what is perpetual motion, or is it just a fraud?

Question

I read a definition of perpetual motion from 1910, which does not read like anything I have seen from recently, I am already familiar with the definition that "It's impossible" and "This ain't it."

Answer 1

It seems to be a fraud. The conditions to create it are too ideal. No friction, no resistance, any external force like gravity would much it up. Where are you going to go to get away from gravity?

Answer 2

The word perpetual just means continuing or enduring forever; everlasting. So perpetual motion just means moving forever. But when people talk about perpetual motion machines, they always mean something like an electric motor that turns an electric generator that makes electricity to run the motor that is turning it. If there were no friction or electrical resistance at all, then such a setup could, in theory, run forever. That is not fundamentally different than just putting a wheel on a frictionless bearing, setting it spinning and letting it spin forever on momentum.

But the perpetual motion machines people always try to build are supposed to make more power than they use, like a 10 watt motor turning a generator to make 20 watts of power. In other words they are a free source of power. Such a machine is impossible. It violates the conservation of energy law, one of the basic laws of all science. If that law is wrong, then all of science is wrong. All people who claim they can make energy with a perpetual motion machine are either crazy or are out and out frauds.

But the new perpetual motion crowd take it to a new level. They claim not to be violating conservation of energy. They claim to be able to tap into zero point energy or vacuum energy or some other energy in the universe that is hypothesized but not yet proven. None of them have succeeded. But who knows what wonders future science will provide. Nuclear energy was once such an unknown, mysterious energy source. But it started out pretty well founded in traditional science and was quickly exploited. Not so with these wacky new energies some people talk about. Zero point energy is still pseudo science, like astrology or telekinesis.

Answer 3

perpetual motion arises from the conservation of energy, which does not have a provision for loss of energy through molecular interactions within a substance or frictional losses between substances. It is these losses that prevent perpetual motion. It can be approached with "superconductors" in electricity which transmit electricity with almost no resistance, but the conditions needed to acheive this state of resistance often consume more energy than is transmitted. The second law of Thermodynamics is a refuatation of the concept of perpetual motion.

Answer 4

Perpetual motion describes the motion of a device where there is no net loss in energy. The amount of energy you put into the machine is exactly the amount of energy the machine outputs. The reason this doesn't work is because of forces of friction, which causes the machine to slow down and lose energy over time. It is very difficult to create a perfectly frictionless environment, and the amount of energy you put in creating and maintaining a frictionless environment for the machine will overcome any energy saved from 100% efficiency.

Answer 5

U.S. patent 6,362,718 was granted on March 26, 2002. In the “field of invention” section, the patent states that it is “capable of producing electrical power without an external application of input power.” I want one.

Think of what you could do with it. You could compete with utility companies, recharge the batteries in your electric shaver without ever having to plug it in and sell electricity to your neighbors. The possibilities are endless. Sadly, it won’t work in spite of its exalted patent status.

It’s just another perpetual motion machine, which we all know violates the second law of thermodynamics and is also prohibited by statute. One thing about laws of physics is that no leader or legislature can vote a law of physics up or down. You needn’t train peace officers on enforcing these laws. They simply can’t be broken. Maybe.

In 1827, English botanist Robert Brown noticed that pollen grains suspended in water jiggled about under the lens of the microscope. Others noticing the same phenomenon named it “Brownian motion” in honor of its discoverer.

The phenomenon remained unexplained until Albert Einstein in 1905 decided to take a shot at a solution, which contributed to his receipt of the Nobel Prize for physics in 1926. What Einstein suggested was that the motion was due to the invisible water molecules hitting the visible particles and moving them a bit.

Since the particles are hit continuously from all sides, they move in a random fashion. For a long time, life was good with this explanation – that is, until Richard Feynman got his hands on the problem. Feynman suggested that we could build a device that took advantage of Brownian motion.

He suggested that we could build a tiny device that consists of a vane (on the right) and a ratcheted wheel (on the left) that is attached by an axel from which we could suspend something (perhaps a flea). Due to the bombardment of gas molecules on the vane, the vane oscillates and jiggles.

Since the wheel at the other end of the axle only turns one way because of the ratchet, motion in one direction will cause the axle to turn while motion in the other direction will not. Therefore, the wheel will turn slowly and may even be able to lift some weight (a millionth of the weight of a flea).

Though the system has no loss of energy, it performs work. This is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics for which no patent exists. Feynman pointed out that since this is a violation of the second law, it simply couldn’t work.

Unfortunately, several successful attempts have been made to actually make a Brownian ratchet. They’ve worked. The key question is: Do we now have the basis to create a perpetual motion machine? Have we found the key to free energy for all time – the ultimate free lunch?

Well, no. There is a ratchet, remember? At the scale where this happens, the ratchet too is getting bumped around as much as the vane. Every time the ratchet slams down, it dumps the free lunch back into the gas. Net result? No perpetual motion and no free lunch.

On the other hand, Brownian motors exist and work, although they do consume energy as they go. Though this would seem to be the end of the tale at this point, it’s not.

It turns out that if you start looking at the mechanisms by which DNA makes copies of itself or the way proteins are folded as they are created, there is pretty convincing data to suggest that nature has engineered Brownian ratchets to assist in these fundamental biological processes. While a Brownian ratchet is not the means to a free energy lunch, it may be core to the creation of all the foods that go into your lunch.

Dr. H

Answer 6

There is perpetual motion in the universe, the galaxies and all the matter in spacetime are hurtling forever outward in a sphere from the big bang, and space itself is in perpetual motion, it is expanding at right now, as I write this post. This is scientific fact and it is now known that it's getting faster. Even when all the lights have gone out and the universe is a dark empty place, those infinitely spread out clumps of matter will still be racing outward into nothingness. =)

Answer 7

Simply put, perpetual motion means "more energy created than used." Therefore, you can use the OUTPUT to both run the machine (indefinitely) AND produce extra energy.

In the past, this was impossible, due to factors of friction, heat, etc. Today's products and technologies make this . . . well, you have to decide that one for yourself!

Answer 8

it is used to describe a machine that can move forever without any additional energy (it recycles all its energy somehow).

if you want to describe a subatomic particle as being in perpetual motion I won't call it a fraud.

Answer 9

It is a mechanical thing which has to move always by itself but till now no energy been discovered to make it by itself.Is impossible.This is a dream of the people.

Answer 10

Whoever said it was impossible should meet my children!