[Just thinking (OP)]

Will a perpetual motion machine ever be invented or are those that try just deluded and wasting their time.

[Bored chemist]

Will a perpetual motion machine ever be invented

Not in any useful sense.

are those that try just deluded and wasting their time.

Deluded may not be the word. Misinformed might be a better term.

They are wasting their time (well, they might be gaining valuable metalworking skills or something but...).

[Just thinking (OP)]

Deluded may not be the word. Misinformed might be a better term.

They are wasting their time (well, they might be gaining valuable metalworking skills or something but...).

I think they are wasting their time and good metal. It is fun to see people disagree.

[Bored chemist]

Years ago, in a school metalwork class, I made a bad coat-hook.
It was, from a practical point of view, a waste of mild steel.
But the experience was useful, and the metal is recyclable.

[Just thinking (OP)]

and the metal is recyclable.

Touche. I was a blacksmiths laborer on the railway so I guess I'm guilty of wastage.

[Petrochemicals]

Will a perpetual motion machine ever be invented or are those that try just deluded and wasting their time.

The patent offices do not accept such things.

[Just thinking (OP)]

    Will a perpetual motion machine ever be invented or are those that try just deluded and wasting their time.

The patent offices do not accept such things.

That is true and we can't blame them. I think the closest thing to a true perpetual motion would be the universe its self even the ocean tides driven by the moon are somewhat perpetual at least for a very long time. The problem is the patent office won't give me a patent on the tides.

[Petrochemicals]

    Will a perpetual motion machine ever be invented or are those that try just deluded and wasting their time.

The patent offices do not accept such things.

That is true and we can't blame them. I think the closest thing to a true perpetual motion would be the universe its self even the ocean tides driven by the moon are somewhat perpetual at least for a very long time. The problem is the patent office won't give me a patent on the tides.

That is not perpetual motion.

You could try and patent newton's 1st law.

[Just thinking (OP)]

You could try and patent newton's 1st law.

They will kick me out of their office when I start bouncing balls around.

[Colin2B]

The problem is the patent office won't give me a patent on the tides.

They will if you invent a unique device for extracting energy from tidal movement.

[Just thinking (OP)]

Quote from: Just thinking on Today at 05:47:53

    The problem is the patent office won't give me a patent on the tides.

They will if you invent a unique device for extracting energy from tidal movement.

I have thought a lot about that but always come up blank there are some already in operation like the swell pump generator and the current generators' problem is they have small out put for their cost and servicing.

[Petrochemicals]

The problem is the patent office won't give me a patent on the tides.

They will if you invent a unique device for extracting energy from tidal movement.

The problem is the patent office won't give me a patent on the tides.

They will if you invent a unique device for extracting energy from tidal movement.

Would that be perpetual motion? The tides and waves are not perpetually moving.

[Bored chemist]

Perpetual motion is impossible.
The tides are possible.
The tides are not perpetual motion.

If you point out facts to Petrochemicals, after a while, he puts you on his ignore list.
Presumably, this is to stop him having to think

[Just thinking (OP)]

Perpetual motion is impossible.
The tides are possible.
The tides are not perpetual motion.

If you point out facts to Petrochemicals, after a while, he puts you on his ignore list.
Presumably, this is to stop him having to think

I can understand that one may see the tides as having an external energy source making them not perpetual in motion but if we look at the solar system as a whole we have many parts just as an inventor of a so called perpetual motion machine will include many parts. It is said that true perpetual motion must put out more than is put in and if we take the moon example the moon can not push us over but an ocean wave can the wave has more authority over us than the energy that produced it.

[Petrochemicals]

Perpetual motion is impossible.
The tides are possible.
The tides are not perpetual motion.

If you point out facts to Petrochemicals, after a while, he puts you on his ignore list.
Presumably, this is to stop him having to think

I can understand that one may see the tides as having an external energy source making them not perpetual in motion but if we look at the solar system as a whole we have many parts just as an inventor of a so called perpetual motion machine will include many parts. It is said that true perpetual motion must put out more than is put in and if we take the moon example the moon can not push us over but an ocean wave can the wave has more authority over us than the energy that produced it.

Yes there is supposed to be no input. There is a lot more energy lost from the motion of waves and tides from destructive interaction. Waves  can dissappear, the tides are diverted and  disrupted. If you threw a rubber ducky in the drink would it move for ever.

[Halc]

Yes there is supposed to be no input.

There is no input with the tides if you consider the Earth/moon to be a closed system. It's like a battery-powered fan: self contained and blows continuously without input from outside. But it's not perpetual motion since eventually the battery runs down and the fan stops. Ditto with the tides, which has been steadily draining its energy source (currently at a rate of about 3 TW) for over 4 billion years, slowing the spin of Earth from well under 10 hours to the 24 hours it takes today. The energy from the solar tides comes from the combined angular energy of the Earth/moon system, which is also steadily decreasing.

[Just thinking (OP)]

Yes there is supposed to be no input. There is a lot more energy lost from the motion of waves and tides from destructive interaction. Waves  can dissappear, the tides are diverted and  disrupted. If you threw a rubber ducky in the drink would it move for ever.

Yes, you make a good point I don't think there can be any form of perpetual motion.

[Eternal Student]

LATE EDITING:  I've mistaken this discussion for something in the Chat section.  Sorry.  Don't take it too seriously

Hi.

Perpetual motion doesn't seem to be too much of a problem.
A perpetual motion machine from which you can also extract useful work is a different thing.

It was also suggested that an input of energy to the machine is not acceptable:

Yes there is supposed to be no input.

    We should think of ways to get around this restriction.
There's no law against changing my frame of reference.   Kinetic Energy is frame dependant.  So all I need to do is accelerate myself (not the machine) and then the machine's moving components can have it's kinetic energy replenished.
     That's it,  I'll have my patent please.   I've got a perpetual motion machine from which I can extract useful work.   There is no input of energy to the machine (but I will need an input of energy for myself every now and again).

Best Wishes.

[Bored chemist]

Perpetual motion doesn't seem to be too much of a problem.

Really?

[Just thinking (OP)]

So all I need to do is accelerate myself (not the machine) and then the machine's moving components can have it's kinetic energy replenished.

No comprendo.