but that's definitely not what is being proposed usually when people talk about perpetual motion machines.

 

The movement of this baseball does not output any energies you can use, so it's irrelevant. It's moving forever until stopped, and in that aspect it's perpetual motion - great, but it doesn't give you anything useful.

 

Your proposed machine will start moving and output energy out of the system. If you do not input more energy into the system, the movement will decay and die.

 

~moo

[Mr Skeptic]

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.

 

Nope, sorry. To give a physical example, take a book and put your hands on the covers and squeeze as hard as you can. Though you are pushing the book with all your strength, it will not move because you are pushing equally hard in the other direction. The same will happen with your magnets, opposite repulsions will cancel out. And even if you had a frictionless shaft, the moving magnets will release energy via electromagnetism, bringing your machine to a stop.

[John Phoenix]

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.

Edited August 31, 2009 by John Phoenix

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, consider the path of your magnets on the wheel during one whole rotation. It approaches the magnet and then moves away from it. Now you gain or lose just as much energy when approaching the magnet as moving away from it. (If this were not so, you could make a perpetual motion machine that simply moves two magnets closer and farther together.) Basically, the problem is that you need to put the magnets back into their original configuration, which takes as much energy as they gain by moving away.

[John Phoenix]

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.

[Janus]

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.

 

 

The force acting between poles of two magnets is proportional to the product of the strength of the two poles. IOW, if one pole is 1 and the other is 1, the force is 1x1=1, if one pole is 1 and the other 2, the force is 1x2=2, if one is 1/2 and the other is 2 the force is 1/2 x 2 =1. This is the force acting on both magnets. There is no stronger force and weaker force, there is only one force due to the combination of the two poles.

[Mr Skeptic]

If not then there is surely something I am not understanding here because I thought a stronger force will always overcome a weaker force.

 

Ah, what you are not understanding is that all forces come in pairs of equal strength but opposite direction. Look up Newton's laws. The weak magnet pushes back on the strong magnet with just as much force as the strong magnet pushes the weak magnet. Here is an experiment to demonstrate this: place two magnets in a small boat (easy to make from tin foil) so that they repel each other. Does the boat move rapidly in the direction of strong magnet to weak magnet?

[Pantaz]

John Phoenix,

Please, spend some time at http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

[John Phoenix]

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.

[swansont]

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.

 

"Ken Amis" is "Simanek" (the site's author) spelled backwards. It's satire, drawing on many/all of the misconceptions and imagined conspiracies of perpetual motion cranks.

 

That one would latch onto that and ignore all of the rest is truly mind-boggling.

[Fuzzwood]

No, thats caused by the stupidity gene, swansont. It only exists in my mind, therefore it is true.

 

To elaborate on this, since I have time now: my knowledge of biochemistry is limited, like your knowledge of physics is. Therefore you cover up the stuff you dont know with assumptions of free energy.

Edited September 1, 2009 by Fuzzwood

[Janus]

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.

 

But physics itself does demand that PM of the the type you are discussing is impossible.

 

In your first post you said that energy is never destroyed but only changes to other forms. This is true, but only a part of the story; neither is energy created.

 

Let's use an example: Energy is money, and for simplicity, let's say the different forms are check, cash, and in an account. You can convert from one ot another, but you start with a fixed amount in total.

 

As long you you don't spend any of the money, The amount will stay the same.

 

What PM devices claim to be able to do is essentially this: By being real clever in the order in which you convert the money between different forms, You can end up with "extra money"; Money you can spend without reducing the amount of money you have. Remember, no money is coming in from an outside source, you are just moving the money you have around.

 

This, of course, is silly. If I have X number of dollars, just moving it around will not change how much I have.

 

And this is not even considering the fact that, in real life, there would be transaction fees, etc. Just by moving the money around, you would be slowly depleting it, without getting anything for the money you are losing.

[Edtharan]

The reason it won't work is that the energy given be the magnets repelling have to also overcome the effects of the magnets repelling.

 

To bring a magnet close enough to another magnet so that it can repel it, you have to bring that magnet close to the other. This requires effort, and the force needed to do this will come from the magnet before being repelled.

 

Imagine it being like a hill. If you are at the top of a hill, you can roll down and increase your speed. But, if you want to roll down the hill, you need to get up the hill first. Going up hill takes effort (energy).

 

So if you are going to use a succession of magnetic repulsions to push this wheel around, each time you try to being a magnet close to another so that they can repel you need expend energy (effort) to do so. You essentially have to go "Up hill" for each "down hill" you have and the problem is that due to friction, you loose a little bit of the energy you got from the last down hill. And, if you are trying to extract energy to do useful work (say to turn into electricity to light a light bulb) then that enregy is also lost from the system.

 

This means that you loose a lot of energy, and won't have enough to get over the next "hill". You would have to keep putting energy into the system to keep it turning which means that it is not a "perpetual" motion machine.

[JohnB]

Red Green built one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJJrjDI5xSQ

 

But, if you can't build one, write a song about one.

[John Phoenix]

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.

Edited September 1, 2009 by John Phoenix

[insane_alien]

like you've never called someone being ridiculously stubborn stupid.

 

if someone kept claiming that water was dry and made of pink leprechauns wielding abba CD's despite all theevidence to the contrary then i think you would be inclined to call them stupid too. same scenario, different arguement.

[John Phoenix]

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.

[insane_alien]

yes, you do have to be objective in research. but really, some things have been done to death and still people keep on bringing up the same old arguements that have been disproven and shown to be wrong thousands and thousands of times. it gets annoying and eventually leads to frustration and anger at the peopl who still keep doing this despite overwhelming evidence.

 

the nub of this is, we are human, not robots. annoy a human and they will respond, robots do not get annoyed.

[Mr Skeptic]

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?

 

This is true but you are forgetting the other principle of science: to challenge a theory or propose a new theory you need data to support what you are saying. You can't just plug your ears and pretend you can't hear what people are telling you about magnets. You are basing your idea that magnets don't work like scientists say they do, based solely on your intuition in stark contrast to all evidence that they are right... that is not how science works.

[Sisyphus]

It's a scientist's job to be skeptical of accepted ideas, and even more skeptical of new ones. This happens to be neither, but a third category: already discredited idea. And many, many times over, at that. So people are going to be extremely skeptical of it unless you give reason to believe otherwise, and that is how it should and must be. That's what the burden of proof is. And "a reason to believe otherwise" is not a gut feeling, it is a successful experiment others can repeat for themselves.

[swansont]

Underlying all this is Noether's Theorem, which proves that all continuous symmetries correspond to conservation laws. If energy is not conserved, the laws of physics must change with time.