My Theory on Perpetual Motion

[unix60959]

Hey guys, I think this is my first offical thread but I've been on and off these forums as well as a few physics type forums and when ever anything is stated about any kind of perpetual motion the idea obviously won't work and then the idea is not considered anymore.

My theory about this is that we see perpetual motion as somthing that is either 'on' or 'off'. There is no in-between. But, there is in fact this in-between perpetual motion. If you think about it, it makes sense. For example, if you have a bucket with 10 small holes in the bottom and you capture some of the water say from 3 of the holes and put it back in the bucket, doesn't seem that the time it takes for all of the water to drain would be longer than if some of the water is reused. I know this analogy is not the best. but a practical example could be alterators in the wheels of an electric car. It may not keep the car running forever, but it could definately help the car run longer?

So just like its impossible to reach the speed of light, yet it is possible to get very close (99.99%), maybe its possible to get closer and closer to making a 'perpetual machine'?

-unix60959

 

[alec_t]

a practical example could be alterators in the wheels of an electric car. It may not keep the car running forever, but it could definately help the car run longer?

Unfortunately, in order to get an alternator to create any output energy it has to use energy, which would come from the car's kinetic energy. Since the alternator wastes some energy in the form of heat (overcoming friction etc) its output energy is always less than its input energy. The result is the car would run for a shorter period, not longer!

 

[JimB]

Capturing the water and putting it back into the bucket is effectively adding energy to the system.

Another badly thought out idea drops off the end into the bit bucket!

JimB

 

[ronsimpson]

The only thing perpetual about perpetual motion machines is that people will not stop trying to invent one.

 

[Reloadron]

Yes, if I capture water from three out of ten holes and return it to the bucket the bucket will indeed take longer to empty. However, how much energy do I expend putting the water back in the bucket?

When I was a kid automobiles didn't have alternators, in fact many cars had 6 volt electrical systems. My father was an electrical engineer who got a kick out of my fascination with car batteries and generators, Well if you just connected a generator to a battery it would spin like a motor. I had this marvelous idea. Why not connect a generator to a generator running backwards as a motor and configure the belt in a figure 8? The generator acting as a motor would turn the generator acting as a generator and put electricity back in the battery. I presented this marvelous idea to my father who told me to build it so I did. Using nails and rubber straps cut from inner tubes (pre tubeless tire days) I nailed this combination down. Days of charging my batteries with a DC train transformer and the big day came. It ran, the generator dragged down the motor and in short order my battery was dead. Only then did my father explain the moral of the story. That concluded my first and last lesson in perpetual motion. Given a choice I'll take a nuclear reactor.

While today's energy systems become more efficient and we find ways to capture and use energy that was once written off as loss there is no perpetual motion. The fact that many so desperately want to believe it can happen makes for a nice scam artist market but the reality of it just isn't happening.

Just My Take
Ron

 

[DerStrom8]

When I read this I understood it as the OP giving a theory of why perpetual motion ISN'T possible, and now people are arguing with him saying it's NOT possible.....? I think at least one of you guys has it backwards
The OP states that he knows it's impossible, and gives his idea of what makes it not work. Yes, alternators make the batteries run longer. We know that. But there is more to the system that meets the eye. That is exactly the point the OP was making. It's not perpetual motion. It's just making something more efficient, which is what scientists are doing today.

 

[Reloadron]

When I read this I understood it as the OP giving a theory of why perpetual motion ISN'T possible, and now people are arguing with him saying it's NOT possible.....? I think at least one of you guys has it backwards
The OP states that he knows it's impossible, and gives his idea of what makes it not work. Yes, alternators make the batteries run longer. We know that. But there is more to the system that meets the eye. That is exactly the point the OP was making. It's not perpetual motion. It's just making something more efficient, which is what scientists are doing today.

Then I could see the point but why use Perpetual Motion. I don't see the connection between perpetual motion:

Perpetual motion describes hypothetical machines that operate or produce useful work indefinitely and, more generally, hypothetical machines that produce more work or energy than they consume, whether they might operate indefinitely or not.

Making something more efficient I do not see as relating to perpetual motion. Not as I see it anyway. Oh well, sorry if I mistook things.

Ron

 

[SPDCHK]

Why waste energy capturing water from 3 holes and getting it back into the bucket, where the same result (with less energy wasted) could be achieve by simply plugging those 3 holes.

Getting ways to save energy is what should be engineered. Perhaps to notion of “perpetual motion” should be used as the “reach for the stars, you might land on the clouds”. At least that’s better than doing nothing, right?

 

[EN0]

Wouldn't it seem that perpetual motion is possible from a calculus perspective, in which infinitesimally small packets of energy are used to power a given device? Since the segments are infinitesimally small, no matter how far you advance in time, the energy would seem perpetual.

 

[MrAl]

Hi,


There already is such a thing as a perpetual motion machine so we dont have to invent one. It's a small loop of super conducting wire where the current can be made to circle the loop indefinitely without loss.

The problem with this PMM is the same as any other PMM...It's not ONLY about inventing a perpetual motion machine it's about inventing a perpetual motion machine AND having it perform some useful purpose. The problem is that as soon as it begins to perform a useful purpose it has to expel some of the internal energy and even a small amount means it eventually runs out of energy and dies.

As far as a pseudo PMM, i tend to have the same view as others here in that it's mostly a matter of making current things more efficient, or else inventing new things to replace the old which are more efficient. That means a PMM that does die down at some point in time, but it takes a useful amount of time to get there.

Current devices that are sort of like this include the simple battery with very light load. Some uC chips draw very little power so you can design circuits that run for years off of two AA cells. That's not bad really. With things like this coming into play we might be able to ask the question, "Do we really need a perpetual motion machine?".

Back in grammar school in science class i once proposed a perpetual motion machine: a light bulb connected to a solar cell. The idea of course is that the light bulb shines on the solar cell, the solar cell powers the light bulb, endless energy
Obviously this fails for various reasons, but my science teacher was kind enough not to come right out and state that, instead he made me think it over and figure out why it might not work for myself. I was disappointed but i learned a lot about efficiency that day.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Stupid thread closed! - moderator.