Is Perpetual Motion Possible?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 сен 2024
- This video looks at the concept of perpetual motion, examines some devices that have been called perpetual motion machines, and explores how certain terminology may actually be holding back progress.
Terms like Overunity, Closed Loop System, and Free Energy.
Hope for the best but prepare for the worst with Patriot Foods: mypatriotsuppl....
100 Mechanical Mechanisms: • 100 mechaical mechanis...
Adam Savage vs The “Perpetual Motion” Machine!: • Adam Savage vs The "Pe...
Video response to Adam and Jamie of Mythbusters, proving them wrong: • To Adam and Jamie (Myt...
The Most Incredible Attempts at Perpetual Motion Machines: • The Most Incredible At...
teslasciencece...
fuel-efficient...
investortimes....
www.threadsmag...
/ they-used-to-last-50-y...
www.wisfarmer....
Oldest working refrigerator www.oddee.com/...
Concept Car: sketchfab.com/...
the fundemental problem with these kinds of devices is getting USABLE energy out of them for extended periods of time. you can set up a closed system that has spinning clockwork with super-high internal efficiency, but as soon as you try to power something else, you extract the energy from the system and it slows down.
What about if you store that energy in a battery and use the battery as a power source.
the author clearly does not understand the difference between a perpetual motion machine and a generator. All those devices are just very efficient machines with very low friction which can work a very long time with a battery (like the bell) or by harvesting low amounts of energy from the environment (like the clock) or using the cooling produced by the evaporating water as cold source for a simple thermal engine (the drinking bird) but none of these devices can provide any excess energy to act like a generator. In fact if they would they would accelerate without load. By the understanding of the author a simple clock or electric motor tied to an accumulator and a solar panel which could provide enough energy to keep the motor running continuously would be a perpetual motion machine.
Love your video. You have definitely been studying the right ideas. I worked with John Bedini in 2004 and helped build the "10 coil machine" you show in your video. I also wrote the Bedini SG Handbook series to teach people how to build his devices. Totally real. Totally amazing! One topic you didn't cover here is tapping centrifugal force as a force multiplier in a machine. Take a look at the work of Veljko Milkovic in Serbia. He has a "mechanical amplifier" that evolves new work by creating an oscillation between gravity and centrifugal force. Tapping the "wheel-work of Nature" to power our machines is moving forward. Thanks for helping a new generation of people understand these ideas in their proper, historical context!!!
Yes, Veljko in my opinion proved overunity beyond a doubt. Centrifugal force is a real force that can do work, because inertial force is the result of our so called "vacuum" of empty space around us not being empty at all, causing the "stuff" of space-time to apply tension or resistance on mass in acceleration.
Going a step beyond Veljko, why not just take a pair of counter-rotating masses and use the resulting bidirectional inertial forces generating a linear oscillation to oppose the back EMF forces of induction by attached electrical coils/magnets in that linear oscillation? Don't take much power to keep a set of masses in rotation, just sayin..... 🤔
1:02 thats the only one I believe might work. as for if perpetual motion is possible, Its a fact that electrons spin perpetually around every last atom - so why not? Im a bit late but WELCOME BACK. And if anyone is going to make a working machine, and back it up with full analysis, I would put my money on you .
Watchmakers, horology nuts, and clock makers have been making perpetual machines for along time. There are many clocks in Switzerland that work with temperature variations of less than half a degree...others that use light and batteries.
If someone made a zero point energy machine, it would still not be a closed loop. That is not possible so far as I know, so Adam Savage would still shit on it.
they're just clocks, but they don't produce electricity, its an honest video anaway, the ones you see uses batteries beneath their machines.
What! You are a philosopher dude. This is a video-essay. An essay not on paper .. but video. A documentary perhaps? Semantics are irrelevant. This is quality work. Thank you for putting your thoughts, ideas and life experiences in a new thought provoking video. I like it. Thank you. Blessings & Warm Regards :)
Thank you. Very nice of you to say so.
a GREAT video that must have taken a LOT of research and time to put together. Thank you for igniting my imagination to the possibilities.
Thank you, and thanks for watching.
The real problem is that whenever you would like to extract real usable energy from those devices, it will slow and eventually stop the device because of the added drag. So even if they would ever come close to keep moving without ever stoping, the simple fact of the matter is that you can never get them to power other appliances. The laws of thermodynamics are hard to topple, I don't believe they ever will.. That doesn't mean we cannot overcome the energy crisis, I do believe technology is reaching a point where we will be able to meet our energy needs in a sustainable way.
It's really refreshing to hear and see your work and point of view about what the research should be, not limiting oneself to the idea of whether something is possible or impossible but rather try and research with an open mind, this way of thinking and experimentation is likely to lead us into more efficient mechanics and more efficient energy conversion devices.
Great stuff, thanks for sharing.
I just found this channel. This is a great channel. I've been working on similar concepts for year. I've been a lone wolf in this area. Not know there were others sharing the same philosophy. Thank you very much. I've subscribed to this channel and set my notifications.
Thanks, I appreciate the kind words. Welcome aboard!
po
I am so glad that you called out Adam Savage on his Mythbusters B.S. The Bedini episode was trash as well as the David Hamel “experiment “. I would love to get ahold of the materials that they used for that episode.
Thank you for your work.
Just to add, I appreciate Adam as a creator, but not as a scientist/researcher. No hate.
Thanks. I don't dislike Adam. I enjoy a lot of what he does, I just find him clueless when it comes to alternative energy devices. He does admit his lack of knowledge in the Bedini episode though. That's why he called in an MIT guy to build it.
That episode woke me up to the fact myth busters was nothing but propaganda BS made for simpletons.
This is the best video to date regarding perpetual motion .
The sound waves coming out of all the critic’s mouths on any self moving thing attempt are perpetual forces back to the Stone Age.
Thanks for the kind words.
