Another possible perpetual motion engine...maybe?

[Zorlac]

http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/300042

[Swatrecon_]

that thing looks pretty sweet. I was actually just wondering the other day why more people haven't tried it. When I try to work it out in my head, it should work, but apparently it doesn't. :confused:

[alpha_tot]

I went to the guys site and watched the videos, and the only thing he shows is when you put the back EMF back into an induction motor it goes faster... i dont see where all this perpetual motion crap is coming from, maybe im missing something.

http://www.g9toengineering.com/backemf/demonstration.htm

[Drunner611]

As far as we know, it is impossible to avoid the loss of energy in heat.

Law of Thermodynamics
"energy systems have a tendency to increase their entropy"

[Swatrecon_]

As far as we know, it is impossible to avoid the loss of energy in heat.

Law of Thermodynamics
"energy systems have a tendency to increase their entropy"

well, you know what they say, "Laws are meant to be broken."

[MuffinFlavored]

well, you know what they say, "Laws are meant to be broken."

Just not the laws of physics?

[Craftyman.]

Pshaw what's physics gonna do to enforce these laws :rolleyes:. anyways I'm teleportin' outta here, you guys want anything from Japan?

[cegras]

Magnets degrade over time / use. Any device that claims perpetual motion and uses magnets is just, at best, a 99.999 .. 9% efficient device.

[Greenhead]

The second law of thermodynamics basically says. No matter how much energy you put into a system, you will always get less out of it. That is why perpetual motion can never happen

I don't see how this guys invention is so called perpetual motion energy.. he's just trying to minimize the loss due to heat, and noise.

It could be true.. but perpetual motion.. i think not

[villa1n]

The second law of thermodynamics basically says. No matter how much energy you put into a system, you will always get less out of it. That is why perpetual motion can never happen

I don't see how this guys invention is so called perpetual motion energy.. he's just trying to minimize the loss due to heat, and noise.

It could be true.. but perpetual motion.. i think not

ER but our "Laws" are made up, based on observations... so.. they re not really "Laws" per say.

[Dimitriman]

Question is, Will I be able to Power 2x Next Gen Nvidia cards, that draw 250watts each without increasing my energy bill by an extra digit with it?

[Rock&Roll]

There's plenty to backup these laws. I don't blame people for dreaming of some free energy, but things just don't work like that. I don't care what you do. The best you can do is minimize your losses. Now, in our future, who knows what we could learn? I just believe that today, as far as energy solutions go, we are in the stone age; and that it will be decades upon decades until we know how to truly become more efficient in a practical manner as a whole in society.

[dinos22]

Magnets degrade over time / use. Any device that claims perpetual motion and uses magnets is just, at best, a 99.999 .. 9% efficient device.

i agree

i've followed this topic of perpetual motion for a while

it just isn't possible contrary to how much "spin" you get from these backyard jobs

it's a nice idea in any case :)

[Lev]

ER but our "Laws" are made up, based on observations... so.. they re not really "Laws" per say.

... we also analyze our observations - so its not just we see something and say its a law.

theres also this crazy thing called theoretical physics, which has no observation whatsoever, yet it still agrees with thermodynamics

[knightwolf654]

i think thats pretty neat!, my only question is if there is anything else powering it? or is it just him spinning that wheel that starts it?

[xlink]

worst case scenario it just converts magnetic fields into electricity...

THAT IS STILL GOOD. Hell the earth itself is nothing more than one big magnet and...

[ABXG]

Even in the very likely scenario that this isn't perpetual motion, I must point out that it could make electric motors and other devices a hell of a lot more efficient. Thus reducing our need for energy.

[WeStSiDePLaYa]

ER but our "Laws" are made up, based on observations... so.. they re not really "Laws" per say.

Exactly, our "laws" are only a collection of what we have experienced thus far.

As time progresses we will see our long held laws did not account for many variables previously unknown to us.

Also, compare quantum physics to Newtonian physics, some conflicting things happen with newton's laws.

[villa1n]

... we also analyze our observations - so its not just we see something and say its a law.

theres also this crazy thing called theoretical physics, which has no observation whatsoever, yet it still agrees with thermodynamics

to believe that anything in the observable world obeys any "law" seems to be doomed for fallacy and incorrectness, as what you are saying or implying seems to be that we have 100% knowledge of something, or that our nervous system (our limiting filter of reality) is giving all the data there possibly is on something... seems rather preposterous...

There is pragmatic sense in using what we have, and making soft "laws" in the sense you always keep in the back of your awareness, that nothing is 100%(yes i m aware of the irony in that statement). Look at them more like Wittgenstein's Ladder. (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus)

A dose of E-prime in most claims would make the world a more sensible place ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime

[halo112358]

These do not exist, stop posting them.

[WeStSiDePLaYa]

to believe that anything in the observable world obeys any "law" seems to be doomed for fallacy and incorrectness, as what you are saying or implying seems to be that we have 100% knowledge of something, or that our nervous system (our limiting filter of reality) is giving all the data there possibly is on something... seems rather preposterous...

There is pragmatic sense in using what we have, and making soft "laws" in the sense you always keep in the back of your awareness, that nothing is 100%(yes i m aware of the irony in that statement). Look at them more like Wittgenstein's Ladder. (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus)

A dose of E-prime in most claims would make the world a more sensible place ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime

Fan of Descartes I see?;)

[zerazax]

Also, compare quantum physics to Newtonian physics, some conflicting things happen with newton's laws.

Relativity too, but there's a caveat:

They do exist in Newtonian physics, they're just too miniscule to notice. For instance, the quantum effects on electrons are miniscule when doing Newtonian electromagnetics, and so they're usually ignored. Drop down to the atomic level, however, and quantum mechanics dominate and Newtonian principles are thrown out.

So yes, not everything is absolute in the universe, but they're not at odds with one another when you consider what scales they have to be to dominate in factors.

[Xope_Poquar]

Relativity too, but there's a caveat:
So yes, not everything is absolute in the universe, but they're not at odds with one another when you consider what scales they have to be to dominate in factors.

That is an absolute statement though. Everything may very well be absolute in the universe, we just might not know it.

[Decami]

There's plenty to backup these laws. I don't blame people for dreaming of some free energy, but things just don't work like that. I don't care what you do. The best you can do is minimize your losses. Now, in our future, who knows what we could learn? I just believe that today, as far as energy solutions go, we are in the stone age; and that it will be decades upon decades until we know how to truly become more efficient in a practical manner as a whole in society.

ehh, I dont know, look how far we have come in just 100 years, compare that to the past 100 year and so on. We are gaining rapid ground in technology, who knows when breakthrews will occur. The only thing thats holds you back when it comes to inventing, proceeding forward with advancements, is knowledge. And you can learn anything at anytime. knowledge can occur on the dime. Look at the dawn of the automobile.

To them who argue impossible, again, back to knowledge. As we know, it is impossible. That doesnt mean it just is. There was once a day when poeple thought it was impossible to travel around the world, because it was flat, why? shortage of knowledge about the current subject. This of coarse is hardly the same thing, but it goes to show that nothing is set in stone.

[Cybercat]

Who can complain about more efficiency?

[largon]

To those that "support" perpetual motion and base it's possibility on the argument "We don't know everything yet" I say:

Would 1+1 (integers) equal anything other than 2 if we just study it hard enough?

[HiJon89]

Perpetual motion is not possible at this stage of our knowledge and there's no way that this guy has accidentally stumbled upon it.

[$a1Ty]

sigh its not possible people, there will always be energy lose due to friction

[Jowy Atreides]

perpetual motion machines are regarded as impossible,

but there's nothing wrong with wanting to make something as close as possible to it. Could be very useful

[villa1n]

To those that "support" perpetual motion and base it's possibility on the argument "We don't know everything yet" I say:

Would 1+1 (integers) equal anything other than 2 if we just study it hard enough?

integers are a closed system with known rules. the universe as far as we can tell, is an open system, at least our perception of it is.

[iddqd]

It's nothing new, people who work with generators have already observed this.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Talk:Directory:Perepiteia_Generator_by_Potential_D ifference_Inc#Nothing_more_than_a_hysteresis_brake

[Lifthanger]

lol philosophy vs. physics. This is really too funny to make me angry any more ;).

But on a more serious note: When someone has an idea for perpetual motion the question is not: "Is the conservation of energy a wrong concept?"

but it is: "Are there other forms of energy we didn't know of yet?" (subspace radiation anyone?) ;).

[hollo]

even if we did discover energy apparently coming out of "nowhere" you'd assume you'd found a new source of energy before thinking you'd made a perpetual motion machine. to say you'd made a perpetual motion machine is to say you had a source of energy and you'd never discover where the energy was coming from (ie it was being spontaneously created)

[largon]

integers are a closed system with known rules. the universe as far as we can tell, is an open system, at least our perception of it is.The bolded words are infact the most important thing in the definition of perpetual motion device. ;)
Btw, how do we know when we know the rules of integer mathematics?

[WeStSiDePLaYa]

Well, look at it this way.

We don't completely understand natural magnetism yet. It is possible that very large amounts of energy are stored within these magnets. And this machine simply harnesses them.


So yes it gives more energy than it seems to have put it. But really it is just releasing the energy within magnets.

[Cobalt]

I'd tend to agree with that. If someone does make a "perpetual motion machine" using magnets, they have really just found a way to use permanent magnets as batteries. The energy doesn't "appear out of nowhere".

[Serra]

1: Perpetual motion would not be a "Handy" invention like about 3 people here have suggested, nor would a more efficient machine (say 99.9999....etc% efficient item). The issue is that unless it's doing useful work (which none of these ever do), it's of no real benefit to anyone... and once you start applying useful items, you'll notice that efficiency drops to the level of the rest of the system. Balls rolling around on rails just doesn't do much for most people.

2: No, you cannot break the second law. There are two caveats about such a thing, but they involve scenarios which are not beneficial to the scale which man is concerned about (and no, you can't scale up... the caveats get closed with time + scale). There are, in fact, proofs which exist about it. Sorry to break your bubble.

3: I would tend to say that the man the article concerns has an incomplete knowledge of magnetism, induction, Lens' law, and a small host of other things. From what I see in this article, the man is actually claiming to be generating increasing mechanical movement with no increase in input power... that's called energy creation, not perpetual motion and is an even harder thing to argue.

