Perpetual Motion machine

[All Seeing Eye]

Bow to my greatness for I have created a perpetual motion machine:

As the weight drops it spins the cogs, the top left cog is smaller and thus spins quicker, as the top weight drops the smaller cog latches onto the underneath of the bottom left weight and pushes it to the top and adds more push to it, pushing it over, it then uses gravity and the extra push to force the first weight up underneath the top left smaller cog and this also gets pushed over, the perpetual circle continues unhindered.

And before anyone says anything about my spelling, yes I know it should say 'requires AN initial strong push'.

 

[Mr. B]

Aside from friction, I would imagine there would be significant energy loss with all the "pushing."

 

[Silvercrest]

Bow to my greatness for I have created a perpetual motion machine:

You've created it? Still running at this moment, is it?

 

[Brian]

For every single revolution of the large cog, the small cog will spin some greater number of times. Not knowing the diameters, I can't say whether it's even a whole number. Are you sure the arm from the small cog will always be there to provide the push?

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Bow to my greatness for I have created a perpetual motion machine:

You've created it? Still running at this moment, is it?

Ok i'm going to explain something to you, there's a difference between creating something and building/constructing it. I have created it in my mind and created it in a diagram, I did not say I had built it. So stop being impudent.

Are you sure the arm from the small cog will always be there to provide the push?

I'm sure it can be made to do so accurately, even if it means adding an extra push arm or two.

 

[JustAFriend]

Doesn't matter if you built it or not.

If you claim to have discovered perpetual motion (in any way, shape or fashion), you have failed....

 

[Bill Morris]

If you place something in high orbit around the Earth or have a flywheel spinning in space or even send out a probe like Voyager I or II, okay, you're got virtually perpetual motion. It's when you want to tap energy from it without cost that you run into trouble. And the popular notion of a perpetual-motion machine implies that it has to do the impossible job of allowing you to take energy away from it without giving anything back.

If you want continunous power output, try a combination of LWR and FBR (one uses nuclear fuel; the other makes it).

 

[Ronald Held]

Why do people think that there can be a macroscopic perpetual motion machine?

 

[Bill Morris]

Actually, a Stirling engine comes close. It just needs a temperature difference between one side and the other, but the amount of power you can obtain from it is small relative to the cost of the device. NASA is considering using one with a Venus lander.

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

Also, it is possible to tap energy from the up-and-down motion of ocean waves. Japanese engineers have built and tested such devices. The problem they weren't able to solve was corrosion of machinery from the salt. Maybe they could try carbon fiber or something. Anyway, it takes a lot of machinery and lot of maintenance. So it's just hard to make it cost-effective.

 

[Silvercrest]

Why do people think that there can be a macroscopic perpetual motion machine?

Well, apparently we can believe that you can make money by buying into a pyramid scheme. So other "something for nothing" plans seem reasonable by comparison.

 

[Arrqh]

Actually, a Stirling engine comes close. It just needs a temperature difference between one side and the other, but the amount of power you can obtain from it is small relative to the cost of the device. NASA is considering using one with a Venus lander.

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

Also, it is possible to tap energy from the up-and-down motion of ocean waves. Japanese engineers have built and tested such devices. The problem they weren't able to solve was corrosion of machinery from the salt. Maybe they could try carbon fiber or something. Anyway, it takes a lot of machinery and lot of maintenance. So it's just hard to make it cost-effective.

Neither of your examples are similar to perpetual motion. In both cases, you are relying on an external source of energy to power the device. There is a fundamental difference between "this will run for a really long time based on the energy provided by an external source" and "this requires no energy input to function forever."

 

[PlixTixiplik]

Maybe we should change the forum motto from the Carl Sagan quote to "In this forum, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" - Homer Simpson!

-MEC

 

[Tim]

Bow to my greatness for I have created a perpetual motion machine:

You've created it? Still running at this moment, is it?

Ok i'm going to explain something to you, there's a difference between creating something and building/constructing it. I have created it in my mind and created it in a diagram, I did not say I had built it. So stop being impudent.

If you are claiming that your creation will perform a certain function, then you need to demonstrate this. You will not be able to prove perpetual motion; to claim so indicates a lack of understanding of thermodynamics.

 

[JustAFriend]

Actually, a Stirling engine comes close.

Actually not. A Sterling engine converts EXTERNAL energy that you have to keep putting into the system.