Brother I've been following your work for a long time, your work saved me time and a lot of effort. I'm also trying to make a similar kind of machine. I devoted nearly 7 years of my time for this thing and got a bit of experience in them. I got a design in mind it will definitely work. If we both put our combined efforts into this we can achieve what u have been working for.
i agree, the goal is not perpetual but energy production as low cost as possible, this i will get behind
I'm so glad you mentioned this jargon that diminishes "Really Efficient Design's." ~we live in a Universe surrounded by the Natural world. So why is it a bad thing to discover ways to HARNESS OUR SURROUNDINGS with efficient creations. So what it doesn't "create its own closed energy, or last forever, literally." ~i feel like people have been really missing the point.
My sentiments exactly.
The Searl Effect Generator should have been number one on your list of proven devices that are decades old and highly capable.
Ephesians 6:12
King James Version
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Exactly!
A magnet moving over a coil of wire ( copper, aluminum, silver, or gold ) will create a small current. This current could be captured by a battery and then be used to energize an electro magnet for a little boost in power.
Thats basically how cutizen eco drive and seiko spring-drive watches have been working for a few years now.
Originally, people thought the universe was spinning on it's own with no external input, but it runs on gravity and other energy as we are continually learning about it.
Somehow the sun and planets produce enough power to make the entire solar system dependent on each other for the continued motion, and it seems to be self regulating as well, and the moons of the gas giants are so charged, the energy causes many forms of vulcanism and other effects we have found by sending probes out into the deep space!
Having a machine that can harness the cyclic natural forms of energy to continue running without having to refill or recharge the energy should be studied further!
I invented and built a perpetual motion machine. It ran for a few months and it got broken as I always move on to other projects and don't really have any interest in helping other people.
It is scalable doesnt need light, heat, a vacuum, inertia or winding.
Its an overbalance machine, but not with any liquids being poured or balls rolling.
I did it... good day to you all.🎉
can you show it in a video
Great , move along .
You make an extremely valid point that I've always wanted to address, yet time and again, it's overlooked. It seems ridiculous to ignore these innovative and effective mechanisms, simply because they are not strictly perpetual motion. I wholeheartedly agree, it deflects from their true effectiveness and demands further research.
Thank you for the time taken. I have been forever annoyed with people who come straight out of the gates with “you realise nothing will run forever” as a means of discrediting efficiency. Parking a perfect condition car in a garage for forty years will still allow entropy to break the vehicle down, rubbers will age as will every component, at some point more energy needs to be applied to get the car running again. This argument that it won’t run forever is as ridiculous as an efficient energy denier telling you their boiled water for their coffee won’t be hot forever... I mean really people! The real problem is the Einsteinium prison they educate us in, their ego’s deny them of the path of true science, where something compels them to experiment the opposition of their education.
I would love to watch these people convince the bumble bee that it should not be capable of flight according to our understanding of physics... get me the popcorn for that one!
Exactly! People get too caught up in debating ridiculous terminology that is entirely irrelevant, and that sidetracks them from taking an honest look at what can be achieved.
“Hyperefficiency”, “Fuelless”, “Environmental Energy extraction machines”. You make a great point here how physicists try to frame it as “perpetual motion” so it’s easier to dismiss. It really doesn’t matter that it’s not a closed loop system, earth itself is not, who cares? As long as the goal is that a machine can function without human intervention to directly power or recharge it, than it’s an awesome invention!
Buddy, by promoting further investigation and tinkering in the possibility of perpetual motion, you are damning anyone attempting this to years of pain and failure. Back in 1989 when I went to a university, spoke to the science instructor there and told him I wanted to create a magnetic perpetual motion machine, he calmly and quickly advised me that perpetual motion is impossible due to the fact that for every action there is an equal opposing action, cancelling out any net gain. I thought I could do it, built a prototype, and then realized that whatever I tried to do to "cut" the magnet's power temporarily so that the magnet could pass by, was futile. If you try putting metal between it, it simply attracts to the magnet and counters the effect. The only way you can come close is electromagnetically, and that's basically how an electric motor works - cutting on and off the power at the right spot to attract or repel the magnets. But everything requires energy input, and you never get more output - that's called entropy. The "lost" energy likely leaks into a lower microscopic plane that we cannot see or fathom, just as there is a macro plane above us so large that our universe looks like atoms to that plane. Likely our plane is being powered from the leaks from the plane above. So learn to tap into that power and you might be able to create something. But everyone needs to accept the fact that we cannot make energy without losing equal amounts. So maybe work on systems that take simple forms of energy and transforms them into useful energy (electricity, heat, etc.) Or improve on existing inefficient systems. That's where your time will not be wasted, and any progress in these fields will benefit mankind.
Have you researched Howard Johnson at all? His idea was to trigger an exchange force pulse by using specific magnetic shapes and materials to tap into something beyond the natural strength and field of the magnets. I agree with you that if you want to build something useful it's most likely going to be necessary to step out of conventional methods.
Da ich bisher 351 Videos hochgeladen habe, beschränke ich mich auf die Beantwortungen der Fragen, die sich direkt auf meine Videos beziehen. Außerdem arbeite ich an anderen Projekten, die meine Zeit ausfüllen. So gesehen habe ich leider keine Zeit
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages
noun
1. a state in which movement or action is or appears to be continuous and unceasing."the planet is in perpetual motion"
2. the motion of a hypothetical machine which, once activated, would run forever unless subject to an external force or to wear."the age-old quest for the secret of perpetual motion"
I love your view of the world and communication. Arguments about perception and opinion are our biggest hindrance in my opinion.
Thanks. I second your opinion.
something moving for a long time in vacuum, isn't a baby step, but a demonstration of the very laws of physics that make it clear that perpetual motion devices are not possible.
The charge in those batteries are very small, need to move a very small mass and only to a very small distance. The magnitudes more work a modern car battery has to do is immense, if you measure the lifetime output of a lithium ion battery, kg to kg you will find it is magnitudes more powerful than those batteries you show moving a rock.
I think it's the application of the power that's the stumbling block here. They hear of a battery running for 200 years and then modern ones lasting 3 days and don't realise that one is powering something that can be matched by breathing out, and the other is powering a modern phone with many many many magnitudes times more energy needed. We can make radiation and ion engines that last ridiculously long but they're also intensely weak compared to other, short-term methods.
That's my point when I tell people. You don't need it to run forever but if you get the wheel spinning right and it out lives you or even a few years.
Well spoken my good man, I myself have stated in one of my videos that Perpetual Motion is a very misused term. Its proper definition is "Perpetual Motion is a constant increase of Speed or a constant increase of Energy. Every machine that accelerates or increase's its energy output constantly will always meet a breaking point and blow up, malfunction, or break down. There's nothing wrong with machines that power and run themselves or very efficient machines that puts out more power then it needs to run as long as it is stable and is set to a limited output by its Operator(the source of non eternal thermodynamic energy)." As long as a person controls and operates such machines then more output power out then power put in is possible. That was my definition of Perpetual Motion and to my best understanding of the physical Universe we all live in. Keep up the good work!
I like your thinking on that. Thanks!
@@Motionmagnetics I saw a video a while back by The Action Lab where he had a magnet that could be manually turned on or off. He showed that by having 2 magnets together with their poles aligned parallel will act as a magnet with the lines of force enhancing on one another to attract stuff but when he twisted one of the magnets so that one magnets north was right next to the other magnets south then the lines of force of both magnets cancel each other out and the magnetism disappears. Maybe you can incorporate this into one of your magnet motor machines using the rotation of the motor to make 2 magnets align with each other and as the motor spins cause them to un-align back and forth acting like an electromagnet turning on and off causing a rotor to spin. I know designing something like that would be a bit tricky but from watching your videos on what you have done thus far, I think you have more then enough intelligence to design a magnet motor such as this. Best of Luck m8 and we'll keep in touch.
@@TheZafootz Do you remember what it was called? Perhaps you could share the link?
@@Motionmagnetics ruclips.net/video/PMma3OJUHhs/видео.html about 1/2 way through he starts showing the on off magnet...
If something could be designed that could use a rotating magnet to turn permanent magnets on and off it be able to supply way more torque to power generation....
You nailed it. The reason I found this video, is because I had been pondering the perpetual motion thing for a long time. Thinking about it every few years, and then moving on to other of the millions of interesting things In The world.
What recently occurred to me while listening to a physicist lecture about perpetual motion, I wondered if it was being defined In Such a way as to being impossible by definition. And yes , that’s the point, it is not possible, however I thought the objective was to build machines that would operate at virtually perpetual……. You nailed it.. but we have the two extremes,,, the physics people, and the con artists. Most of the rest of us want to move on to having virtually 100% efficient machine.
Yes, my sentiments exactly.
You got it, by the way they have it defined for all, its impossible, been studying myself for 20 plus years, at time stamp 2:01, was almost identical to the patent I abandoned because the friction of the flow characteristics was too great. Math worked out on paper but not in the physical, even used frictional coefficents but obviosuly missing something in the math because its simple but yet so complex as an entirety... Soon we will have these fuelless motors but not in a defined perpetual sense. Good luck, nice video.😉😉
Thank you.
Everything’s impossible until someone finds a way to do it.
If the Universe began with the "Big Bang" and has been expanding ever since, with all bodies in motion rushing away from each other, is that not Perpetual Motion? How many billions of years of motion does it require to be considered Perpetual?
I really like the way you put your vidoes together, as a fellow magnetic researcher i feel you are extremely close! I have a design i am working on, I want to open source it but its not ready yet - would you be willing to look at the designs and maybe letting me know what you think?
Thanks. I could take a look. You can always throw your notes or designs into a video and ask people how they might tweak things as well. People throw interesting ideas at me all the time. That's partly why I share. The more minds we have working on a problem the more likely it will get solved.
look the calloway engine already works. its no big deal. grow out of it.
It is like some critics complaining about a magnetic generator because it has an external power source. Of course it has one. You need an external force to prevent the system reaching equilibrium. It is never going to last forever. As long as the power produced is greater than the power provided you have a net energy gain which means you have a win.
You definitely can't complain if you're getting more power out than you put into a system.
I completely agree! I loved this video, keep it up!
Thank you!
BOY, ARE YOU A GENIUS!!!!!!!!!!! IN YOUR INTRODUCTION EXPLAINING THE CONCEPT OF PERPETUAL. YOU SAY THAT EVERYTHING WEARS OUT EVENTUALLY. SURE, EVEN THE SUN WILL WEAR OUT. WE JUST WAIT BILLIONS OF YEARS FOR THAT!!!!!!!!!!! SPLENDID LOGIC OF YOURS!!!!!!!!! BUDDY, IF A MACHINE RUNS BY ITSELF EVEN FOR ONE DAY WITHOUT FUEL. TO ME THAT IS PERPERUAL!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are you alright? Are your caps lock and exclamation mark keys broken?
You nailed it.
Thanks.
It's sad how many argumentative people completely miss the point of your video entirely, yet are quick to voice their completely unrelated opinions. Rest assured, some of us get it and appreciate the work and the message you're sending. Keep it up my friend. Subscribed.
Thank you. You've presented the most rational assessment on this topic that I've ever seen. Great job!
Thank you! I did my best.
I agree with you, today's cars only get 40% energy conversion at best. It's easy to see how improvements could do so much better then this.
Excellent production
@@mikeconnery4652 Thank you.
@@mikeconnery4652 The internal combustion engine, as good as it is, is really an antiquated system.
I build energy producing machines for $11. Is that too much?
Too many have become couch potato scientists for fear of ridicule from those who are convinced that the 19th century should have the last word in the physics of energy. Newtonian physics requires free energy.
The four radii Atwood’s makes energy. That is not just a clue; “it is how” to make free energy. The quantity of input momentum can be increased by an Atwood’s and that momentum can be transferred to a small object for a massive ‘recyclable’ increase in energy. Merely change the radius of the inertia. “wheel and axle lrn fzx”
Build your own machine and then we can design larger applications. Like ‘cylinder and sphere’ with huge drive masses.
The secret of physics. I believe it is possible, but would be self contained and not dependent on gravity. Actually nothing in the universe is perpetual, but to have a device that could assist in our existence. But we know why man's creativity has not been allowed to benefit his life. You have extremely informative stuff. I read that two big Samoan guys came into John Bedini's shop and pushed him against the wall and told him to stop working on his free energy technology, much worse has happened to many others.
Thanks. I had not heard that, but it wouldn't surprise me.
@@Motionmagnetics I have done a lot of reading.
Define perpetual motion
Propell a rock in space with a single energy and it will infinitely move until it hits obstacles.
Redefine perpetual motion specifically
Use mechanical advantages to make an object indefinitely.
Its is so simple to build free energy device but they will never allow it to be free and to become competition. Enjoy it privately guys 🤫😉
I've always figured that if we have a 'net zero scenario' where no energy is going in and none coming out, but still manages to move, it would hypothetically work. It doesn't have to take a load to move, but we can figure out later how to 'make it work'.
I'm still fascinated by the V-gate configuration that your videos introduced me to. Although if a magnet motor using them were made successfully, would eddy currents of constantly interacting magnetic fields cause the magnets to get warm to the point of ruining the magnetic strength, ultimately stopping the system? So should such a system be stuck in a freezer to keep it running, apart from energy to cool it?
In engineering, we covered a simple concept of a 'control volume' to isolate the problem and solve/balance what's going in versus what's going out. We don't care about what's happening outside.
I don't think there's any such thing as free energy, it has to come from somewhere. Studying V-gate -based systems could be implying energy is being drawn or directed from somewhere, and whoever discovers it gets a Noble prize.
I like that assessment.
Two methods of making energy are readily available to us, a two radius Atwood’s machine and the ‘cylinder and spheres’.
An Atwood’s is simply a pulley; but the pulley can have two radii. And the drive radius can be much smaller than the radius of the pulley where the balanced mass is accelerated. The extra mass (100 g) or ‘drive mass’ can have a radius at 1 cm and the accelerated mass (200 g) at 10 cm. The energy increase is extremely large and is related to this radius difference.
An Atwood’s can accelerate 200 grams at the 10 cm radius just as easily as it accelerates 2000 g at the 1 cm radius. But the energy is 10 times as much. ½ * 2 kg *1 m/sec * 1 m/sec = 1 J ½ * .2 kg * 10 m/sec * 10 m/sec = 10 J
The ‘cylinder and sphere’ transfers the motion of a large mass to a small mass and gives you a huge increase in energy.
Making these experiments would give us free energy.
You have a great philosophy. This world is too filled with "can't" mentality. Some brought about by profiteering and some inherent in our nature. I say plow forward!
Thanks. My thoughts exactly!
We are not looking for perpetual running generator but a generator that uses a group of geometric movements to produce electricity with greater economy.
Exactly.
If you wind a coil on a ring magnet, place a strong radioactive metal in the center of ring magnet and seal it inside a vacuum of plasma globe with gases easy to ionize, you create a solid-state electric generator with no moving parts as ions and radiation created by radioactive metal will vibrate the magnetic field of magnet and generate electric current in coil for very long time. In theory.
Not sure handling radioactive metal would be worth the risk to test that theory.
Is tungsten radioactive enough for this?
Doesnt have to be radioactive. The coil should be bifilar and also have waveguides which I use big laser discs or cd roms. Potential is galena, selenite, amethyst, citrine, placed in a high k value dielectric with copper and zinc nano and oxides ala #gans and #nikolatesla #hypersanity
Change is the only true constant, perpetuating in the micro, and grand macro spheres. The universe can only be in unity, never over it. If this universe is reciprocal and, we believe, a "closed system", then such a self perpetuating closed sytem may be built that operates between the micro and macro, yet still subject to entropy as is all that is physical. Can we harnass inexpensive low entropic systems that for all intent and purpose are perpetual, yet, still be subject to failure?... yes.
If you can't understand the grade school level physics that harvesting GRAVITY or ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE by definition is not encompassed by the rules of perpetual motion, why bother talking about it. If the machine WORKED IN SPACE, in vacuum with micro gravity, that would be approaching perpetual motions. But you agree, harvesting machines stop working when they have nothing to harvest. We do not use them because the actual goal is SURPLUS ENERGY. Coal and Steam have massive surplus energy. Gasoline has massive surplus energy. The returns on a tiny over balanced wheel has so little torque and horsepower that you can stop it with one finger.
Imagine if you took it further.... would you say the telephone didn't get better over time? Or the airplanes? Imagine if we take this ideas further .. these are very brilliant models we should work on
🤦
When the first automobiles were built, people did not think much of them, as many thought that horses were more reliable. Airplanes were discouraged because people thought humans were not meant to fly. It took around 2000 years of flight innovation before the Wright Brothers invented the first airplane.
You do not learn anything from not trying.
Coal and steam don’t any have surplus energy.
Like all average IQ people you cannot understand simple things. You lock onto some idiot thought like a dog on a toy. An internal combustion engine has to ROTATE THE ENGINE. The cylinders have to move around and such. The SURPLUS ENERGY is that the action has MUCH MORE SURPLUS, horsepower and torque that can be used to turn the wheels. If petrol was a far weaker fuel, only enough power would be generated to make the engine cycle at all, with nothing surplus to use for gears, belts, or wheels, making it an essentially useless curiosity. EXAMPLE: 1st century AD 'Hero of Alexandria' a simple steam engine device known as the aeolipile. Had no practical purpose since it produced no effective surplus horsepower. You lost the argument. Yes, I already knew you were not man enough to lose. Seethe away. @@clydedigital
I have ALWAYS thought it was ridiculous when someone saw someone’s attempt at overunity and their response is ‘see, it’s not possible!!!’ Instead of ‘wow!!! That wheel runs with torq for 2days straight on just 1 AA battery!’. You barely have palm sized fans that can run 3hrs on 2 AA batteries. WTF is their deal?
Exactly. We should celebrate their successes. You don't wake up at the end of your journey without taking the steps to get there.
I doubt you have any idea what "over unity" means in the context of energy and processes of energy transfer. It's primarily used in the context of devices which transfer thermal energy, often with a coefficient of performance (COP) of more than one, hence the term "over unity". All that means is that it can move more thermal energy than its input of energy, typically electrical energy for modern devices. Does that mean you get more energy out of it than you put in? Absolutely not. You're just moving thermal energy around with it, you don't get that energy in work at all.
Why is this? Because thermal energy has maximum entropy, as is obvious by the very nature of it. In other words, it has extremely low exergy, which refers to the amount of work that can be extracted from bringing the system into equilibrium with a heat reservoir. In contrast, the form of energy being used to power it, such as electrical energy, has extremely low entropy, it is highly ordered, and thus it has very high exergy. The theoretical maximum efficiency when it comes to the work that can be produced via a theoretically ideal heat engine, a Carnot engine, that is described by its Carnot efficiency, and you quickly see how allowing the heat you just moved to move back will not yield you even remotely the same amount of work as the electrical energy you expended on doing it in the first place, because the theoretical optimum efficiency is far above the coefficient of performance for any real heat pump or heat engine.
To show some very basic numbers, consider the carnot efficiency between e.g. 24 °C and 30 °C; this is easily calculated by converting the temperatures to kelvins and using the simple formula for the optimum:
1 - (297.15 / 303.15) = 0.01979218208
In other words, the maximum work you could extract in that case is equal to just 2% of the thermal energy at the higher temperature. This means that to come anywhere close to breaking even at all with a heat pump, you'd need a COP of 50; in reality, heat pumps operating in those ranges, which is where they have their highest COPs, only have a COP of ~10. At higher temperature differentials you'd need a lower theoretical COP, since you'd be getting a higher efficiency in the reverse process, but correspondingly our heat pumps have lower COPs in those ranges (and could never actually get to the ideal anyway).
To consider another example, let's consider a more realistic situation where you're using a real heat pump to pump thermal energy from cold outside air to heat your home. Let's still use some favorable numbers for the case of the heat pump, and say the outside air isn't too cold, at 6 °C, and that you want to heat your home to somewhere around a mild 20 °C to a more toasty 25 °C. A heat pump works by heating water, so the wet bulb outside will tend to vary in temperature depending on the humidity, but one could expect it to be ~4 °C in this case, being at 2 °C. The water on the inside that is meant to bring the temperature up should typically be a bit higher, but in this case let's say you have a very well insulated home and have taken the time to bring the temperature up, using a sink temperature of just 35 °C. You can then read off a table for various heat pumps what their COPs are; I just found one online which gives me a COP of 3.4 for those two temperatures. Now, let's calculate what the Carnot efficiency is for a heat engine using reservoirs at those two temperatures:
1 - (275.15 / 308.15) = 0.10709070258
In other words, an efficiency of around ~10%, meaning that you'd need a COP of almost 10 just to break even.
As you can see, "over unity" doesn't mean "free energy" at all.
@@hoon_sol I usually keep the definition more simple so everyone understands what I'm saying: More output than input. I did enjoy your long definition though.
@@Motionmagnetics:
That's exactly what "over unity" does *NOT* mean, which is exactly what I explained. There's no physical system which produces more output than input.
It is evident that in the Universe at the micro scale, perpetual motion is the rule not the exception. Many have succeeded in "attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature" as Tesla prophesied, but there is much organised and criminal opposition to the technology.
What?
So if one were able it would be a death sentence ?
Well put. But there is 1 machine that u showed that doesent work. It's the one withe gears with level plates. That is a balanced system and will not turn. The weight isn't being offset by its center of mass connected through the pin. The ones where the weights move out by flipping up does offset the center of mass of the object.
Yes, you are correct. That one is actually just a mechanical mechanism that I included. I liked the way the gears held the plates level. I would tweak it, add more plates and make them longer on one side with weights added to the ends.
No. Answered the question. The real question is, why do so many people still seek a perpetual motion machine?
everything that exists is moving, violently fast
I was right to be angry at MYTHBUSTERS when they did JOHN BEDINIs engine
If perpetual motion was possible, physics would break. The laws which would be broken would have terrible implications elsewhere. Such violations of these laws could open the door for other, unforeseeable things; like a creature which never needs to eat, photosynthesize, or look for chemicals
TritSyty: Evenly space thirty 1 kg masses on a 30 meter string. And then suspend this string on one side of a pulley.
After the masses have dropped only 5.1 cm the velocity of the string is 1 m/sec and the momentum is 30 kg*m/sec.
After transferring all this motion to the one kilogram on the bottom; this one kilogram can rise 45.87 meters.
You are 15.87 meters above the restart point.
actually atoms don't "wear out" and in a real sense atoms are in perpetual motion. Our view is as ever clouded by what we "know" and what we "see".
Atoms decay, actually. Nothing can escape entropy
What end did your SMOT devices from 2020 take? I built some of my own a few years ago, having a steel ball going up a ramp and falling back down, but never "closed the loop" so I thought it would not be possible to close it but you seemed to have succeeded in moving the sphere along a path while having it end at a position with position with the same height as the one it started out from. I never managed that. Did you not continue updating it?
If I am not confused it was only a matter of getting more repetitions of magnetic systems along a much longer path, so that, with a minute incremental curve to one side, you could make a large circuit that was successful in closing.
Getting everything level and adjusted just right is always a challenge with smot devices, so my patience usually wears out before I get around to trying to cycle several of them together. I plan to revisit them though, as they are fun to experiment with.
My Arguments Are Never Meant To Stifle Creativity.
However, Every Single System You Show Has A Stipulation That If Not Fulfilled The System Fails. This Debate Has Perpetuated For Eons For A Reason. We Are Nowhere Closer To Achieving True Free Energy Than They Were A Thousand Years Ago. Besides, There Is Nothing Wrong With Nuclear Power, Other Than Needing Better Meltdown Preventatives & Containment.
You do not need high efficiency. What the establishment will not tell you is that the Laws of physics require massive free energy production.
Ten kilograms moving 1 m/sec can give all that motion to 1 kg moving 10 m/sec; this is called the Law of Conservation of Momentum. F = ma
Ten kilograms moving 1 m/sec has 5 joules of energy; and the 1 kg moving 10 m/sec has 50 joules of energy. ½ mv²
Why do you need high efficiency when you put in 5 joules and get 50 joules out?
Made me laugh when you said "We can build close enough" when referring to perpetual, which means eternal.
Even 1 trillion year is 0 compared to eternal :)
I know what you mean, but it still make me smile, when someone mentions a timespan compared to forever. It doesnt matter how big that number is, it is still 0 :)
We are on a rock spinning around a star which is spinning around a galaxy which is spinning around other galaxies hurtling through space. Of course perpetual energy exists.
Great take, if we really break the language and terminology bearer i believe we'd reach type III
Make a video on quantum generator patent..
It would be cool if there were low energy devices that could be powered or charged by plugging directly into the Earth and the sky. I wonder if a large battery could be used to generate areas of positive and negative charge near wires connected to the Earth and the air, so it acts like a transformer inducing a voltage in the wire but with no actual current flow in the battery. Instead the Earth provides the electrons and then they go up into the air, completing the current.
Connection cycle...
Since 15 years, I have been dealing with angular energy electricity generation systems (R&D). My positive designs about angular continue. In this regard, my own financial means are insufficient, I had meetings with many businessmen, they accepted the financing of the project, but they gave up when it came to signing a protocol, that is, when it came to formalisation. If there is an entrepreneur who will take firm steps with me on this path, who is idealistic, has financial means and wants to make an official protocol, I would like to meet. 98% of the published videos are wrong and do not work. I know the mistake they all make.
I do wonder, while perpetuum isn't perfect but it so much closer to forever or just extreme longevity, why isn't the world building these things already on a commercial scale?
Thank you for this video. Some of the interesting claims to overunity machines I would like to add are the following: Johann Bessler, Pop Keenie's buzz saw wheel, Asa Jackson and a machine I would simply call "the uncle's toy". I was educated with the idea that energy cannot be created or destroyed and never considered the possibility of anything outside that scope until I heard of Stan Meyer's car that ran on ordinary water. Bessler's wheels, however, impressed me the most, considering the relatively primitive world he lived in and the efforts he made to certify his inventions as true runners. These people always inspire us to try and keep on trying. Once we are shown something is possible nothing can stop us repeating that achievement.
You're welcome. It was Howard Johnson for me. He's the only one I'm absolutely convinced pulled it off, but I have an open mind and I research a lot of different motors and devices. You can learn a great deal from experimentation, regardless.
Thumbs up.. very inspiring.. as you are showing a couple of times the "David Jones Wheel" (that also stands at technical museum in vienna) is there any news about how it works? his friend whom he wrote a letter disclosing the secret, said he will not make the information public. that was a couple of years ago, is there anything new on that matter?
Thanks. I haven't heard anything new about it. Let's hope he eventually does.
Who cares? It's like any other magic trick; if somebody tells you how it's done, the magic is lost. You completely miss the point; it's all about solving this problem by yourself and thinking about how you could achieve the same, maybe build something similar at home. And if you aren't interested in how it works, just enjoy it.
The reason why we dont make batterys last longer is because the company that makes it will lose money because the costumers are not buying a lot like they used to since the battery last longer
Please let us know what are your thoughts on “Perpetual Motion Holder”?
It's a fascinating effect. I might film a video about it at some point?
@@Motionmagnetics
“Perpetual Motion Holder”+“Transformer”+“Joule Thief”=PMH 2.0(Free Energy)
If n>2,
PMH 2.0^n+PMH 2.0^n+PMH 2.0^n+PMH 2.0^n=Off Grid
FlyWheel+1:3+FW+1:3+FW+1:3+FW+1:3+FW=FlyWheel+1:81? Maybe?
I mean yeah the philosophical ideal of a perpetual motion machine is impossible but unironcaly explorjng this technology may unlock new levels of efficiency.
Also what most educated people think of a perpetual motion machine is a object that breaks the first law of thermodynamics ie no total energy is created in the system compared to the energy added. Because if i literaly just spin a bayblade in the in a theoretical perfect vacuum of space then ive created motion that is perpetual.
Drop a mass attached to one side of a wheel and use that motion to flip the mass back up to the top. This will use the event shown by the ‘cylinder and spheres’ at Delburt Phend on youtube.
I'm sure the people that are complaining about these devices and trying to say they are not perpetual Motion devices. Are the ones that have not invented anything of their self and it just boils down to jealousy. If they have an invented a perpetual emotion device their self or at least tried to make one, they have no right to even argue about it. He would be like somebody having a debate about politics but they don't even vote. This is no different. If they don't try to at least invent their own perpetual emotion device. They have no right to even be in the same room or even argue with people about rather it is or not a professional motion device. People really can be so selfish and so self-centered. The really think they're the smartest person in the room and they know what an object is or is not when they haven't done nothing to invent anything their self It will remind you of elementary kids being jealous of the other kids for getting straight A's or having better clothes or doing something better than the other kids. The only difference this is grown ups doing the same thing grow up and live your own life and leave people alone is all I can say to the haters out there. There is no place on this earth for your type of people
Maybe hydrostatic pressure could be useful, one way or another. Although it wouldn't be perpetual since the wear and tear on the seals would be too great.
And probaly quite large a device too.
WHAT IF I HAVE ALREADY MADE A NEODYMIUM ROTOR-STATOR THAT RUNS PERFECTLY ??? HOW TO GET U ? I LIVE IN INDONESIA/JAKARTA NOW.
If you have then perhaps you could share your work online?
The semantics points seem silly to me. Perpetual Motion is clearly defined as something that gets around the first law of thermodynamics, i.e. energy out > energy in. It doesn't need to run forever, it doesn't have to have perfect system. Heck, if you can just demonstrate that "cleanly" (i.e. without adding energy from the outside or just using up stored energy) for 1 minute you are golden. But no one ever has and no one ever will, since there is NO WAY around the 1st law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy). Anything else is just building highly efficient machines and/or clever ways of harvesting external energy. These are all good things but they are not Perpetual Motion.
The drinking bird is operating by the cooling effect from evaporating what; probably less than one drop of water per cycle. Seems like an ambient heat engine enabled by one form of refrigeration. A system I've been informed is impossible in principle, and yet, there it is.
A heat engine consumes heat as it's fuel, but a heat pump just moves heat to where it can be utilized.
My car has a fuel pump as well, so where is the problem using a heat pump to carry heat/fuel to a heat engine?
Seems like a prime candidate for scaling up a notch or two with a bigger more efficient evaporator/cooling system coupled to a heat engine.
There was a Stirling engine called the P-19 that ran for two weeks on ambient heat and cooling from a wet sponge, also just a small model but same principle and more practical and more potential power output than the drinking bird.
I like your thought process on the subject. I think it's pretty obvious that we could have far more than we do if the powers that be were not actively holding back technologies.
I couldn't agree with you more, I have come to realize the definition doesn't match my life span. Efficiency is where my focus is. When I look at a balanced lever on a playground l see much more. Thanks for the vid!
Exactly. I believe the proper use of mechanical advantage is the key.
@@Motionmagnetics perpetual motion is posibil....
In a real experiment an Atwood’s can produce: .9 kg moving 22.7 m/sec just as easily as 20.45 kg moving 1 m/sec, this is a clinching argument energy can be made from gravity. A small mass in the center of a balanced beam with a long radius and small masses on the end can produce large amount of energy.
You have 25 kilograms at 20 cm on one side of a pivot point of a lever arm. On the opposite side of the lever arm you have 1 kg at 5 m. These rotate identically; so this is the same as 25 kg at .2 m on both sides.
The acceleration of a 50 kg (25 kg each side) Atwood’s by 1 extra kg would be 9.81 * 1 kg / 51 kg = .19235 m/sec²
So after it has dropped .3 m the whole 51 kg will be moving .3397 m/sec.
From many many experiments I know that 1 kg at 5 m rotates just as easily as 25 kg at .2 m. So you can substitute 1 kg at 5 m on both side of this Atwood’s and it will still rotate at the same rate.
So after the 1 extra kg at .2 m has dropped .3 m the Atwood’s will be moving .3397 m/sec at the .2 m position.
At the same rate of rotation where the .2 m position is moving .3397 m/sec then the 5 m position is moving 8.49 m/sec
This means that if we had two 1 kg masses on the ends; the 5 m arms will be moving 8.4925 m/sec for: ½ * 2 kg * 8.4925 m/sec * 8.4925 m/sec = 72.12 J of energy.
This motion was caused by 1 kg dropping .3 m which is 981 N / kg * .3 m * 1 kg = 2.943 J
The energy increase is from 2.943 J to 72.12 J 2450%
Excellent points
Thanks!
I have a small idea why youtube perpetual motion machines doesn't work and cannot be perpetual, because they are designed JUST to deceive our brain,so that if somebody will try to made one it should be that way too. I have a simple idea how to made this possible. The trick is make your project balanced like a perfect wheel, and then think how that perfect wheel move without giving effort or any force. Make it move by itself. And I think I know how to do it. But it takes me time and resources to build this kind of project.
I love solving problems like this perpetual motion machine and since 2016 I am watching your videos working on magnet motors. And I also keep on watching others work if somebody already discovered the so called perpetual motion machine.
I used to watch some videos why perpetual motions didn't work. I believe perpetual motion machine are possible. It will come with the right mind with the right hands at the right time. Imagine our solar system is still going millions of years but still not perpetually moving?
Well... Time to look at nature, If it is not naturally a closed system, then why designed a closed loop system? There may already be a better solution we are ignoring. I agree with not limiting our ideas to our current way we think of things, as in definitions of words.
Part of what I was suggesting is that they will go to any lengths to discredit a closed-loop system. If you build a magnetic motor using only permanent magnets they will probably suggest that since electrons have been determined to exist in multiple locations at once in quantum physics the system is not closed because the electrons are not confined to the system of the magnetic motor. If we dont call it a closed-loop system though, they lose their argument. I say, lets just build systems that work and let the physicists debate how they work.
@@Motionmagnetics seems logical to me
@@Motionmagnetics If it took in no energy from outside the system then it is closed-loop. But magnets degrade over time, so it would wear out and stop.
This just seems to be complaining that you can't call whatever you want a perpetual motion device? If they're not PERPETUAL, then don't call them PERPETUAL. Simple as, really. If you want to say "this clock is epic because it runs just off temperature and pressure variations", I'll agree and say the clock is indeed epic. But if you say "Check out this clock powered by a perpetual motion machine" I'm going to call you a moron because that's not a perpetual motion machine. It's not being written off as worthless, it's being written off as NOT PERPETUAL, that's all. The only issue is people who want to call things what they aren't. Something that could theoretically generate power from the sun, if you want to call that a solar panel and a green energy source, cool. But if you want to call it a perpetual motion machine, no. You can't just twist definitions to fit whatever you want. If we say that things even WITH external power sources are perpetual motion machines, then EVERYTHING is perpetual motion machines, just they need powering sometimes. Stones on the floor are perpetual motion machines just they sometimes need the outside power source of my arm to throw them.
Saying "they don't call it perpetual because it wont last forever, but nothing lasts forever, so it's a moot point!" is ridiculous. Don't call it perpetual if it doesn't last forever. Yes, nothing lasts forever, that's why perpetual machines are theoretical. You don't just get to take words for theoretical concepts and apply them to real things because you like how they sound. Infinite is another one people misuse a lot.
The reason we don't use many of the showcased options is power density. You can use air temperature changes to power something, but you'd need a HUGE area to generate even a decent amount of power. Same for the dry pile batteries. Last a long time but exceptionally weak. In a near-vacuum pushing a tiny weight on a string, sure, but any any sort of "tough" role, essentially useless. We already have far more advanced versions, radiation engines, but again, they're very weak so have limited use. Same for similar ion engines. The whole point is the APPLICATION of the power. It's easy to make a power source that lasts hundreds of years if all it has to do is a be a novelty or power something very small. But for regular, every day usage of power, they just don't cut it.
Also, not sure what the Tesla quote is meant to signify, or why this guy has become the martin luther king of energy production, we already use "the wheelwork of nature". Gravity reservoirs, solar panels, wind turbines. Hell, you can argue radioactive material and fossil fuels are just products of nature. Not to mention those only generate energy using basic principles like heat and pressure differential anyways.
And again with definitions. If something needs OUTSIDE energy to keep going, it is inherently not a CLOSED loop. That's the literal definition of a closed system, is that it doesn't have outside sources. You can call it an OPEN system, and literally noone will take any issue with that. You seem to just want to use words that don't meet the definition of something because you like how they sound. Just call it a green energy device or relate it to whatever power source it uses. Noone will have any issues with that. The problem is when you want to pretend it IS perpetual.
The argument about "more power in than out" is that you need to remember that that includes POTENTIAL energy. Nuclear bombs do not produce more power than they started with because that amount of energy was always present in the fissile material. Also you don't even need to go as extreme as that for that example, you only need a lick of flames to light coal, then it will output a ton of heat. But obviously we don't say coal "gives out more energy than it contains"/over-unity because we know the power is IN the coal.
Most of that I said or intended to clearly convey in the video, but thanks for the dissertation of “What I think you meant to say is…”
I’m glad you responded. Thanks
@@Motionmagnetics You did spin the video quite a bit, people explaining why the device isn’t “perpetual” isn’t a knock to the device, they’re just highlighting how it works. The problem is people who constantly mis-label things as perpetual motion devices. Calling them perpetual motion devices deceives people into thinking conservation of energy doesn’t exist and is inaccurate labeling. Just call them something more accurate, like a “efficient oscillating device” or “pressure powered clock”.
When we found working design its actualy have zero energy. Others already have minus energy.. But i have one think for jump the stop point. İf you use push pull disk in same time for same directory, when it come in death point, the 2 disks are killing each other. And you are killing the death point. I didnt try but may be jumping death point with this technique...
CONGRATULATIONS YOU REALLY RECHARGED MY BATTERIES THANK YOU
You're welcome. Thanks for watching!
How you described the old 30s refrigerator only included the fact that it was well made and is still running years later but you didn't actually say that it was internally powered or acting on any of the mechanisms of nature. Since you were also describing the century bulbs I assume the fridge was just an example of ante-planned-obsolescence products but with the weird orb on the top of the fridge I wanted to make sure I reading you right.
Awesome shit my dude.
I was basically saying it was well-designed to last a very long time. They don't build them like they used to.
Thanks.
Hello I’m glad I wasn’t the only one who noticed this ridiculous show mith busters that is obviously for entertainment only .I do many many experiments ,trying to figure exactly how n why these anomalies work . My best guess is there not anomalies . Scientists are taught what’s real n if they have a theory where some things don’t fit they keep there theory going with anomalies. You n I start over to thoroughly explain with no so called anomalies. GOOD JOB !
Thanks. I think they simply keep the science they don't want the general public to know about out of the mainstream.
I've thought the same thing before. Who c a r e s if something literally can run forever, if it runs for long enough then that's great
Absolutely!
Like a hydroelectric dam once built, its going to run and produce energy for a very long time.
The secret is in the structure and geomentry
Well said ..
Thank you. I always say perpetual motion is obviously possible. Its just that the energy has to come from the source that provides life, the sun.
That's not perpetual motion.
@VicMikesvideodiary no anything that lasts billions of years, is perpetual motion in my book
That is called solar power. It is not what this video is about. Neither is tidal, wind or geothermal.
@@VicMikesvideodiary luna, estrellas, sol, etc... El movimiento perpetuo es evidente, el problema es si el hombre es capaz de crear un artefacto capaz de producirlo.
@@patriarca3858 The Sun and Moon and stars are NOT perpetual, nor are they any form of perpetual motion.
Everybody's too busy trying to invent what it's not made life is perpetual the only thing that can be described as
Certain things should be understood like ballbearings wear and other things. Perpetual motion does exist like an engineer says only to true engineers.
It looks like the beverly clock is essentially harvesting the energy of atmosphersic pressure changes.
I would like to build a couple of devices in your video as art pieces.
Excellent video to saw that lot of scientists stay at words and technical terminologιes but no at the facts ! Actions count, not words !!!! If they havent so narrow minds will make our world far better from us that now !
you just described the problem with science in general.