[BenV]

But they won't allow a patent, without a working model.

I can't blame them.  Still, how do you get over the fact that work done against gravity must at least equal the energy gained from falling with gravity?

[Pumblechook]

Someone else on another talkboard reckons he has some sort of turbine which needs energy to get it spinning and then the energy input can be reduce to zero and it carrys on spinning.. Yeah right!

[lyner]

Even the US patent office has now recognized the possibility of a perpetual motion device.

If you were a busy government official, which would you rather to do; argue the toss for ever with 'PM' inventors or just tell them to produce a working machine?
It strikes me as the ideal, time-effective, answer.

Sounds like the classic "Yes, dear, very nice" response from a busy Mum to an enthusiastic teenage son.

[AB Hammer]

@ All

 Back in the past the patent office was getting all to many perpetual motion machine patent applications. And sever where trying to get the idea of perpetual motion itself in any form. So when any body had a breakthrough they could use the courts to take it. It was getting out of hand so the patent office refused unless the people had a working model and it had to run for a year. This stopped the garbage which they were dealing with. Then it somehow became not accepting applications at all, until so many science breakthrough and things that were believed to be impossible became true, as well some near runners where produced in the magnet motor field, that would run for awhile and then stop. The eddy wave would build up heat and basically burn out the magnets. At least the is the theory.

A little history helps.   

[lyner]

And the History does not demonstrate that the decision was either based on Science or supports your argument. Particularly because the conclusion was reached so long ago.

You surely can't suggest that any system with currents flowing around   it (other than a superconductor) could ever be involved in perpetual motion.
Running down after a while doesn't qualify.

[dentstudent]

Just something interesting I found on the UK patents office site (now known as the UK Intellectual Property Office).

4.05 Processes or articles alleged to operate in a manner which is clearly contrary to well-established physical laws, such as perpetual motion machines, are regarded as not having industrial application

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/practice-sec-004.pdf

[lyner]

They've got a way of putting things, haven't they?
"The Court went on to hold that industry does not exist in that sense to make or use that which is useless for any known purpose."

I guess they've seen it all in their time.

[Andrew K Fletcher]

Possibly.

[Bored chemist]

What will stop any and all the designs working is the whole of physics.
What's to discuss?

Greetings Bored chemist

Here is what one of your founding fathers said

“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.”

Quote By Max Planck father of Quantum physics 1858 - 1947

True, but useless.
If there are no rules then we have still nothing to discuss. It might all turn into blancmange tomorrow.

[srobert]

Perpetual motion in my mind is a device which will continue in motion without the aid of any additional energy from an outside source other than that which it was given at the time the device started to move. Which in theory is possible however to achieve it and prove itself it would need to be in a closed system in order to eliminating all outside influences.
 

Surely perpetual motion of itself is not by any means impossible, a body at constant velocity will remain at constant velocity unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. An example of an unbalanced force which acts upon bodies we typically come across is friction. If you were to remove all friction, as well as any other forces from affecting the object then it will not stop. In practice that's impossible since at the very least it will be affected by the gravitation field of other ojects.

The real problem is to build a machine from which you can extract work perpetually without the input of energy

[lyner]

srobert
You've just described two non viable situations. The latter is just a bit more outrageous than the former.
btw, the gravitational bit is not strictly relevant because gravity is a conservative force.

[Onlyinterestednotdevoted]

Perpetual motion is a possibility. I have never seen a wheel design that would not eventually lose momentum due to friction. But then again, maybe friction is the thing to use. You don't get something for nothing. You just got to learn to use the same force more than once. I am currently on the second draft of a machine I have been working on for a LLLLLOOONNNGGGG time. Keep at it.

[AB Hammer]

I am finally getting back to work, and as soon as I get caught up a little, I'll get my wheels done.

Here is one of first of my original designs I posted on other forums. I use it to help prove the possibility of perpetual motion.

[lyner]

I use it to help prove the possibility of perpetual motion.

Sorry but, if you take moments about the axis and add them all up, there is no net turning effect. If it were ever to work, it should start from stationary.
Then what about all the noise (energy) involved with all that clattering?
Have you really  not read of all the similar designs which have been long since discredited?

