Perpetual motion machines already exist

[Roger Ramjets]

First of all, I believe there is a conceptual misunderstanding here. When scientists oppose the idea of perpetual motion machines, they primarily argue that such machines violate the law of conservation of energy. They state that it is impossible to create energy from nothing and, therefore, mechanisms that can operate continuously and indefinitely on their own are impossible. However, this is where the misunderstanding arises.

Throughout history, those who have designed perpetual motion mechanisms have attempted to achieve continuous motion by utilizing gravitational force, buoyancy, or the attraction-repulsion properties of magnets. In other words, there is no question of generating energy from nothing. Instead, efforts have been made to build machines that move continuously by harnessing existing energy sources or forces. Essentially, these are no different in principle from solar-powered vehicles. The goal is to produce machines that operate indefinitely, free of cost, and without harming the environment.

You make a good point. Collins defines 'machine' as "an assembly of interconnected components arranged to transmit or modify force in order to perform useful work".

Britannica describes it as "a piece of equipment with moving parts that does work when it is given power from electricity, gasoline, etc... Shovels are tools; bulldozers are machines.".

A 'perpetual motion machine' that doesn't perform useful work is not a machine. To be a machine it has to output power, ie. apply mechanical force over a distance, move current through a wire etc. - and it has to be powered by something. A machine doesn't create energy, it only transforms it from one form to another.

A device that does produce mechanical output power is called a 'perpetual motion machine' if works with no power source, because it could theoretically operate forever without any energy supplied to it (unlike a normal machine which stops when the power source is removed). Even in ancient times this 'getting something for nothing' was known to be impossible, and those who attempted it were considered foolish.

What you are actually describing is a so-called 'free energy' device, which gets power from an energy source which lasts practically forever and is all around us 'free' for the taking. Water, wind, solar, nuclear, coal and oil etc. are not 'free energy' sources because they are intermittent and/or the supply is limited and not freely available everywhere.

Another point of contention among scientists is the phrase "infinite motion," which is also misunderstood. Even our universe is not infinite and will eventually come to an end (only the Hereafter universe, in other words, the Lord’s Floor/Indallah, is infinite). However, a mechanism that operates for a very long time without stopping can certainly be described as being in continuous motion. For instance, a mechanism that runs and generates energy uninterrupted for thousands of years would unquestionably be considered a perpetual motion machine. Similarly, the "drinking bird" mechanism is, in fact, a type of perpetual motion device.

The Enscherange water mill in Luxembourg was originally built in 1334 over 6 centuries ago, but nobody calls it a perpetual motion machine because it clearly relies on a supply of falling water - which is a limited resource. The 'drinking bird' is no different, as it must be continuously supplied with water which evaporates to create the 'drinking' motion.

A device that generates energy is called a 'generator' or 'power plant' - which outputs electricity. But that also takes in energy in some form. A steam engine takes steam produced by burning a 'fuel' (chemical or nuclear) or concentrating light from the sun. A solar panel (which is not a machine) also uses light to generate electricity. Nuclear energy is notoriously difficult to harness directly, and solar energy is intermittent (even when extracted from wind or falling water). Though the Sun may last 'forever' on human timescales, the amount of power we can practically harness from it is limited, and it isn't all around us all the time.

People throughout history who attempted to make perpetual motion machines were trying to get power out of nothing, which science and common sense tells us doesn't work. People making machines powered by falling water, wind, heat from the sun or chemical or nuclear reactions knew that their machines were using obvious external energy sources, and so were not 'perpetual motion' machines.

In summary, a device which produces continuous motion without a power source but doesn't perform useful work should be called a perpetual motion device, not 'machine'. However, as you point out, the people making these devices expect them to do useful work. Therefore we don't have to invoke scientific theory to show that they don't work. If it doesn't do useful work it's not a perpetual motion machine, by definiton. If it does then just look for the power source - which must be there even if they try to hide it from you.

The term 'perpetual motion machine' is actually an oxymoron, since a real machine is defined as being powered from an external source, while a 'perpetual motion' machine purports to work without an external power source.

 

[Norman Alexander]

First of all, I believe there is a conceptual misunderstanding here. When scientists oppose the idea of perpetual motion machines, they primarily argue that such machines violate the law of conservation of energy. They state that it is impossible to create energy from nothing and, therefore, mechanisms that can operate continuously and indefinitely on their own are impossible. However, this is where the misunderstanding arises.

Throughout history, those who have designed perpetual motion mechanisms have attempted to achieve continuous motion by utilizing gravitational force, buoyancy, or the attraction-repulsion properties of magnets. In other words, there is no question of generating energy from nothing. Instead, efforts have been made to build machines that move continuously by harnessing existing energy sources or forces. Essentially, these are no different in principle from solar-powered vehicles. The goal is to produce machines that operate indefinitely, free of cost, and without harming the environment.

