Perpetual Motion Device. On the ORBO forums.

Still wondering why anyone has the nerver to call it a "perpetual motion machine"? Aren't PPMs supposed to run indefinately? last I checked on the forums, this thing does not run continuously and produces huge amounts of friction (thus the sound). Doesn't make any sense.
 
Rasmus55 said:
Aren't PPMs supposed to run indefinately? last I checked on the forums, this thing does not run continuously and produces huge amounts of friction (thus the sound). Doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

Well, historically, inventors of PPMs ask that we "imagine the machine was built within perfect tolerances, so that there's neglegible friction." In fact, this is the explanantion they often give for why their machines don't run forever.

The real fun comes in imagining this perfectly frictionless device, then showing that their PPM still won't run forever.
 
Last edited:
There's a way to create a perfectly frictionless device. There have been experiments using flywheels with magnetic bearings in a vacuum:

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

They will spin 'forever' or at least for very, very long time, but in general power must be supplied to the bearings. Here's a link to a NASA paper detailing a magnetic bearing design that uses 'passive' magnets:

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2002/TM-2002-211159.pdf

The perpetual motion crowd could make use of this type of frictionless bearing, but then they will have to deal with windage losses (air friction). There are eddy current losses, I^2R losses, etc. that contribute to inefficiency. Sadly, the perpetual motion crowd is unaware of the various losses inherent in electric machines aside from friction.
 
The problem of "perpetual motion" is a purely physical question.

It does not evoke any elements of religion, philosophy, or ethics, as does evolution. Now, given that every single physical principle known to science says PM is impossible, and that this impossibility does not impinge on any of the above firmly held beliefs, my very straightforward and sincere question is this:

What form of evidence would it take for you who believe that perpetual motion is possible to change your mind and say to yourself, "Well, I suppose I was wrong."

I'd love to see some honest prose on this topic from believers. I promise no AdHoms from this end. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Olowkow said:
What form of evidence would it take for you who believe that perpetual motion is possible to change your mind and say to yourself, "Well, I suppose I was wrong."

I'd love to see some honest prose on this topic from believers. I promise no AdHoms from this end. Thanks.
Click to expand...


Why not frame your question is a reasonable manner?

What form of evidence would it take for you to believe that harnessing energy which currently exists could be achieved at a net gain within the process to change your mind and say to yourself, "Well, I suppose I was wrong."?
 
Last edited:
well, the obvious answer is "a confirmed working prototype that has been peer reviewed"

Considering there *is no such thing*, I think Olowhow's original framing of the question is better. Fancy taking a stab at it?
 
devnull said:
well, the obvious answer is "a confirmed working prototype that has been peer reviewed"

Considering there *is no such thing*, I think Olowhow's original framing of the question is better. Fancy taking a stab at it?
Click to expand...

The premise is incorrect. Perpetual motion is not needed to create a machine which produces more energy than it consumes.


ETA: Everything is always in perpetual motion (tautology?). This concept is relative.
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Matter exists. It is not created, it is however reformed constantly.
Click to expand...

If your postulated engine which created more energy than it consumed existed, then it would be the equivalent of creating matter.
 
Last edited:
TjW said:
If your postulated engine which created more energy than it consumed existed, then it would be the equivalent of creating matter.
Click to expand...

No, it would be using that which is not currently being used. Think transfer, not creation. You do not think that the internal combustion engine "creates" energy, do you?
 
Exactly. But getting more energy out than you put in is equivalent. Transferring energy is not creating energy. But over unity machines claim to do just that - create energy. Which, I think in the matter case, you agree with.
 
what worries me about free energy is that it will make us more stupid.
Imagine a limitless source of non-polluting free energy!!

Shucks, we could have 10 billion people driving winnebagos to fast food restaurants.
I'm glad it doesn't exist.
In fact, I'd be glad to see energy become much more expensive than it is now.
It would help us move on to more elegant technologies and saner life-styles.

Also, if some 'over-unity' device ever happens, it will likely have some negative ramification that won't be apparent at first...like, it will alter our orbit, or tax the spin of the planet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom