Hello gang

[Bobrobert]

Hi All -

 

I have just recently retired from the telecommunications industry after 37 years. I have always had a fascination with "perpetual motion" and basically that is the main reason for joining this forum, to discuss this subject.

 

I have “no” background in perpetual motion, other than reading some articles every now and then when I find one, and I’m certainly not a scientist, but I have always been curious. I’ll probably spend some time reading what has already been posted, and then try to start a “back-in-forth” with some of my questions. I hope most of you write in laymen’s terms.:)

 

Bob

[Giles Corey]

Hello!

On the topic of Perpetual motion, The sempiternal demeanor of ambulation, soforth is non-absolute disparate the universe...

 

Hehe.. Just kidding mate, I had to use a thesaurus to find half of those words ;). Still, its an interesting subject that I, alike know not a thing about other than the occasional article.

 

But, glad to meet ya!

Look forward to talking about unremitting oscillation!

~So many jokes, so little time!:)

[freeztar]

Hi All -

 

I have just recently retired from the telecommunications industry after 37 years. I have always had a fascination with "perpetual motion" and basically that is the main reason for joining this forum, to discuss this subject.

 

I have “no” background in perpetual motion, other than reading some articles every now and then when I find one, and I’m certainly not a scientist, but I have always been curious. I’ll probably spend some time reading what has already been posted, and then try to start a “back-in-forth” with some of my questions. I hope most of you write in laymen’s terms.:)

 

Bob

 

Welcome. ;)

 

Are you interested in perpetual motion of the type that is not in violation of Newton's laws, or the type that is?

 

Perpetual motion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term perpetual motion, taken literally, refers to movement that goes on forever. This is possible in the current theoretical understanding of physics as in Newton's First Law of Motion. However, perpetual motion usually refers to a device or system that delivers more energy than was put into it.

[Buffy]

Greetings!

 

I suppose this means you'll never stop posting! :)

 

Have fun!

Buffy

[Bobrobert]

WOW! - One day and I have 3 new friends. To all; thanks for the response and welcome.

 

Giles - You got me, you got me good! I read your first line and started to "yank" my membership to this site right then and there. :confused:

 

Buffy ("The Vampire Slayer" I presume) - If I never stop posting here please just shoot me.

 

Freestar - If this is where Newton says things in motion stay in motion and things at rest stay at rest, or something of that sort, then I think I'm interested in something that is not in agreement with Newton.

 

But you can assume I know very little about this subject, because I didn’t realize that there was more than “one” type of perpetual motion. Are you saying that in the world of perpetual motion there can be two different “machines - for lack of a better term," one that agrees w/Newton and one that doesn’t?

 

The reason I'm here at all is to finally address something I have been carrying around in my mind that I witnessed almost 50 years ago. I was 10 or 12 years old and what I saw makes me think that it is possible to have perpetual motion, "as long" as the mechanical components didn't break down, which of course they would at some point. I don't believe "man" has invented anything that will last for all of eternity, but I "always" keep an open mind.

 

But let me ask you a hypothetical question; say I gave you a very large "capsule," and you placed this capsule anywhere you choose. And let’s say this capsule is shaped like a “gel cap” for sake of this conversation. If this capsule was completely sealed, meaning nothing going in or out of the capsule except for one "internal drive axel" which stuck out of the side or end of the capsule for a couple inches. And let's say that drive axel turned and continued to turn for 100 or 200 years before something broke; would that be significant in the perpetual motion world?

 

Again – Thanks for the welcome, and now I’ll spend some time poking around this site, because I don’t even know where perpetual motion items are supposed to be posted as yet.

 

Bob

[freeztar]

Freeztar - If this is where Newton says things in motion stay in motion and things at rest stay at rest, or something of that sort, then I think I'm interested in something that is not in agreement with Newton.

 

I'm sure every scientist would long for a theory that disputes Newton. In fact, this is exactly what Einstein accomplished, in terms of universal/galactic scale. Both their theories work equally well on Earth (for all practical purposes), but move away from Earth and its gravitational field even a little bit and Einstein's theories become much more meaningful and accurate (ie GPS system).

 

All this said, I find it highly unlikely that you, or anybody else, will ever develop a perpetual motion machine.

 

There are numerous examples of why this is the case in the "Strange Claims" forum on this site.

 

But you can assume I know very little about this subject, because I didn’t realize that there was more than “one” type of perpetual motion.

 

Ah, but in a way you did. You've already alluded to it. :confused:

 

Unless acted upon by an unbalanced force, an object will maintain a constant velocity.

 

Are you saying that in the world of perpetual motion there can be two different “machines - for lack of a better term," one that agrees w/Newton and one that doesn’t?

 

See above.

 

The reason I'm here at all is to finally address something I have been carrying around in my mind that I witnessed almost 50 years ago. I was 10 or 12 years old and what I saw makes me think that it is possible to have perpetual motion

 

What did you see may I ask?

 

"as long" as the mechanical components didn't break down, which of course they would at some point. I don't believe "man" has invented anything that will last for all of eternity, but I "always" keep an open mind.

This is a key point. Nothing is indestructable, and nothing is perpetual.

 

But let me ask you a hypothetical question; say I gave you a very large "capsule," and you placed this capsule anywhere you choose. And let’s say this capsule is shaped like a “gel cap” for sake of this conversation. If this capsule was completely sealed, meaning nothing going in or out of the capsule except for one "internal drive axel" which stuck out of the side or end of the capsule for a couple inches. And let's say that drive axel turned and continued to turn for 100 or 200 years before something broke; would that be significant in the perpetual motion world?

Nope. It would be a major engineering accomplishment, but perpetual means forever.

Again – Thanks for the welcome, and now I’ll spend some time poking around this site, because I don’t even know where perpetual motion items are supposed to be posted as yet.

 

Bob

 

I again urge you to review some of the prior discussions on this subject on this very board. I'll post some links below for your convenience.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/science-projects-homework/544-perpetual-motion.html?highlight=perpetual+motion

http://hypography.com/forums/strange-claims-forum/11042-new-energy-source.html?highlight=perpetual+motion

http://hypography.com/forums/strange-claims-forum/10662-perpetual-motion-vehicle.html?highlight=perpetual+motion

http://hypography.com/forums/physics-mathematics/9855-perpetual-motion-machine.html?highlight=perpetual+motion

http://hypography.com/forums/strange-claims-forum/9377-perpetual-energy-machine.html?highlight=perpetual+motion

http://hypography.com/forums/physics-mathematics/2689-long-live-perpetual-motion.html?highlight=perpetual+motion

http://hypography.com/forums/physics-mathematics/2581-pseudo-perpetual-motion-device-tear-apart.html?highlight=perpetual+motion

 

etc. etc. etc.

[Bobrobert]

Freeztar - Thanks for the reply.

 

I did find a long thread on perpetual motion and I am on page 19 or so. Very interesting stuff. I’ll look at the links you posted after I finish the thread I started, and thanks for that as well.

 

One thing that did come through is there are a lot of believers and just as many na-sayers. I'm not interested in getting into the middle of any of that. I just want to get this "one thing" out of my mind once and for all, and it may not be a "quote unquote" PMM.

 

Am I wrong here, are not most folks trying to build what they are calling a PMM but it really is not. If it's made out of "materials" then it can never be a PMM, because won't it at some point...break? So are most folks just trying to come up with the next engineering marvel, or do they really think they can build, out of materials, a PMM?

 

Another thing that came across very strong is there are folks out there that have worked, and are still working very hard on this, and no one has grabbed the brass ring as yet.

 

If you’ll please bear with me on not describing what I saw I would appreciate it. What I saw years ago was not a machine of any sorts but an oddity that I didn’t realize until later years that maybe this oddity could be turned into a PMM, or what I "thought" was a PMM.

 

It is so simple it's obscene, compared to pictures of potential PMM’s I’ve seen in articles and what I'm guessing folks on this web site are trying to build. It could be described in a few short sentences. But before I lay that out, by way of this or another forum, I would like to find out what the "rules" are for coming up with a machine that produces more energy then it uses.

 

What if I told you this; I think it’s possible to build a machine that produces more energy than it uses. It is made mostly from man-made materials, so it would not qualify as a PMM. It would be completely self-contained (like in a capsule) and it would have no internal power source, like a battery or induction coils, etc. Once it was built it would start on its own. Actually that is not quite correct, it would never stop is more to the truth. The external drive shaft/axel would have to be locked to stop it, and when un-locked it would start by itself. What would I have, an engineering marvel? (Certainly not a PMM per say.)

 

Thanks again,

Bob

[freeztar]

What if I told you this; I think it’s possible to build a machine that produces more energy than it uses.

 

Bob, Your proposition holds no water. That's what I think/know. Prove me wrong, else, this is a pointless conversation.

[Bobrobert]

Freeztar -

 

Thanks - I'll give it a try.

 

Sorry if I asked the wrong questions, just trying to get a feel for what was going on within this forum and just basic information/definitions on the pmm. I certainly do not want to waste your time by being pointless.

 

Bob

[Tormod]

Freeztar is merely pointing out that since this is a science forum, we like to discuss ideas and hypotheses but we need some angle from which to discuss it. Just stating things can be pointless because it's difficult to argue/support the claim (and particularly difficult to understand the opinion of the poster). Instead, write how you think your idea is viable.

 

BTW discussions should be taken to the various science forums, not here in the introduction forum. ;)

[freeztar]

Freeztar -

 

Thanks - I'll give it a try.

 

Sorry if I asked the wrong questions, just trying to get a feel for what was going on within this forum and just basic information/definitions on the pmm. I certainly do not want to waste your time by being pointless.

 

Bob

 

Hey Bob,

 

Sorry if I came across as harsh, that was not my intent.

I'm very interested in hearing your ideas, but I just wanted to make clear that machines that "produce more energy than it uses" are considered psuedo-science, or at least incompatible with the known laws of physics.

 

A perpetual motion machine of the first kind produces strictly more energy than it uses, giving the user unlimited energy. It thus violates the law of conservation of energy. Over-unity devices, that is, devices with a thermodynamic efficiency greater than 1.0 (unity, or 100%), are perpetual motion machines of this kind.

I certainly do not want to discourage you though and if you have a great design that will be very efficient and run for a long time, then that sounds great. ;)

 

edit: As Tormod said, why not start a thread on the topic and give us your ideas so we can discuss them.

[Bobrobert]

Tormod - Thank you for your input and thoughts.

 

This forum may not fit what I'm looking for. I want to ask these type questions without discussing my idea, but I'm beginning to understand that won't be very well received, and I guess I can understand that. You want something to sink your teeth into and I'm not providing it.

 

My problem is this idea is so darn simple one paragraph or less and everything about it is exposed, and I'm not sure I want to do that. Actually at times I wish I could find it written up as a failure just so I can stop thinking about it.

 

This is an interesting web site, and if there is anything else from me it will be posted to some other forum.

 

Thanks again -

Bob