Is this a Perpetual Motion Machine?
Technically, a Perpetual motion machines describes hypothetical machines that are capable of producing useful work indefinitely, or, in a more generally way; hypothetical machines that produce more work or energy than they consume, even if they don’t operate indefinitely.
The fact that successful perpetual motion devices are considered physically impossible, at least in terms of our current understanding of the laws of physics, the quest for a perpetual motion machine remains as popular today as it was in years past.
Currently there is undisputed scientific agreement that perpetual motion in a closed system violates either the first law or the second law of thermodynamics (Physics that deals with the relationships and conversions between heat and other forms of energy), and sometimes both laws.
You always lose a little energy (the second law of thermodynamics).
So these rules dictate that a machine of any kind cannot make more energy than it uses or enough energy to keep it operating without assistance.
Machines which obtain energy from seemingly perpetual sources - such as ocean currents, or the wind, may indeed be capable of moving "perpetually" but only until that energy source stops. But they can not be considered as being perpetual motion machines because they are actually consuming energy from an external source (from the wind or the ocean currents) and are therefore not considered closed systems.
We know from written records that the concept of a perpetual motion machine has been on going from at least as early as 1159 AD, because documentation has been found in which a wheel that runs forever is described by a mathematician from India
As you would expect, several common ideas recur repeatedly and many ideas continue to appear today that were referenced as early as 1670. By the 19th century, the invention of perpetual motion machines is said by some to have become quite the obsession.
In fact, proposals for machines that don’t work have become so common that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has made it official policy to refuse grant patents for perpetual motion machines without a working model as part of the submitted patent request. In other words, more than just diagrams are now required.
Perhaps, because perpetual motion claims have been around for so long, conspiracy theories are often voiced to explain the lack of acceptance and or the availability of such technology.
For example in August of 2006, a man named Jesse McQueen, obtained a U. S. Patent # 7,095,126 titled: “Internal energy generating power source”, and is described as follows … “An external power source such as a battery is used to initially supply power to start an alternator and generator. Once the system has started it is not necessary for the battery to supply power to the system. The battery can then be disconnected. The alternator and electric motor work in combination to generate electrical power.” Some claim this is in fact a perpetual machine and is also claimed to generate more energy than is required to operate the machine.
This McQueen Machine has been depicted by some as really using positive electrical charges from the atmosphere (thus disqualifying its perpetual being) to generate power; others simply insist that it will not work in the first place.
It has been said that there are only two types of Perpetual Motion Machines: the first being ‘Magical’ and the second being ‘Impossible’.
It is considered a true statement that the laws of physics are not as yet complete and in addition stating that physical things are absolutely impossible is deemed to be un-scientific; since the term “impossible” is used in this case to describe those things which absolutely cannot occur within the context of our current formulation of physical laws.
Recent claims have been made that interest in perpetual motion is dying, such arguments continue by saying that this is true because modern life provides so many distractions that we neither have the time or inclination to consider perpetual motion as a possibility. Perhaps, interest has decreased with the alleged passing of the back-yard tinkerer.
In my view, such claimants have not looked real hard for tinkerers; if that’s all it takes, just look around the internet, there’s plenty.
What are your thoughts on the subject?
Sources …
I don't think we'll see this happen. It's right up there on the list of woo with cold fusion. I think it's one of those things people want to believe possible - think of all the problems solved! But there are many things we'd like to be possible that just aren't.
ReplyDeleteDoes my comment surprise you? ;)
I do not totally disagree ... I do expect that a legitimate ‘Perpetual Machine’ will eventually be developed, and within the near future, but I think the important question is: 'will it be of any use'? After all, just producing enough energy to maintain its self would be of little benefit to anyone... And, Yes, ye of little faith in the ability of the back yard tinkerer, I am a bit surprised with your response.
ReplyDelete