Another point of contention among scientists is the phrase "infinite motion," which is also misunderstood. Even our universe is not infinite and will eventually come to an end (only the Hereafter universe, in other words, the Lord’s Floor/Indallah, is infinite). However, a mechanism that operates for a very long time without stopping can certainly be described as being in continuous motion. For instance, a mechanism that runs and generates energy uninterrupted for thousands of years would unquestionably be considered a perpetual motion machine. Similarly, the "drinking bird" mechanism is, in fact, a type of perpetual motion device.

These are not your own words, are they, Emre. You have sourced them from someone far more capable of complex English expression than yourself, and added a bit here and there.

 

[Emre_1974tr]

The Enscherange water mill in Luxembourg was originally built in 1334 over 6 centuries ago, but nobody calls it a perpetual motion machine because it clearly relies on a supply of falling water - which is a limited resource. The 'drinking bird' is no different, as it must be continuously supplied with water which evaporates to create the 'drinking' motion.

If you set up the drinking bird mechanism at the edge of a lake or inside it, or if you place it inside a sealed glass chamber to prevent water from evaporating and escaping, the machine will never stop. In short, as long as the forces or energies that keep the perpetual motion mechanism running continue, it will never cease operation.

Let’s repeat: All perpetual motion mechanisms in history have always utilized existing forces or energies—there is no exception to this rule. However, in ancient times, when no visibly apparent force or energy source, such as human or animal power, was present, a mechanism designed to work with gravity, for example, was called a self-operating machine. But in reality, none of these designs ever relied on the principle of self-operation. They always took something from an external source.

If you examine all famous perpetual motion mechanisms, you will see this truth: At the very least, they always use gravity or another force. Besides the drinking bird mechanism, classic thermometers can also be considered examples of perpetual motion mechanisms. Various machines can be built by utilizing pressure differences or gravity.

I explained all of this in a very old Turkish article of mine:

Devri Daim Makineleri Çağına Doğru

20. yüzyılın ilk on yılında motorlu uçaklar, ikinci on yılında da televizyonun icadına şahit olunmuştu. Yüzyılın ortalarında ise uzaya çıkıl...

emre1974tr.blogspot.com

 

[lionking]

A proton is the closest to a perpetual motion machine, but even they decay. Correct Emre?

 

[3point14]

A proton is the closest to a perpetual motion machine, but even they decay. Correct Emre?

I always figure the solar system is pretty close. I mean, it changes and does lose energy but not so as you'd notice over a thousand lifetimes.

Or possibly the universe itself? It just keeps on expanding no matter what.

Of course, robbing energy from these systems is a little tricky...

 

[JayUtah]

If you set up the drinking bird mechanism at the edge of a lake or inside it

That only postpones the inevitable. The water must be replenished for the mechanism to run.

or if you place it inside a sealed glass chamber to prevent water from evaporating and escaping

The mechanism works by evaporative cooling. Deny the evaporation and the mechanism stops.

I explained all of this in a very old Turkish article of mine

Yes, we know you have a blog at which you propound your various errors at interminable length. Keep in mind that many of us here have a professional level understanding of various topics in science and therefore cannot be easily bamboozled. No matter how much tedious prose you want to put behind your mistake, you still haven't answered the basic question that even lay people can grasp: If perpetual motion machines are scientifically possible, why aren't they commonly in use?

 

[Ziggurat]

If you examine all famous perpetual motion mechanisms, you will see this truth: At the very least, they always use gravity or another force.

There are no perpetual motion machines, only machines wrongly claimed to be perpetual motion machines. And of course they use for force, because if they didn't, they couldn't do anything at all, because actual perpetual motion (properly defined) doesn't exist.

Besides the drinking bird mechanism, classic thermometers can also be considered examples of perpetual motion mechanisms.

Neither of these is a perpetual motion machine. A thermometer isn't a machine at all.

Various machines can be built by utilizing pressure differences or gravity.

Indeed they can be, though machines can be powered off more than just this. Any thermodynamic gradient will do. And none of them are perpetual motion machines.

 

[I Am The Scum]

If you set up the drinking bird mechanism... inside a sealed glass chamber to prevent water from evaporating and escaping, the machine will never stop

If I'm understanding the science right, the humidity and temperature inside the container should normalize to the point where evaporative cooling stops happening and the bird stops moving.

But maybe I'm wrong. Go ahead and set up a drinking bird in a sealed container and cover it up so no light or (much) heat can get in. See what happens and report back to us in a week.

 

[Ziggurat]

If I'm understanding the science right, the humidity and temperature inside the container should normalize to the point where evaporative cooling stops happening and the bird stops moving.

Correct. As long as you don't have a thermal gradient (so that the water can recondense somewhere), then that is correct. Evaporation will stop once equilibrium is reached. If you do have a thermal gradient, then you just have a really inefficient heat engine, not a perpetual motion machine.

