[lyner]

But you are wrong, I am the inventor

My apologies.
So it must be the romance that attracts you.
May I ask what bearings your wheels will be rotating on? Where will the energy come from to overcome the friction?
'Hard to detect by eye' is infinitely (I mean that literally)  far from 'perpetual'.
You must appreciate that every wheel in your machine that is turning must be working against friction - transferring Energy. This energy has to come from somewhere. This can only be in the form of Kinetic Energy of the movement in the device. Where else?

[AB Hammer]

When people try for perpetual motion, All to often they try to make these little devices using ounces instead of pounds, Even if they have a good idea the friction of the bearing or simple poor construction sometimes makes it where they won't even get a reaction and they give up. Good construction is important, as well as good bearings. The use of magnetic bearings and vacuum chambers are not necessary, they are extreme.
 Yes friction is a concern at all times. Just think a 100 lb of shifting weight in a wheel with 20% advantage. This means continuous shifting 10 lbs of falling energy effect. This will be more than enough to overcome any friction you can imagine with excess energy movement. Kinetic energy is your friend in this game. Here is a kinetic overbalance test that I posted on youtube.

Without the overbalance the wheel once spun (even if you spun it hard) you could not get more than 2 minutes run time, but with the overbalance shown as spun would run for close to 6 minutes. This is one of many test that I do preparing for working on a wheel.

You stated

So it must be the romance that attracts you.

I was challenged by my neighbor when he learned that I have never failed in figuring out any mechanical problem. I didn't have to take the challenge but I looked into it for about a week and took the challenge. Besides I built a magnet wheel back in 1974 for a school project. It jerked around for a 1 1/2 days before it tore out the middle. 

You must appreciate that every wheel in your machine that is turning must be working against friction - transferring Energy. This energy has to come from somewhere. This can only be in the form of Kinetic Energy of the movement in the device. Where else?

But I never said wheels in it, there are leavers weights ect. But you are correct that every movement is a friction, so you have to overcome it, it is expected.
 Now to know if you truly have a runner by eye. It will speed up and depending on the design without a load added it can then start to serge due to overcoming the inner shifting speeds. Not to mention most likely will start on its own.

I hope this answers you questions.

Alan
 
 

[lyner]

Anything that falls needs to be raised up again, I expect. Where will the extra energy come from after the friction has taken some away?

one and a half days is good for your machine but 'perpetual'?
that includes one and a half weeks, one and a half months, one and a half . . . .

[AB Hammer]

sophiecentaur

Anything that falls needs to be raised up again, I expect. Where will the extra energy come from after the friction has taken some away?

Well that is the trick isn't it. []

one and a half days is good for your machine but 'perpetual'?
that includes one and a half weeks, one and a half months, one and a half . . . .

I agree, at least until it breaks down (due to wear and tear),or something or someone stops it.

[lyner]

Well that is the trick isn't it

The real world doesn't work with tricks.
Without an energy source it will slow down. No question.
Would you like a small wager - say $500?

[AB Hammer]

sophiecentaur

LOL $500? Pounds or US dollars? I will have to check on legalities, as well as the rules on the forum before I agree. I am finding this interesting for I don't even go to casinos.

[AB Hammer]

sophiecentaur

I do believe a wager is for gain or loss so it falls into this category. So sorry but I must decline.

Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also forbidden on this forum.

[Andrew K Fletcher]

I would say yes, perpetual motion is a distinct possibility. Evidence the perpetual life on earth, organic machinery appears to have discovered it’s mechanism.

The perpetual water cycle.

The perpetual Atlantic conveyor system.

The perpetual evolution of the planets.

The perpetual motion of the planets and stars.

The human heart. Everyone an engine and yet the person that has one beating in their chest does not believe in perpetual motion.

One could argue that they will eventually transform into another body or decay into the universe. Which is arguably perpetual stability and therefore does not disprove perpetual motion as a possibility.

[dentstudent]

Andrew. PM has to be a closed system to be truly perpetual. Part of the water cycle is driven by the sun – this is not perpetual – the sun will “die” and also it is not a closed system. The Atlantic conveyor system is driven partly by the sun, so again is not perpetual. I’m not sure what you mean by the perpetual evolution of the planets, but evolution is not a “force” and so I think falls outside the argument. The “perpetual” movement of stars and planets – there are many forces still acting on them and are not part of a closed system. The human heart stops beating when you’re dead. That is not perpetual. It is also supplied by energy for your entire lifetime, and so is not a closed system.

I don’t “believe” in PM in the same way that I don’t “believe” in god (and I hope that that does not reduce this thread to yet another "Is there a god" conversation). There is no evidence at all for the existence of either. If someone produced something that could not be explained by current laws, then of course it would be worthy of a great deal of attention, but “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” (Carl Sagan). We're waiting......

[lyner]

I do believe a wager is for gain or loss so it falls into this category. So sorry but I must decline.

Yes of course. A wager is not suited to the context of a Forum like this. But my point was that I WOULD bet any money.

AKF: The definition of Perpetual, in this context, at least,  is 'for ever' and with no other contributions.
Three score years and ten, for a heart is far from perpetual. Neither are the other examples you give.
As I said earlier "A long time is not for ever"
All the systems you refer to (plus ABH's) involve energy loss or energy input so they are not perpetual. You know perfectly well that the systems you quote 'use' energy, either from the Sun, by losing Potential Energy or from nuclear reactions.
Introducing diversions from the main point may be fun but it doesn't really advance the argument, does it? (We've been here before).
Why not read about the Perpetual Motion Issue, throughout the ages? I'm sure Google will help.

[AB Hammer]

Ah yes sophiecentaur

 We now get into the intellectual phase now.
1. Is the machine perpetual? or is the motion perpetual?
2. When something is destroyed, is it truly destroyed or just changed?

 Every thing goes through a change, which means change is perpetual. Now the wear and tear of a devices which can cause a change in a motion which can make a device fail. But the original motion design that is guided by the device is perpetual and will remain perpetual until the material changes. So you have to look at it as, if there is no change in the device the motion is and will remain perpetual. Thus once the machine is built, perpetual motion is proved.

[Andrew K Fletcher]

Have the rules changed for PM over the many years it has been debated? Right from the beginning did the people postulating it state that the machine must be indestructible, in a closed unit and use no power source whatsoever?
Does a perpetual Motion machine have to run to infinity in order to qualify? If so who will be around to measure it? And who stated the rules and when?

A human heart expires, another heart is born, the human engine self perpetuates. Just as a sun grows cold and another sun ignites.

The rules remind me of a boxer, who is never allowed to make contact with his opponent, can’t look at him or converse with him, must not breath on him or even be in the same room as him yet must some how find a way to win the fight.

Take away the rules and let the fight begin.

[rosy]

Andrew:
Yes. The definition of "perpetual motion" conventionally considered when asserting that "perpetual motion is not possible" is that it must be a system which continues to move forever without adding energy to the system and which therefore must either (a) have no frictional losses at all or (b) must be generating energy internally from nowhere. Since the question was "Is perpetual motion impossible" it is reasonable to assume that this is the definition under discussion here.

It's worth noting that any perpetual motion machine someone claims to have made (and it happens an awful lot) is almost always also a "free energy machine", from which energy can be extracted to "power whole cities" and so on ad tedium. This is always a class (b) machine since the extraction of energy from the system means that frictionlessness is not enough.

AB Hammer seems to be describing a machine which wears out. Wearing out necessarily implies friction and so fricitonal losses of energy. So (a) doesn't apply. Thus such a machine must generate energy out of nowhere. Requires re-writing all the scientific models as we understand them (no, really, all of them) but hey, this is science and if the model's wrong we refine it until it fits the new data. However... since the evidence for the rest of the consequences of thermodynamics stacks up pretty well I'm not going to go out of my way to find out more about any machine that claims perpetual motion.

[lyner]

Precisely, AKF.
The rules make it impossible to make one.
It would be indestructible, of course, it could not wear out - no friction - and would not be damaged by any external influence - no energy input.
The problem is that people try to get around the rules without knowing the are doing so.
Your particular ideas are just not in the 'set' which is 'perpetual motion machines'.

rosy beat me to the post.

[AB Hammer]

sophiecentaur

 Maybe you should say a God is impossible and you can not build a God. For a God would be perpetual.

 Maybe a perpetual motion machine that runs on gravity should be called a force to energy converter. Which may very well be the best description.IMO

 Or how about this an over unity friction motor of extrema efficiency.

 Of course we can say that all is perpetual for you can not destroy energy, it can only change. So that would make it perpetual as well.

This is probably one reason why, Max Planck father of Quantum physics 1858 - 1947 made this statment.

Quote
“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.”



 

[lyner]

Is anyone's 'god' a machine?

"running on gravity" implies transfer of energy. To use the gravity, something has to fall through a distance.
Work done = force times distance
That's an energy input.

Do you have a tube of negative friction grease, then?

Your other statements don't refer to Perpetually Moving Machines, one of which you are claiming to be constructing.  Just stick to the one issue at a time and astound us all with a perpetual machine in the accepted sense of the word.

[AB Hammer]

"running on gravity" implies transfer of energy. To use the gravity, something has to fall through a distance.
Work done = force times distance
That's an energy input.

Then you will have to say that gravity is an energy. But we are taught that it is a force. Thus I like the term force to energy converter.

This is the reason that I say it will break no so called laws of physics but a need for a newer understanding.

[Andrew K Fletcher]

For the record. I will believe in a PM machine when I see one for myself.

[AB Hammer]

For the record. I will believe in a PM machine when I see one for myself.

 That is a proper attitude for this case, but would the media be close enough for you?

This is what science wants as proof.

perpetual motion
a system wherein the item in question consumes and outputs at least 100% of its energy constantly, sustaining no net loss as a result of the laws of thermodynamics. 

From; The Language of Science - Dictionary and Research Guide

__________________________________________

Impossible is more a hallmark of pseudoscience than of true science.

[Andrew K Fletcher]

Alan, the media would never be proof for me, their track record is somewhat less than perfect. I would have to see it and understand it completely before accepting it. This is my nature; I do not believe anything until completely satisfied there is no other logical explanation. Theories like the Big Bang, God. Black Holes and the like fall into the same un-proven category. But are safer for the propagators.

Who can go out there and prove them one way or another? Most are just unsubstantiated guesswork. Arguing that the maths adds up is no defence either when the parameters the maths are based on are guesswork. Imagine trying to calculate the age of the universe, how arrogant can we become one wonders? Who do we go to ask about such impossible speculations to see if our answers are correct, when more pressing Earthly science requires the attention of the very best that science has to offer.

So for now please accept that while I do not disbelieve, (open minded), like many people in this excellent forum require substantial proof about a PM discovery. The post mentioning the movement of the planet by the way as far as the planet is concerned is a closed system and does move perpetually! So any such machine could do worse than include gravity as a free force.