4: No, he's not tapping into some previously unknown area of magnetism. The great mysteries of magnetism don't come into play here at all.

[BrownTown]

I just don't like the mystacism aspect they put on this talking about the "mysterious powers of electromagnetic fields" like it were some sort of magical force. It just seems to be playing too much on the ignorance of most people concerning electromagnetics, when in fact as we are all aware electromagnetics is a very well known field with a HUGE amount of research done in the field and our understanding of it drives our entire modern life. Now I don't claim to be any expert, but there are only 4 laws (Maxwell Equations) that form the basis of all electromagnetics and they have been known for 100+ years so acting like it is some newly discovered or poorly understood field of study is just silly.

[villa1n]

The bolded words are infact the most important thing in the definition of perpetual motion device. ;)
Btw, how do we know when we know the rules of integer mathematics?

You pulling a logical fallacy here, your first comment was a metaphorical reference to informational possibility, and comparing a closed system with all rules known, there is no variability. Reality, which this device is based in.. has variables we cant account for, because it is in a system that may very well be closed as Eistien wanted to believe, but it at this point is so large and so beyond our understanding to say there are such things as Laws, that exist, based on observation, and then to discount things as being "possible" definitively is a rather closed minded position imho. I m not argueing that this is one, i just want it to be clear, that it is possible.
n
To avoid thinking like this.

"Everything that can be invented has been invented.
Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. patent office, 1899"

its a joke now... just like flat earth is... take that , and put it into context.:up:

[Swatrecon_]

To those that "support" perpetual motion and base it's possibility on the argument "We don't know everything yet" I say:

Would 1+1 (integers) equal anything other than 2 if we just study it hard enough?

yes, and 40 years ago it was impossible to take the square root of -1. now you can. it's i. They came up with imaginary numbers. Granted this may not be the same, but there are things that we haven't discovered yet. I theorize that some day we will define division by zero.

[[XC] Lead Head]

http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/02/08/more-perpetual-motion-with-video-this-time/

[Blauhung]

They do exist in Newtonian physics, they're just too miniscule to notice. For instance, the quantum effects on electrons are miniscule when doing Newtonian electromagnetics, and so they're usually ignored. Drop down to the atomic level, however, and quantum mechanics dominate and Newtonian principles are thrown out.

It's not that quantum mechanics are thrown out at macroscopic dimensions. It's more like Newtonian physics is a simplification of quantum physics for a larger scale. This is where statistical physics come in. Just about every law of large scale thermodynamics can be arrived at by statistical methods of predicting the behavior of a large number of particles in a system using quantum physics as a base.

[[XC] riptide]

Exactly, our "laws" are only a collection of what we have experienced thus far.

As time progresses we will see our long held laws did not account for many variables previously unknown to us.

Also, compare quantum physics to Newtonian physics, some conflicting things happen with newton's laws.

Half the posters in this thread need to go back and get their school fees refunded to them (was said to me recently in jest :ROTF: )

Laws of Physics are Laws because they are proven fundamentally from first principles. Most things we take for granted are not classified as laws becasue they cannot be proved from first principles. Yet, you can take them to the bank as been true. A 'Law; proven is a very very strong case indeed.

Nothing conflicting happens to Newtons Laws. Everyone knows that they hold true for macroscopic circumstances. And everyone knows that they cannot be proven false ever under the conditions as they were laid out.


I'm gonna recommend sterilising everyone and anyone who faintly believes in Perpetual Motion machines. It'll be for the good of mankind in the end.

[[XC] riptide]

yes, and 40 years ago it was impossible to take the square root of -1. now you can. it's i. They came up with imaginary numbers. Granted this may not be the same, but there are things that we haven't discovered yet. I theorize that some day we will define division by zero.

What the hell? Actually its a bit more than 40 years mate. Its about... lets see..... 1900 years ago. Ya ~100AD. They were used more often then in the 1500's. More recently Carl Friedrich Gauss I think used i the first time. He died in 1855/

[Swatrecon_]

riptide;2760858']What the hell? Actually its a bit more than 40 years mate. Its about... lets see..... 1900 years ago. Ya ~100AD. They were used more often then in the 1500's. More recently Carl Friedrich Gauss I think used i the first time. He died in 1855/

yea, i'm not sure what i was thinking of...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_numbers#History

you were right, however i disagree about the laws of physics. they're all really theories. I mean there's no telling what happens lightyears away in different galaxies, plus there's other Universes with their own Laws (theories) of Physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_Theory

Don't know if you're familiar with String Theory or not.

You know I've often wondered why there aren't many people who believe in String Theory and God (a personal God) at the same time. :shrug: It's not been hard for me. :)

[[XC] riptide]

yea, i'm not sure what i was thinking of...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_numbers#History

you were right, however i disagree about the laws of physics. they're all really theories. I mean there's no telling what happens lightyears away in different galaxies, plus there's other Universes with their own Laws (theories) of Physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_Theory

Don't know if you're familiar with String Theory or not.

You know I've often wondered why there aren't many people who believe in String Theory and God (a personal God) at the same time. :shrug: It's not been hard for me. :)

Swat... no... Laws are Laws, Theories are theories. The laws work 100%, and most of the theories do aswell...

Thats whats built into it. Most of the modern physics is still all theories per se. That means they have not or CAN'T be deduced from first principles. <<< You must understand what I mean by this.

