The Anti Perpetual Motion Conspiracy

There have been many arguments here about perpetual motion and whether it is possible or not with academia cult worshipers claiming it is impossible using a very narrow biased definition, and more practical folks pointing to examples in nature like the planets in their rotation or orbits etc.

I posted another thread www.abovetopsecret.com... called the Practical Guide to Free Energy and cited a website but stated it was not for this argument. Of course the first poster completely ignored that and what the article I cited said and jumped immediately to arguing his bias.

So I wanted to bring the argument here to help keep my other thread on topic.

the article I cited stated:

"The purpose of this web site is to provide you with an introduction to a series of devices which have been shown to have very interesting properties and some are (incorrectly) described as 'perpetual motion' machines.
What's that you say - perpetual motion is impossible? My, you're a difficult one to please. The electrons in the molecules of rock formations have been spinning steadily for millions of years without stopping - at what point will you agree that they are in perpetual motion?

So, why don't electrons run out of energy and just slow down to a standstill? Quantum Mechanics has shown that the universe is a seething cauldron of energy with particles popping into existence and then dropping out again. If E = mC2, then we can see that a tremendous amount of energy is needed to create any form of matter. Scientists remark that if we could tap even a small part of that energy, then we would have free energy for our lifetime. "

www.free-energy-info.co.uk...


In the other thread Mobeus responded:

Oh my...

He has already got it wrong in the few first sentences. Electrons "spinning steadily for millions of years without stopping" are doing it because of energy conservation, not because they have infinite energy!!! Their energy can be calculated and is a very finite value.

The same applies to Quantum Mechanics. It doesn't violate energy conservation by any means. No free lunch here either.

And her is my response: What does he have wrong? Nowhere has he denied the law of conservation. The fact remains those electrons have been spinning for millions of years without spinning down. If you do not consider that perpetual you are indeed hard to please. Very finite??? And how have those calculations ever been proven and not just assumed since those electrons show no signs of stopping in millions of years? Again at what point will you agree they have been in perpetual motion for millions of years?

Edit: I have edited the Title of this because it dawned on me the anti Perpetual motion sentiment is a conspiracy by certain special interests and is a relatively new anomaly in history. it has long been thought possible by many prominent scientist and inventors through out history. Of course they did not limit themselves to the relatively modern narrow definition the modern academia cultist will defend to the death despite the lack of logic and reason it is based on. Tesla and a few others have achieved it IMO.

"1900 to 1950
In 1900, Nikola Tesla claimed to have discovered an abstract principle on which to base a perpetual motion machine of the second kind. No prototype was produced. He wrote:
“ A departure from known methods – possibility of a "self-acting" engine or machine, inanimate, yet capable, like a living being, of deriving energy from the medium – the ideal way of obtaining motive power.[13] ”
By 1903, 600 English perpetual motion patents had been granted.[citation needed] A design patented in the early years of the 20th century involved a cable projecting 150 miles into the sky to induce electricity (technology at the time would limit its usefulness, as it weighed 80 tons) and to be held up by the aether.[14][clarification needed]
In the 1910s and 1920s, Harry Perrigo of Kansas City, Missouri, a graduate of MIT, claimed development of a free energy device.[15] Perrigo claimed the energy source was "from thin air" or from aether waves. Perrigo demonstrated the device before the Congress of the United States on December 15, 1917. Perrigo had a pending application[16] for the "Improvement in Method and Apparatus for Accumulating and Transforming Ether Electric Energy". Investigators report that his device contained a hidden motor battery.[17]


Cover of the October 1920 issue of Popular Science magazine
Popular Science, in the October 1920 issue, published an article on the lure of perpetual motion.[18]
In 1917, John Andrews, a Portuguese chemist, had a green powder which he claimed and demonstrated could transform water into gas (referred to as a "gas-water additive").[citation needed][clarification needed] He reportedly convinced a Navy official that it worked. Andrews disappeared after negotiations began. Andrews' laboratory was rummaged through and disheveled upon a return visit by United States Navy officials.[clarification needed] Also in 1917, Garabed T. K. Giragossian is claimed, reportedly fraudulently, to have developed a free energy machine.[citation needed] Supposedly involved in a conspiracy, Woodrow Wilson signed a resolution offering him protection. The device was a giant flywheel that was charged up with energy slowly and put out a large amount of energy for just a second.[citation needed]
A series of designs were developed in the 1920s. During this period, Thomas Henry Moray demonstrated a "radiant energy device" to many people who were unable to find a hidden power source. On June 9, 1925, Hermann Plauson received U.S. Patent 1,540,998 which utilizes atmospheric energy. In 1928, Lester Hendershot got an Army commandant to endorse his free energy machine called the "fuelless motor". At the close of the 1920s, Edgar Cayce in Chicago, Illinois, described "Motors with no Fuel" (Reading 4665–1; March 8, 1928).[citation needed]
John Searl claims in 1946 to have invented an open system ambient energy converting device called the Searl Effect Generator (SEG), inspired by a series of recurring dreams.[19]
[edit]Modern era
[edit]1951 to 1980
During the middle of the 20th century, Viktor Schauberger claimed to have discovered some special vortex energy in water. Since his death in 1958, people are still studying his works.[20]
In 1966, Josef Papp (sometimes referred to as Joseph Papp or Joseph Papf) supposedly developed an alternative car engine that used inert gases. He gained a few investors but when the engine was publicly demonstrated, an explosion killed one of the observers and injured two others. Mr. Papp blamed the accident on interference by physicist Richard Feynman, who later shared his observations in an article in LASER, Journal of the Southern Californian Skeptics.[21] Papp continued to accept money but never demonstrated another engine.
On December 20 of 1977, Emil T. Hartman received U.S. Patent 4,215,330 titled "Permanent magnet propulsion system". This device is related to the Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy (SMOT).


Thesta-Distatica[22] electrical circuit as explained in Potter's "Methernitha Back-Engineered"[23] article.
Paul Bauman, a German engineer, developed a machine referred to as the "Testatika"[24] and known as the "Swiss M-L converter"[25] or "Thesta-Distatica".[22] The device's operation has been recorded as far back as 1960s at a place called Methernitha (near Berne, Switzerland). The Testatika is an electromagnetic generator based on the 1898 "Pidgeon electrostatic machine" which includes an inductance circuit, a capacitance circuit, and a thermionic rectification valve. Allegedly a perpetual motion machine, the Testatika resembles in some respects a Wimshurst machine.[citation needed]
Guido Franch reportedly had a process of transmuting water molecules into high-octane gasoline compounds (named Mota fuel) that would reduce the price of gasoline to 8 cents per gallon. This process involved a green powder (this claim may be related to the similar ones of John Andrews (1917)). He was brought to court for fraud in 1954 and acquitted, but in 1973 was convicted. Justice William Bauer and Justice Philip Romiti both observed a demonstration in the 1954 case.[26]
In 1958, Otis T. Carr from Oklahoma formed a company to manufacture UFO-styled spaceships and hovercraft. Carr sold stock for this commercial endeavor. He also promoted free energy machines. He claimed inspiration from Nikola Tesla, among others.[27]
In 1962, physicist Richard Feynman discussed a Brownian ratchet that would supposedly extract meaningful work from Brownian motion, though he went on to demonstrate how such a device would fail to work in practice.[28]
In the 1970s David Hamel produced the Hamel generator, an "antigravity" device, supposedly after an alien abduction. The device was tested on MythBusters where it failed to demonstrate any lift-generating capability.[29][30]


Howard R. Johnson's US Patent 4151431
Howard Robert Johnson developed a permanent magnet motor and, on April 24, 1979, received U.S. Patent 4,151,431.[The United States Patent office main classification of his 4151431 patent is as a "electrical generator or motor structure, dynamoelectric, linear" (310/12).] Johnson said that his device generates motion, either rotary or linear, from nothing but permanent magnets in rotor as well as stator, acting against each other.[31] He estimated that permanent magnets made of proper hard materials should lose less than two percent of their magnetization in powering a device for 18 years.[32]
[edit]1981 to 1999

en.wikipedia.org...

If you do not consider that perpetual you are indeed hard to please. Very finite???

That's not perpetual. I always get confused with you guys, is it English you are having trouble understanding or scientific theory?


per·pet·u·al/pərˈpeCHo͞oəl/
Adjective:
Never ending or changing.

Perpetual means forever not just for a long time.

Also we can get things to keep moving for a very long time but can you put a load on them to generate energy? Thats what the whole idea of perpetual movement is about.

Originally posted by boncho

If you do not consider that perpetual you are indeed hard to please. Very finite???

That's not perpetual. I always get confused with you guys, is it English you are having trouble understanding or scientific theory?


per·pet·u·al/pərˈpeCHo͞oəl/
Adjective:
Never ending or changing.

Ah speaking of narrow minded academia cultists... Ironlcally not even the academic demi gods you worship agree with your narrow biased definition of perpetual motion. Never ending or changing is not the only definition of perpetual in fact it is probably the least used.

So when a contract are written in perpetuity do yo think they will never have an end?

Perpetual

2. Continuing or continued without intermission; uninterrupted; as a perpetual stream; the perpetual action of the heart and arteries.

www.webster1828.com...

This is the practical definition the cultist will never accept. Id say millions of years of perpetual motion is close enough. Good thing guys like Tesla the Wright brothers and many others did not have the narrow mindedness displayed by the academia cultists or we'd still be stuck in the 19th century or worse...

Theorize all you want, but all this comes down to one essential point:

Where's the beef?

We've been talking zero point energy devices deriving unlimited energy from nothing for 100 years. From Tesla to Greer, and never has one come to fruition. Oh, these 'inventors' are ripe with excuses: Big Oil snatched it from their very grasp. Government assassinated the scientists responsible. Yet these device are said to be small enough for a single person to lift in one hand. They are said to be "simple but innovative." And as for violating the Laws of Physics as we know them, any English major can tell us electrons revolve around atoms, therefore you can get free energy from nothing.

Do you really think Big Oil wants to hang its hat on building Buggy Whips as we we run out of a finite resource (or so it's claimed)? If I were Big Oil and discovered this stuff worked I'd be looking for manufacturing space and opening up dealerships. There are trillions of dollars to be made off devices like this in the Western World alone. This would provide living wage jobs for a generation and beyond, just like the automotive issue. These things will wear out like a heat pump, need maintenance, need replacement. If you said I could power my single family house with one of these things independent of the power company, I'd plunk down $40-50,000 today. At that rate it would only take me 20 years to break even.

So where can I buy one?

Oh, more excuses. They want to patent it, but the patent office won't patent "perpetual motion machines." Why do you want to patent it? Want to make a trillion dollars? Then how are you different from Big Oil? If you truly wanted to "help Mankind," you'd Open Source the sucker and give it away. You'd put the design out there for peer review and have other people take a look at it.

But, no, you can't do that. It remains forever a secret, something that "needs more work" and will happen Real Soon Now.

Yeah, right!

reply to post by hawkiye


I have to agree with here OP, as the word perptual has many different meanings, and the single use of the word "forever" is the one jumped on by the naysayers to derail any useful converse of the subject.

Yet even the mighty universe is not even prtpetual by their meaning of the word, so even trying to have a conversation with them about it is pointless.

I wish just once we would have a thread where those with sense enough to understand the difference could talk about this subject and simply ignore the trolls, so a intelligent conversation of the subject could take place.

Most simply wanna argue, and after many attempts to stear the thread back on the topic, instead of using symantics, I just get bored and leave.

I have never heard a single person use the word "perpetual0 in the way they describe its meaning in everyday life, even once. Yet it is the only use of the word they will even contemplate, even though I am positive, they themselves use it in the more common meaning plenty often.

I am gonna stop by your other thread and take a look OP, but I will not comment further if the conversation is about arguing symantics, instead of the subject matter.

If something lasts 20 years on its own power I'd call it perpetual.

Why is the point of complaining that something wont be perpetual forever? If it works for us during our lifetimes, that is perpetual! When you really think about, if you really want to get technical, then nothing at all is perpetual. The sun will eventually die, anything and everything has an expiry date.

The new definition of perpetual should be something that produces energy perpetually for as long as you need it.

reply to post by hawkiye

Dear hawkiye

The original post is talking about perpetual motion machines. A machine is something that does work, correct? He brings spinning electrons as an example of something doing work perpetually as he asks why the electrons won't stop, correct? After all his website is about machines that do work perpetually?

If you are not interested in perpetual motion machines but perpetual motion as motion with constant velocity according to impulse and energy conservation. We can do that. I'd start with simpler example, maybe a piece of rock in space moving with constant velocity.

I am not sure whether it is such an interesting topic though. What do you think?

Originally posted by xxshadowfaxx
If something lasts 20 years on its own power I'd call it perpetual.

Why is the point of complaining that something wont be perpetual forever? If it works for us during our lifetimes, that is perpetual! When you really think about, if you really want to get technical, then nothing at all is perpetual. The sun will eventually die, anything and everything has an expiry date.

The new definition of perpetual should be something that produces energy perpetually for as long as you need it.

Ah simple logic and reason how refreshing!

Actually what you say the "new" definition should be has been the majority definition for centuries. The new definition is what the cultists are pushing.

Your heart has been beating perpetually for many years. Trees perpetually die and reseed, Stars perptually burn and die and new ones appear etc. etc....

Originally posted by moebius
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Dear hawkiye

The original post is talking about perpetual motion machines. A machine is something that does work, correct? He brings spinning electrons as an example of something doing work perpetually as he asks why the electrons won't stop, correct? After all his website is about machines that do work perpetually?

If you are not interested in perpetual motion machines but perpetual motion as motion with constant velocity according to impulse and energy conservation. We can do that. I'd start with simpler example, maybe a piece of rock in space moving with constant velocity.

I am not sure whether it is such an interesting topic though. What do you think?

Yes but you chose to try and make the original thread about perpetual motion in general hence this thread to take it over here so as not to derail the original thread.

I'm kinda having a hard time with the idea that this is a serious and no kidding point to debate, as if the laws of physics are negotiable simply because we would like it better that way in our lives.

Now if any...ANY...evidence exists at any physical level showing this may have a chink in the armor of the "law" as science understands it, by all means, don't hesitate and run out there. You will literally be putting down one of the bedrock, cornerstone laws of modern physics as I understand it to be. (I'm not a physics student..if I'm off on something..I don't claim to be a physicist. lol)

Without at least some real world mechanical example that can run for a reasonable sampling of time to show it generates energy (by heat, movement, or electricity..whatever it 'does') with absolutely 0 ...or even just FAR LESS energy being put it than is being generated consistently....It's a theory running against an established law of the physical world around us.

I'm afraid law trumps theory when it's nature writing them....at least until absolutely proven by example to be otherwise on that one, IMO.

reply to post by hawkiye

Sorry, could you rephrase your statement. It doesn't make sense to me.

reply to post by schuyler

Where's the beef?

We've been talking zero point energy devices deriving unlimited energy from nothing for 100 years. From Tesla to Greer, and never has one come to fruition.

Ah yes my friends I have had the same feelings for many years and even though I have been some what involved with the so called free energy community for many years it has been right under my nose despite my having built a working HHO generator for boosting gas mileage...

There are working devices out there but there is a lot of BS out there too. Check out my other thread and the website it cites as it cuts through the BS and is quite comprehensive on what has been built and replicated what is marginal and what is crap. And he is someone I have been acquainted with over the net in the FE community for a long time and know him to be credible.

The point is it's here now and people have working devices they are powering their homes and cars etc. It will take some work though as none of them are available commercially although you might be able to buy some of them already built. There is a lot of opposition by special interests so people are just doing it on their own. if you are waiting for academia or government to put their stamp of approval on it then you wait in vain...

Also none of it violate the laws of physics read and educate yourself: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Take a look and contemplate our future... better to light a candle then curse the darkness...

reply to post by hawkiye


energy cannot be created or destroyed

exceptions,

big bang, created energy and matter from nothing,
expansion of the universe, violates conservation laws requiring "dark energy as place holder"
black holes, energy and mass cannot escape,
superliminal light sources, violate E=MC2 by requiring more energy than there is in the entire universe,

i could go on but conservation of energy laws are sacred to science, and to challenge them pits you against some of the great minds of times past.

it also gets you labelled as a crack pot

but from a maths perspective you can say 0= infinity,
but only for the first equation, then 0= zero

i understand the complicated way were are taught NOT to ask this question,

if the big bang violates conservation laws, are they really laws or just observations?

and yes i do understand the (classical ) laws of thermodynamics

xploder

reply to post by hawkiye

So when a contract are written in perpetuity do yo think they will never have an end?


This is the practical definition the cultist will never accept. Id say millions of years of perpetual motion is close enough. Good thing guys like Tesla the Wright brothers and many others did not have the narrow mindedness displayed by the academia cultists or we'd still be stuck in the 19th century or worse..

Millions of years is not perpetual, and I thought we were talking science not contract law.

reply to post by XPLodER

i could go on but conservation of energy laws are sacred to science, and to challenge them pits you against some of the great minds of times past.

it also gets you labelled as a crack pot

Neither I nor the sources I cite are challenging the laws of conservation...

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by XPLodER

 

i could go on but conservation of energy laws are sacred to science, and to challenge them pits you against some of the great minds of times past.

it also gets you labelled as a crack pot

Neither I nor the sources I cite are challenging the laws of conservation...

i agree, but i am,

before the idea can even be addressed by "scientists" the conservation of energy laws pop up in their brain and any thing after that is tainted by the belief that these laws are fixed and nothing could possibly shake their perfect understanding of how energy systems operate.

that is until you ask them "where did the energy come from in the first instance" ?

at which point they will answer "the big bang"
at which point you say, "but the big bang violates conservation of energy laws"
at which point they say "the big bang created the universe and all the energy in it"
at which point you say "but that violates conservation of energy laws"

at which point they say "during the initial inflation period of the universe, physics worked differently and allowed the violation of the rules"

at which point i point out,
"you believe in free energy"

its an argument i have had many times with other people who are adamant that free energy is imposable,
(outside of the largest gift of free energy ever) called the big bang.

free energy is all around us, we are to smart to try to study it tho because we KNOW its only possable in a big bang

lol

xploder

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by hawkiye

So when a contract are written in perpetuity do yo think they will never have an end?


This is the practical definition the cultist will never accept. Id say millions of years of perpetual motion is close enough. Good thing guys like Tesla the Wright brothers and many others did not have the narrow mindedness displayed by the academia cultists or we'd still be stuck in the 19th century or worse..

 

Millions of years is not perpetual, and I thought we were talking science not contract law.

We get that you believe such nonsense as it fits your irrational ridiculous bias but you need not repeat it over and over...

So you assert the word perpetual means something different in relation to contracts then it does in science how convenient Says the guy who insists it only has one meaning...





Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

Originally posted by moebius
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Sorry, could you rephrase your statement. It doesn't make sense to me.

What part do you not understand?

reply to post by boncho


Either one must admit, that the word has more than just the olne meaning your choosing to use, and thus may be applied in more than one way to many different situations, or one muststate that all uses of the word must mean the same "infinite" definition they arfe attempting to use it as.

Any other position is contradictory.