Metals will wear and break down, eventually disintegrating over long periods of time. Friction will wear down ANY mechanism.

And basically you just CANNOT get more energy out of a system than you put into it.

Perpetual motion is just NOT possible.

 

[Trekker4747]

Bow to my greatness for I have created a perpetual motion machine:

As the weight drops it spins the cogs, the top left cog is smaller and thus spins quicker, as the top weight drops the smaller cog latches onto the underneath of the bottom left weight and pushes it to the top and adds more push to it, pushing it over, it then uses gravity and the extra push to force the first weight up underneath the top left smaller cog and this also gets pushed over, the perpetual circle continues unhindered.

And before anyone says anything about my spelling, yes I know it should say 'requires AN initial strong push'.

1. Go to Wikipedia
2. In the search box type "friction"
3. Read.

You put in the initial energy. The flywheel spins, friction between it and the smaller wheel eats up some energy. Your wheels spin, the levers or whatever do their job and the machine begins a new cycle, this time with less energy than the previous cycle because friction has chewed up some of the energy. Eventualy your machine will chug to a stop. Probably only after a few revolutions of the main flywheel.

You cannot get more out of something than you put into it and, infact, you can rarely even get what you put into it out of it.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

I'm well aware of the laws of thermodynamics and some people in here really need to learn to take a joke and stop flying the insults.

At least I'm TRYING to make a perpetual motion machine even if I am doomed from the start.
One day I will be successful and I will have the last laugh.

BTW check out the bottom diagram and ive got a question for you:

Question: If the largest cog sets of at a speed of lets say 2 revolutions per minute is that really the speed its travelling at? wouldnt the smaller cogs make it go faster? OMG its a paradox!

 

[TerriO]

You've created it? Still running at this moment, is it?

Ok i'm going to explain something to you, there's a difference between creating something and building/constructing it. I have created it in my mind and created it in a diagram, I did not say I had built it. So stop being impudent.

If you are claiming that your creation will perform a certain function, then you need to demonstrate this. You will not be able to prove perpetual motion; to claim so indicates a lack of understanding of thermodynamics.

Let's just relax here, please? That goes for everyone. Thank you.

 

[ancient]

Nice...wheels. How is a bunch of wheels different than one wheel?

Perpetual motion is possible, in a vacuum, such as a satellite in fixed geosynchronous orbit. But it's useless. no energy in, no energy out.

A perpetual motion engine is impossible. you can never have something for nothing, or anything near 100% efficiency even.

 

[FordSVT]

I'm well aware of the laws of thermodynamics and some people in here really need to learn to take a joke and stop flying the insults.

At least I'm TRYING to make a perpetual motion machine even if I am doomed from the start.
One day I will be successful and I will have the last laugh.

BTW check out the bottom diagram and ive got a question for you:

Question: If the largest cog sets of at a speed of lets say 2 revolutions per minute is that really the speed its travelling at? wouldnt the smaller cogs make it go faster? OMG its a paradox!

No, it's non-nonsensical. If you tried to build a cog set like the one above it wouldn't turn. At all.

You do realize that it requires more than just drawing some circles and some arrows pointing in the direction you wish something to turn in order to design a machine, right? How many teeth are on each cog? How are they spaced?

Cogs and pulleys and mechanical levers and simple electromagnetics are shit you learn in a high school physics class, actually, so maybe you should take one of those before claiming you've designed a machine that is capable of breaking fundamental laws of the universe.

And if you are familiar with this as you claim, what's the point of the thread?

 

[All Seeing Eye]

You do realize that it requires more than just drawing some circles and some arrows pointing in the direction you wish something to turn in order to design a machine, right? How many teeth are on each cog? How are they spaced?

Yes I am aware of that and it doesnt matter how many teeth are on the cogs, they're all the same size on each cog anyway, they have to be in order for them to fit together and move eachother. Why dont you just calm down and chill out.

And if you are familiar with this as you claim, what's the point of the thread?

Oh I dont know, maybe to talk about perpetual motion machines. I should have expected this kind of response from people though on this board, too many people take things far too seriously, I mean cmon, how sad is it to become nasty and degoratory to someone just because they posted a picture of a perpetual motion machine rather than laugh it up and start a conversation.
This isnt the neutral zone you know.

I guess we cant have a laugh as well as discuss things on here.