Perpetual Motion

[Spektator]

Call me simple-minded, but it seems to me that the protocol should be that the inventor gets a dollar for every year that the machine runs, up to a cap of a million.

 

[TjW]

Call me simple-minded, but it seems to me that the protocol should be that the inventor gets a dollar for every year that the machine runs, up to a cap of a million.

There are some voltaic piles that are (I believe) over a hundred years old, and still driving their "ever-chiming bells". Not perpetual motion, but they lasted considerably longer than their creators.

 

[rwguinn]

Maybe it's a limitation of the language, but "perpetual" means "perpetual," not "extended" or "long duration."

If a part wears out, this will be due to friction, which is the conversion of potential energy to kinetic in the form of heat, and is lost to the machine. If the part has to be replaced, then you are also replacing that part's store of potential energy. IOW, you are, in principle, refueling the machine.

Therefore, any machine that requires servicing requires energy replacement from external sources to continue operating, and cannot be classed as "perpetual."

The "old School" definition of a Perpetual Motion Machine was a machine, which once set in motion, remains in motion with no additiona energy input.
implicit in that definition was that there is no loss within the machine, which would be manifested as heat.
Ideally, a PM machine would get colder as time goes on, I guess...

 

[prometheus_effect]

I was wondering just how one would go about testing for a claim perporting to have invented a perpetual motion machine.

Any ideas??

HTC.

Are you really asking about a "Over Unity" device which produces more power output energy than input energy? Perpetual motion is a some what dated term.

If so the trick here is to ensure you have covered ALL the possible recognized forms of input energy to your device before claiming it produces more output energy than input energy.

By the way if your device is based on a rotary system, it should accelerate until losses equal output energy. If the output energy increases as rpm increases (as I suspect it should), it will accelerate until it self destructs due to excess physical stresses.

Be sure to protect yourself.

 

[HutchTheCrutch]

Hmmm .... good question. I'm not sure that the term is outdated, more that its scope is not well enough defined. It's a question that I've been trying to answer since I was a boy trying to prove to my father through various mechnisms that I'd created the perpetual motion machine. (obviously all my efforts no matter how convoluted were thwarted, by friction mainly!).

I am certainly focussing on equal energy I/O and not on OUM, let's not walk before we can run! ;-) I believe that from a testing protocol perspective, the definition of 'perpetual' would need a lot of nailing down or even removal, however that somehow changes the 'spirit' of the term.

Anyways, it's sparked some interesting comments, thanks.

H.

 

[HutchTheCrutch]

PS ... I am NOT Mr Gustum !!