 

[shemp]

If you set up the drinking bird mechanism at the edge of a lake or inside it, or if you place it inside a sealed glass chamber to prevent water from evaporating and escaping, the machine will never stop. In short, as long as the forces or energies that keep the perpetual motion mechanism running continue, it will never cease operation.
Let’s repeat: All perpetual motion mechanisms in history have always utilized existing forces or energies—there is no exception to this rule. However, in ancient times, when no visibly apparent force or energy source, such as human or animal power, was present, a mechanism designed to work with gravity, for example, was called a self-operating machine. But in reality, none of these designs ever relied on the principle of self-operation. They always took something from an external source.

If you examine all famous perpetual motion mechanisms, you will see this truth: At the very least, they always use gravity or another force. Besides the drinking bird mechanism, classic thermometers can also be considered examples of perpetual motion mechanisms. Various machines can be built by utilizing pressure differences or gravity.

I explained all of this in a very old Turkish article of mine:

Devri Daim Makineleri Çağına Doğru

20. yüzyılın ilk on yılında motorlu uçaklar, ikinci on yılında da televizyonun icadına şahit olunmuştu. Yüzyılın ortalarında ise uzaya çıkıl...

emre1974tr.blogspot.com

You keep using these words "perpetual motion." I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[Thermal]

Since we are (for whatever reason) entertaining the idea of a drinking bird to be a source of perpetual energy, doesn't it rely heavily on balance, meaning that there isn't even in theory any work it could actually put out?

 

[theprestige]

Since we are (for whatever reason) entertaining the idea of a drinking bird to be a source of perpetual energy, doesn't it rely heavily on balance, meaning that there isn't even in theory any work it could actually put out?

It pivots on a joint. As long as the up-ending force can overcome some arbitrary resistance from the joint, in principle that resistance could be in the form of force transmitted to do work.

 

[Thermal]

It pivots on a joint. As long as the up-ending force can overcome some arbitrary resistance from the joint, in principle that resistance could be in the form of force transmitted to do work.

Right, but my understanding was that the input heat required from the evaporative process is about exactly what is needed to overcome the friction at the nearly frictionless pivot, so any net work bleed off would jam up the works?

 

[theprestige]

Right, but my understanding was that the input heat required from the evaporative process is about exactly what is needed to overcome the friction at the nearly frictionless pivot, so any net work bleed off would jam up the works?

That's not my understanding.

 

[catsmate]

Nope, I think I'll stick to the shroud nonsense.

 

[Emre_1974tr]

If you set up the drinking bird mechanism at the edge of a lake or inside it, or if you place it inside a sealed glass chamber to prevent water from evaporating and escaping, the machine will never stop. In short, as long as the forces or energies that keep the perpetual motion mechanism running continue, it will never cease operation.

Let’s repeat: All perpetual motion mechanisms in history have always utilized existing forces or energies—there is no exception to this rule. However, in ancient times, when no visibly apparent force or energy source, such as human or animal power, was present, a mechanism designed to work with gravity, for example, was called a self-operating machine. But in reality, none of these designs ever relied on the principle of self-operation. They always took something from an external source.

If you examine all famous perpetual motion mechanisms, you will see this truth: At the very least, they always use gravity or another force. Besides the drinking bird mechanism, classic thermometers can also be considered examples of perpetual motion mechanisms. Various machines can be built by utilizing pressure differences or gravity.

I explained all of this in a very old Turkish article of mine:

Devri Daim Makineleri Çağına Doğru

20. yüzyılın ilk on yılında motorlu uçaklar, ikinci on yılında da televizyonun icadına şahit olunmuştu. Yüzyılın ortalarında ise uzaya çıkıl...

emre1974tr.blogspot.com

And;

Crookes radiometers, thermoelectric generators, and atmospheric clocks are examples of perpetual motion mechanisms...

 

[Jack by the hedge]

No. They are not.

There is a clue in the name "radiometer" which suggests it operates on an external energy input, don't you think?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I think we've got a problem primarily with definitions here. The conventional meaning of 'perpetual motion machine' is 'a machine that keeps on running perpetually without any energy input.' Emre_1974tr's definition seems to be 'a machine that keeps on running as long as it still has an energy input.' This is, of course, what the rest of us would refer to as 'not a perpetual motion machine.'

Dave

 

[JayUtah]

And;

Crookes radiometers, thermoelectric generators, and atmospheric clocks are examples of perpetual motion mechanisms...

That means you don't know what perpetual motion is.

 

[Puppycow]

So... I guess Emre thinks hydroelectirc power is a perpetual motion machine if it comes from a dammed waterway?

Well, that's about as close as you are going to get. Same thing with solar panels or a wind turbine. Harnessing natural energy for our own purposes. The wind will blow anyway. The sun will shine anyway, and rain will fall to create rivers that can be dammed.