Einsteins Relativity? Still a theory. But we've proven that the theory works in all experimental cases. But we still can't prove it from first principles.

Yes. I am very familiar with string theory. ;)

[Dimitriman]

To those that "support" perpetual motion and base it's possibility on the argument "We don't know everything yet" I say:

Would 1+1 (integers) equal anything other than 2 if we just study it hard enough?

Axiums created by humans according to their observations of the visible universe.

Doesn't guarantee it is a law for the entire universe ;)

[gallardo]

yes, and 40 years ago it was impossible to take the square root of -1. now you can. it's i. They came up with imaginary numbers. Granted this may not be the same, but there are things that we haven't discovered yet. I theorize that some day we will define division by zero.

Didn't do that well in math, did you? Division by zero: you apply a limit and the rezult of that limit will be infinite. 1/0 = infinite as there are an infinity of zeros in 1.


Believing in God and string theory kinda makes me think you don't fully comprehend the implications of their existence. String theory at the moment is just pretty math... pretty complicated math. The really bad part about string theory is that we're centuries away from possibly testing it since we're barely discovering quantum particles with the help of particle accelerators because they're so friggin small. Strings... they're even smaller. A string compared to an atom is like an atom compared to the solar system. Yeah. They're that small. Good luck proving their existence!

I'm gonna stay away from the God subject as I don't want to turn this into a religious debate.

[Decami]

All us believers are saying, (whether perpetual motion is possible or not) is that if everyone just sat around saying, oh thats stupid, thats impossible, we would be a lot further back in technology than we are now. So, those who sit back and say you dont understand and think its stupid to believe when "theory" proves it wrong are the ones that hold advancement back. There have been tons and tons of scientists looked at by the main stream scientific community as, stupid, idiotic, insane (including Einstein) but look where they stand in History now. It is those with the open minds that have brought us to where we are, thats made it even possible to debate about such a subject.

[gallardo]

Yeah, well... tapping into some unknown energies or something does not equal perpetual motion. It is rather simple. You have x amount of energy available in closed system A. Closed system A (being in what we call reality) has friction and stuff like that. Ergo, motion will be slowed down. To get perpetual motion one would have to come up with a way of getting the x amount of energy to turn into x+y amount of energy to counter friction and everything. Problem: the CLOSED system has just x energy. x!=x+y when y>0. It's just basic math. So... in fact.... in order to make a perpetual motion engine one would have to make it so 1 = 2. :)

Once again, tapping into magnetic energies untold before does NOT equal closed system... that's getting external energy.

Philosophically speaking... the only way we could ever create a perpetual motion machine is when we would understand the inner workings of the universe 100% and we would be able to transform the energy lost to heat and friction into usable energy and therefore we would achieve an outturn (dunno if this is the correct term for the romanian "randament" ) of 1. As long as we don't know everything there is to know... there will be leakage.

[[XC] riptide]

Entopy will always make that impossible.

[Cobalt]

Wrong definition of entropy. The energy doesn't just vanish, it still exists in the system, it just isn't being useful. If there is x energy in a closed system there will always be x energy, unless you want to start breaking the law of energy conservation ;).

[STEvil]

I have a secret to tell you about how his "perpetual motion engine" works.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/971400/unexplained_phenomenon_simplest_electric_motor/

[FischOderAal]

Wrong definition of entropy. The energy doesn't just vanish, it still exists in the system, it just isn't being useful. If there is x energy in a closed system there will always be x energy, unless you want to start breaking the law of energy conservation ;).

right, entropy cannot get smaller, only bigger. like in a refrigerator. inside of it the entropy decreases, but on the outside it grows by a bigger amount. if we only consider the conservation of energy we could cool the water of the seas to get energy. would be great, wouldn't it?

goddamnit, I will write an exam about that :banana::banana::banana::banana: in march :(

[Swatrecon_]

All the people who support the idea that a perpetual motion engine may one day see the light, are just people who see that it's ignorant to say things will never happen. Almost everyone who's said that has been proven wrong.

[MikalCarbine]

Lead Head;2760800']http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/02/08/more-perpetual-motion-with-video-this-time/

Anyone watch this and read the article?

[Serra]

Look, here's what it boils down to:

1. Due to entropy, any perpetual motion machine would have to create it's own energy. Let's all agree that's blatantly impossible.

2. The second Law has a proof. Get over it. A proof means if you really wanted to, you could work from 1 + 1 = 2 and arrive at it without committing an error in logic.

If you believe anything else, I agree with an above poster... sterilization is the answer.

[003]

Just not the laws of physics?

The traditional laws of physics are broken all the time in space.

[Periander6]

riptide;2760844']I'm gonna recommend sterilising everyone and anyone who faintly believes in Perpetual Motion machines. It'll be for the good of mankind in the end.

While I cannot go quite so far as to advocate eugenics, I certainly understand your feelings. ;)

This thread is an embarrassment.

[frankR]

So how does it work?

Super efficient motors using high-temperature super-conductors exist already.

[villa1n]

riptide;2760844']Half the posters in this thread need to go back and get their school fees refunded to them (was said to me recently in jest :ROTF: )

Laws of Physics are Laws because they are proven fundamentally from first principles. Most things we take for granted are not classified as laws becasue they cannot be proved from first principles. Yet, you can take them to the bank as been true. A 'Law; proven is a very very strong case indeed.

Nothing conflicting happens to Newtons Laws. Everyone knows that they hold true for macroscopic circumstances. And everyone knows that they cannot be proven false ever under the conditions as they were laid out.


I'm gonna recommend sterilising everyone and anyone who faintly believes in Perpetual Motion machines. It'll be for the good of mankind in the end.


A physical law, scientific law, or a law of nature is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior. Empirical laws are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments and simple observations, over many years, and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community. The production of a summary description of nature in the form of such laws is a fundamental aim of science.


Physical laws are distinguished from scientific theories by their simplicity. Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts, and are more likely to be changed as the body of available experimental data and analysis develops. This is because a physical law is a summary observation of strictly empirical matters, whereas a theory is a model that accounts for the observation, explains it, relates it to other observations, and makes testable predictions based upon it. Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory explains why and how something happens.



aka... they are observations. they are not 100%. to say there is no chance is a fallacy, or to say they will, in all situations is also a fallacy. Someone needs to go back to school and take a little philosophy to temper that scientific dogma your rife with :)

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1869157766331800594&q=robert+anton+wilson&total=286&start=0&num=50&so=0&type=search&plindex=6

[biohead]

So how does it work?

Super efficient motors using high-temperature super-conductors exist already.

high Tc still being -135°C ;)

[biohead]

aka... they are observations. they are not 100%. to say there is no chance is a fallacy, or to say they will, in all situations is also a fallacy. Someone needs to go back to school and take a little philosophy to temper that scientific dogma your rife with :)

yeah but we're so far into science now, that a perpetual motion machine falls under pathological science.

[WeStSiDePLaYa]

Even the galaxy and universe isnt perpetual. Not sure how anyone could possibly out do that.

I guess that possibly is not true, looking at the entire cycle. But everything gets destroyed eventually.

The universe IS the largest and first perpetual motion machine if you go by Newtonian physics.

For you to say that the universe isnt perpetual then you must have destruction of energy. Which thus violates the newtonians physics which your statement is based on.

[IanB]

The universe IS the largest and first perpetual motion machine if you go by Newtonian physics.

For you to say that the universe isnt perpetual then you must have destruction of energy. Which thus violates the newtonians physics which your statement is based on.

Hardly perpetual - there was a start, with a Big Bang that so far defies any generally accepted theory, Newtonian, Quantum or Hawking. :rolleyes:

It also depends on your definition of "destruction". If destruction is a state of maximum entropy, then the universe will indeed die, as entropy only increases with time and cannot be decreased overall. Unless there is enough "dark matter" to eventually create a Big Crunch, in which case the death will be a little more... interesting... for any sentient beings still around. :D

[[XC] riptide]

aka... they are observations. they are not 100%. to say there is no chance is a fallacy, or to say they will, in all situations is also a fallacy. Someone needs to go back to school and take a little philosophy to temper that scientific dogma your rife with :)

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1869157766331800594&q=robert+anton+wilson&total=286&start=0&num=50&so=0&type=search&plindex=6

If your gonna quote the wiki.... why not quote the rest of it... :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_Physics
True. By definition, there have never been repeatable contradicting observations.
Universal.

They appear to apply everywhere in the universe. (Davies, 1992:82)
Simple. They are typically expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. (Davies)


Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them. (Davies, 1992:82)
Stable. Unchanged since first discovered (although they may have been shown to be approximations of more accurate laws—see "Laws as approximations" below),
Omnipotent. Everything in the universe apparently must comply with them (according to observations). (Davies, 1992:83)
Generally conservative of quantity. (Feynman, 1965:59)
Often expressions of existing homogeneities (symmetries) of space and time. (Feynman)
Typically theoretically reversible in time (if non-quantum), although time itself is irreversible. (Feynman)

[[XC] riptide]

The traditional laws of physics are broken all the time in space.

Please list and explain each Law that is broken in space with a summary of the effects.

[[XC] riptide]

Wrong definition of entropy. The energy doesn't just vanish, it still exists in the system, it just isn't being useful. If there is x energy in a closed system there will always be x energy, unless you want to start breaking the law of energy conservation ;).

Are you talking to me? :confused:

[WeStSiDePLaYa]

Hardly perpetual - there was a start, with a Big Bang that so far defies any generally accepted theory, Newtonian, Quantum or Hawking. :rolleyes:

It also depends on your definition of "destruction". If destruction is a state of maximum entropy, then the universe will indeed die, as entropy only increases with time and cannot be decreased overall. Unless there is enough "dark matter" to eventually create a Big Crunch, in which case the death will be a little more... interesting... for any sentient beings still around. :D

The big bang theory states the energy was ALWAYS present.

Also, to further go on the big bang theory, it is believed that once the galaxy runs out of momentum from the initial explosion, it will slowly collapse from the gravity of all of the universe's mass. At which point it will go through the cycle again.

The big bang theory does NOT state creation of energy.

So since it is continuous cycle, it could be considered a perpetual motion machine.

[Swatrecon_]

Assuming you believe in the Big Bang. I have yet to see conclusive evidence of any sudden, great expansion that occurred without a cause. To me, it's a hell of a lot easier to believe in a God that created, rather than nothing that became everything. When I believe in an intelligent creator that's supreme and superior, at least I have a reason and a cause for the effect that is our universe. I see no reason why Science always has to "prove" God false. There's no evidence that does so, just people who try to make up new theories that constantly need to be changed and adjusted. My theory hasn't changed in 6000 years.

[Faktor]

Assuming you believe in the Big Bang. I have yet to see conclusive evidence of any sudden, great expansion that occurred without a cause. To me, it's a hell of a lot easier to believe in a God that created, rather than nothing that became everything. When I believe in an intelligent creator that's supreme and superior, at least I have a reason and a cause for the effect that is our universe. I see no reason why Science always has to "prove" God false. There's no evidence that does so, just people who try to make up new theories that constantly need to be changed and adjusted. My theory hasn't changed in 6000 years.

On the opposite hand there is also no evidence that there is a supreme ruler(s).

[IanB]

Eventually the gravity of the universe will overcome the force expanding it, and eventually result in another big bang.

Only, as I said, if astronomers can find enough evidence of "dark matter". The stuff that naturally enough they cannot see with telescopes. :D

Adding up the amount of "stuff" they CAN see (stars, galaxies...) then they have proved there is NOT enough to now collapse the universe under its own gravity. Effectively the matter expanding from the initial Bang has reached escape velocity and the universe will continue to expand, getting colder and colder as entropy, or disorder, increases with time. This is the so-called "heat death" of the universe.

Assuming you believe in the Big Bang. I have yet to see conclusive evidence of any sudden, great expansion that occurred without a cause.

You must have missed that ground-breaking story some years ago where they discovered the microwave echoes of the Bang in the radio spectrum, corresponding exactly to the predicted value as a background temperature. Or maybe you're just too young to remember it. ;)

It's bad enough that this thread started out as a discussion of the viability of Perpetual Motion machines :rofl: - let's please not allow it to turn into a debate of creationism over science. :down:

[Kurz]

The universe could be considered Perpetual motion... Expansion, Contraction, Expansion, contraction. Theories of course.

The problem is entropy... though if you could stop entropy by some degree,
You could have perpetual motion machine.

To the point of my posting, I am kind of perplexed why these inventors can't make something that can run their houses? If you can show prove it can provide energy (Not just light bulbs) for the whole home. Why don't they market it? Sell it? and make money off of it?

Hell I would pay up to 20,000 for a system that would generate enough energy to juice up my cars and house will more extra wattage to sell back to grid. So my question is why don't they make their own homes run on it?

I hope one day I can buy and install such a system...
Or at least one day make my own.

[iddqd]

Well, inertial motion is perpetual (assuming it happens in very high order vacuum), but it's impossible to extract any more energy from it than you originally put in to make whatever it was move in the first place.

On a side note, there is plenty of free energy out there, that is energy that you don't have to pay for. Why, you're literally bombarded by megajoules of it each day. If only these crackpots stopped building their magnet contraptions and tried to invent new ways to harness solar radiation.

Eventually the gravity of the universe will overcome the force expanding it, and eventually result in another big bang. It is a perpetual cycle, but not in the sense we speak of when talking of perpetual motion.

Which will never happen - even if you put all the matter in the universe together to form one super black hole, the gravity from such a black hole still would not be sufficient to collapse space at a greater rate than it is expanding at. However, that black hole would eventually boil away into more or less uniformly-distributed radiation.

[IanB]

Hell I would pay up to 20,000 for a system that would generate enough energy to juice up my cars and house will more extra wattage to sell back to grid. So my question is why don't they make their own homes run on it?

I hope one day I can buy and install such a system...
Or at least one day make my own.

Heh, buy a windmill! Lots of people over here are. Or get a geothermal exchanger if you're lucky to be situated somewhere that would work well. Or get solar panels. It's not perpetual though. You are locally decreasing entropy to get your heat/power into a storage/distribution spot, but doing work to convert and get it there which increases entropy overall, by heating the planet fractionally. But it's still free at the point of use once you've bought the exchange equipment and I think it's possible to make a profit selling electricity back to the grid over the useful lifetime of the investment. The usual arguments against more people doing that are the initial investment and the planning nightmare of thousands of personal windmills. Even occasional isolated ones in remote spots are causing problems here... :(

[Kurz]

I would Love to get a windmill.
Problem do not have much land.
So it'll be close to other homes + Home owner's association.
Lots of headaches for even the simple Solar panels let alone a windmill.

However, I have a big utility room for one of these generators.
Meh I can dream.

[003]

riptide;2763110']Please list and explain each Law that is broken in space with a summary of the effects.

Well for example, black holes, strange matter, and many other things that remain unexplained by modern physics or science.

[frankR]

How did a discussion on perpetual motion turn into a discussion about the big bang theory and creationism? :confused:

Any mechanical system does not lose energy, it mearly converts stored energy into heat through friction.

If the universe is a closed system then it should in thoery cycle forever. But that's hardly proof of perpetual motion, because we can not test the thoery of the universe being a closed system.

Personally I doubt the universe is closed, there is always another level to explore. ;)

[Periander6]

Why is dark matter needed? I have never fully studied this whole thing. But I would think that given a model of a Big Bang, eventually the acceleration given by that bang would stop, and then regardless of the amount of gravity, it would all start to collapse.

I know I have read about the red shift increasing, which if is true then means there is still force expanding the universe.

No. Remember the bit about things in motion tend to remain in motion? Without enough gravity/mass the expansion will never stop and will continue forever, like a rocket moving faster than escape velocity that will never fall back to Earth.

[IanB]

Exactly. "Local" gravitational effects have allowed the diffuse matter from the Bang to coalesce over eons into stars and galaxies, forming and reforming many times. But gravity is an inverse square force, so its effect falls off rapidly with distance, and the distances between galaxies are extraordinary, so even if the masses of the visible galaxies are sufficient the speeds they are expanding away from each other at is too great to be slowed down by their mutual gravity and reversed... It's not like a piece of elastic with a finite limit to the stretch before it twangs back! :)

And as DerekFSE said (and IIRC) the red shift is in fact increasing, so the expansion speed is increasing for some reason, not slowing. Let's hope we do invent Warp Drive soon, or we'll never get to reach and say Hi to our neighbours. :p:

(And let's face it, THAT's at least possible, unlike a Perpetual Motion Machine.)

[JacKz5o]

Looks exciting

[villa1n]

riptide;2763088']If your gonna quote the wiki.... why not quote the rest of it... :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_Physics
True. By definition, there have never been repeatable contradicting observations'.
Universal.
b
They appear to apply everywhere in the universe. (Davies, 1992:82)
Simple. They are typically expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. (Davies)


Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them. (Davies, 1992:82)
Stable. Unchanged since first discovered (although they may have been shown to be approximations of more accurate laws—see "Laws as approximations" below), Since first discovered... so they ve existed.. a couple hundred years... relative to the age of the universe.. thats not even a blip of experience
Omnipotent. Everything in the universe apparently must comply with them (according to observations). (Davies, 1992:83)
Generally conservative of quantity. (Feynman, 1965:59)
Often expressions of existing homogeneities (symmetries) of space and time. (Feynman)
Typically theoretically reversible in time (if non-quantum), although time itself is irreversible. not proven (Feynman)

Did you even watch the video i posted? It is a nice summation on why what your proposing doesn't really have much meaning in the context your presenting. From what i gather, you seem to believe there is an objective law, that exists in space , that physical reality conforms too... based on the limited observations of humans in the past few hundred years... correct me if i ve made any incorrect interpretations..\

The quotes you posted... i highlighted words that show you, they don't say anything with 100% assertion, because that belief, the aristotealean, niave realism logic... does not make sense.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1869157766331800594

[Entity_Razer]

As far as we know, it is impossible to avoid the loss of energy in heat.


there's the answer..... As far as we know. i'm not saying this guy actually did it, but hell humanity has been struck by something which earlier sounded undoable before.

Try and keep a open mind guys, its not because something previusly didn't work that its garanteed not to work now.

[gallardo]

Ok. Let's take it one by one.

1) The Big Bang did NOT create something out of nothing. It merely transformed existant energy into matter (e=mc^2).

2) At the moment the scientific community is inclining towards the Universe NOT ending up in a big crunch. According to calculations the current mass of all the stars and planets of the universe accounts for about 2% of the mass needed to pull the universe back together. Their main hope for the Big Crunch theory now is dark matter which (once its existence can be proven) will account for 98% of the Universe's mass. That seems a little far fetched to me and I personally believe that space time tends to curve in on itself much like the surface of the Earth so technically I believe that space is not infinite, but more like a game of Snake where the walls don't kill you... you just show up on the other end. :) Again, that's just my personal belief.

3) A God that would've created the Universe contradicts both the law of conservation of energy and the second law of thermodynamics. If you wanna believe in fairy tales then I can tell you that the Mega Super Leage of Awesome Fairy Tale Creatures (MSLAFTC), which includes such awesome things as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Buddha, Allah and of course the China Teapot From Space, round up every friday to give God a super wedgie and a toilet dunk right after beating him at strip poker and canasta.
That is my personal belief and you can't prove me wrong.

[Rock&Roll]

Lol. @ #2. Now I'm going to spend all day trying imagine what would happen if you left the edge of space, which is usually presumed to be infinite. :D. So in a not-so-serious manner, one has to wonder, whats outside of space? Haha.

[Kurz]

Ok. Let's take it one by one.

2) At the moment the scientific community is inclining towards the Universe NOT ending up in a big crunch. According to calculations the current mass of all the stars and planets of the universe accounts for about 2% of the mass needed to pull the universe back together. Their main hope for the Big Crunch theory now is dark matter which (once its existence can be proven) will account for 98% of the Universe's mass. That seems a little far fetched to me and I personally believe that space time tends to curve in on itself much like the surface of the Earth so technically I believe that space is not infinite, but more like a game of Snake where the walls don't kill you... you just show up on the other end. :) Again, that's just my personal belief.


Wow I thought I was the only one that thought like that.
I too believe that space time is curved.
Since Mass curves Space and Time it seems plausible.

Well sad to say we can never (Well not sad interesting) see the whole universe as it were right now. Even with laws there are exceptions to the rule. Why do electrons don't exist half the time? Why does time stop when influence by a black hole (Well the person in the black hole doesn't realize he is slowing down to stopping.)? Why should gravity effect the space around it? Magnetism is pulling things that can have their magnetic poles switched.