You have as much chance as of  turning base metals into Gold, you know.

[AB Hammer]

Have you really  not read of all the similar designs which have been long since discredited?

What similar designs? I have seen thousands and have not found one similar to this one. [8D]

You have as much chance as of  turning base metals into Gold, you know.

Well I kinda turn metal into gold, its my living as a blacksmith/armourer.  []

http://www.creationtime.com/hisbsaw.htm

[lyner]

There must be some force to turn your wheel. This will have to come from the imbalance in moments. A thousand designs have relied on this and they all failed - of course. What else can happen?
Do you seriously not subscribe to Energy as a concept - and all that implies?

And here's a thought. Would not Evolution have produced living organisms, based on your idea, if it were really viable?

What saddens me is that, when your next machine runs down, you will simply blame it on practicalities and not on fundamentals. Why not direct your undoubted enthusiasm and energy into a more fruitful direction? Perhaps into improving efficiency of a 'realistic' system.

Well I kinda turn metal into gold, its my living as a blacksmith/armourer.

I like it.

[Andrew K Fletcher]

Thought experiments. Could a system be built that relies on energy burned converting it back to the original source, separating back into combustible gas and oxygen.

This is something the planet achieves so must be possible to replicate on a smaller scale.

Hydrogen extracted from water produces water, which can be burned again and again without any net loss. Figure out how to separate the water without using as much energy as the gas releases to our engine and we could have some form of perpetual motion.

So if say our proposed perpetual machine was a boat that converted the water into gas to fuel an engine using less power than the conversion process would this qualify?

[rosy]

This is something the planet achieves so must be possible to replicate on a smaller scale.

Yes, but the planet has an external source of energy.

Hydrogen extracted from water produces water, which can be burned again and again without any net loss. Figure out how to separate the water without using as much energy as the gas releases to our engine and we could have some form of perpetual motion.

Fundamental misunderstanding of how chemistry works. The (theoretical) amounts of energy required to generate the reagents and released by the reaction are exactly equal. Unfortunately thermal losses during for example the process of splitting the water by electrolysis (or any other method) will never be zero, so we can never even break even on this or any equivalent chemical process.

[lyner]

AKF

Hydrogen extracted from water produces water, which can be burned again and again without any net loss. Figure out how to separate the water without using as much energy as the gas releases to our engine and we could have some form of perpetual motion.

When I was little I though I would be able to fly by waving two table tennis bats as I jumped down from the table. I grew up and learned the facts of life.
How can you say there's no net loss? Energy has to be supplied (EXTRA energy) each time you repeat the cycle because of losses.  During every energy transfer, there is some Heat generated. Some of this, with the best insulation you can supply, will  be lost to the system. The Efficiency  in any process is not 100%. Why not accept that? There is even a net loss of Hydrogen and Oxygen as they combine, to a finite degree, with the material of the containers used.
Perhaps you should 'figure out'  the facts and learn some Science (not Magic).
I know that the actual facts don't influence your particular views and Science is 'all out to get you' but give it a try.

[Andrew K Fletcher]

Thank you Rosy.

It is not wise in science to say we can never.
This was a thought experiment supposing that a method of hydrogen extraction can be found that greatly lowers the amount of energy used to extract it to the point where an engine can run burning it and the vapour can be recycled back to the tank to repeat the process. Saying we can never achieve this is a bit like stating water under normal atmospheric pressure in a single open ended tube will not rise over the 10 meter mark, in the physics books relied upon by Sophiecentaur et al.

So let's deal with the external source of energy. Where does the energy from the sun come in to driving our hypothetical hydrogen engine?

Let's not forget the original idea of perpetual motion. It was to produce a widget that could output more energy than it uses to allow it to continue running indefinately. Should the object deteriorate over a year but still runs for that year perpetually we have not disproved perpetual motion but have merely exposed a flaw in the widget construction.

Sophiecentaur. Predicatably you throw up a defence. The net loss was in the amount of water used. In that once burned it transforms back into water so no net loss of water.

Make the hydrogen production more efficient than the losses due to friction and we can ignore heat loss providing the widget keeps running ofc.

Just thinking aloud here so cut me some slack