[Serra]

Dang it people, I demand you start addressing points I bring up if you're going to continue this heresy to logic.

On topic:
1. The Second Law is not an "observed rule of thumb"... it is a mathematical PROOF. You can literally go from 1 + 1 = 2 to this proof, if you really so desired, without making an error in math or logic. To quote Wiki "In fact, the mathematical proof of the Fluctuation Theorem from time-reversible dynamics and the Axiom of Causality constitutes a proof of the Second Law. In a logical sense the Second Law thus ceases to be a "Law" of physics and instead becomes a theorem which is valid for large systems or long times.".

2. Again, this is not perpetual motion, it is a generation of energy that is being proposed as entropy will always sap useful energy from the system. This is why there is not and cannot be such a thing as a perpetual motion machine. Anyone who says "perpetual motion is possible" in the rest of this thread must also add on "because generation of free energy is possible".

Off Topic (to respond to some other things that have been posted here):
1. The theory of the Big Bang specifies that all known laws/theories/math breaks down and is thrown out entirely as you approach the instant of the big bang. You cannot look at it with classical physics, math, quantum science, etc. Before the Big Bang, 2 + 2 = Fish. On a personal note, this is a huge area for religious people, because it implies that constants we depend on to exist (ie. the exact value of attractive force given off by a single gravitron) had no reason to exist at the values they do, unless guided to be so. That part, of course, is up for debate... but probably warrants a thread in SF.

2. If you think that God creating the universe goes against laws of entropy or the second law, you're seriously mistaken. In fact, I'm pretty sure the argument itself doesn't make sense. It's like people who think that you can't believe in evolution + God. It's ignorant thinking (in that it shows an uneducated approach to religion, don't take it personally), and it's wrong.

3. You can't leave the edge of the universe because you yourself are part of the universe. If you were to walk off it, you would really just be expanding the universe (which is really a moot point as temporal effects would also prevent it).

4. I watched that video. If you think we don't have any idea how that battery effect works, you're wrong. That's a system we've seen for a long time and the explanation is freely available on the Intarwebs if you care to do some searching.

[Jowy Atreides]

How did a discussion on perpetual motion turn into a discussion about the big bang theory and creationism? :confused:

Any mechanical system does not lose energy, it mearly converts stored energy into heat through friction.

If the universe is a closed system then it should in thoery cycle forever. But that's hardly proof of perpetual motion, because we can not test the thoery of the universe being a closed system.

Personally I doubt the universe is closed, there is always another level to explore. ;)

well, unknown scientic information has always been the staple of theoism and religion and 'magic'

:shrug:

[gallardo]

2. If you think that God creating the universe goes against laws of entropy or the second law, you're seriously mistaken. In fact, I'm pretty sure the argument itself doesn't make sense. It's like people who think that you can't believe in evolution + God. It's ignorant thinking (in that it shows an uneducated approach to religion, don't take it personally), and it's wrong.

Well... I was thinking about the traditional God who created the world and everything from nothing by just saying Open Sesame or something like that.
If you believe in a personal god who can do whatever the f he wants and whose existence *cannot* be proven, them I'm sorry to have wasted both our time. It would be pointless for me to argue about such a belief. I can only wish you happiness with your imaginary friend.

Oh, and... modern science does make most religions obsolete because they do prove them wrong. Read the Bible and take it literally and you'll be shocked and appaled. If you interpret whichever passages you like however you like and take the others literally, then you might get a religion which is closer to the 21st century, but that would just be wrong. People need to stop looking at religion and saying "it's been here for 2000 years so it must be good" and rather look at it and say "it's been here for 2000 years so it's high time we tried something else that makes more sense in conjunction with the latest scientific findings."

I mean... science was wrong before, it may be wrong now in some areas, but still... they verify their clames to the best extent possible and whenever a scientific theory is proven wrong we just throw it out because it's no good. Religion is more like saying something (God did it) and then twisting and bending and interpreting everything to make it like the first statement. Not my cup of tea. I don't like lieing to myself.

[Boissez]

This is just a machine with very very very very very very very very little friction - but still not a perpetual machine by a long stretch.

I do not think perpetual motion machines are impossible however - i'd guess that if you were able to turn the arrow of time (and there are several hypotheses proposing how that might be possible) the second law of conservation could be respected. But you'd probably need space-time singularities (i.e. black holes or planck-energy particles) and it'll be a while before you'd find any of those in any of your household appliances... :p:

PS: And here's a bulletin for everyone here trying to shoehorn God into this discussion: GO AWAY!!! ...Religion and science do not mix, should not be mixed and must not be mixed. You wouldn't wan't scientist ruining your gospel either would you?

[Serra]

Well... <brings up a religious argument in the news section>

Let me demonstrate how to properly handle the urge to do things like you did:

PM Sent.

[Ugly n Grey]

Mathematical "proofs" have become more interesting as it's been postulated that the laws we guide our math and physics by may in fact be different elsewhere in the universe. Some math wizzard is working out the science behind it , but it fits with several philosophical fundaments.

Effectlvely, they believe energy and matter may act differently elsewhere in the universe depending on the local space/time stresses. How's that for a banana up the bum?