Perpetual Motion Machine

Originally posted by deeveeThis is simply not true as it violates the second law of thermodynamics. Something is amiss as the law is NEVER broken.

I'd like to see some definitive proof that the law is never broken. but, that's rather impossible, isn't it? You can't test everything under every circumstances imaginable. For all we know, this is somehow outside the bounds of your flimsy little law...

Originally posted by Solasis
For all we know, this is somehow outside the bounds of your flimsy little law...

If the law has been verified to be true many, many, many times and another theory contradicts it, then presumably that �another theory� is wrong.

Originally posted by soothsayer
Take a small motor. I used a motor from a table saw. Using a special welded rod (be careful, so as not to fry the motor), attach an alternator; any car type will do. Connect the alternator to a marine battery... this is important! A car battery will not work, it doesn't recharge the same way. Now, convert the motor wire plug to allow for battery hook-up.

Wah-lah, perpetual motion. My motor has run for a year and a half now with no measurable energy loss (verified with an electrician who works at a Naval yard).

I assume the table saw motor is designed to run off of 120 VAC. You are connecting it to a 12 VDC battery. Even though most portable tools use a (not very efficient) "universal" motor that will run off of AC or DC, I wouldn't think a motor designed for 120 volts RMS would produce much output with only 12 volts. Especially enough output to drive an alternator that is normally driven by a multi-horsepower engine.

What many people don't realize is that when a generator is under load (actually producing current) it experiences an internal counter torque due to the magnetic interaction of the current it is producing (Counter Electro Motive Force - CEMF).

If it were as easy as hooking a motor to a generator, it would have been done long long ago.

BTW, did anyone notice the article about Joe Newman marrying his secretary and her 8 year old daugter?

Look at the newspaper article near the bottom

soothsayer

I'd really like to build one of these motor/generator/battery devices. If in fact, you have built one, I would appreciate some more detailed plans, you can u2u me.

cabotage

I know that dc has different properties than ac, so with a converter, could the theory still be plausible? Beause you can actually convert 120 volts ac from 12 volts dc, not sure of the actual energy loss, but it's an extremely common practice.

I have been studying this field for a while and can probably get someone to start work on this device and research the data. Please let me know.

Originally posted by ledbedder20
I know that dc has different properties than ac, so with a converter, could the theory still be plausible? Beause you can actually convert 120 volts ac from 12 volts dc, not sure of the actual energy loss, but it's an extremely common practice.

Converting from DC to AC would not be necessary. It is likely that the motor will run on either (it's called a Universal motor). The problem is that the motor is designed to run on 120 volts RMS (VAC RMS is basically what the DC equivalent would be, so 120 VAC RMS = 120 VDC). You are giving it 1/10th of it's normal power. A basic DC to AC converter would have an oscillator of some sort (the actual DC to AC) and a transformer to step the voltage up to 120 VAC. The ultimate equalizer here is POWER.

Power = Voltage x Current

The OUTPUT power of any device that is less than 100% efficient will be less than the INPUT power. This is the same for the generator side of things. The electrical power of the battery is converted to mechanical rotational power (less than 100% efficient). The mechanical rotational power is converted back to electrical power in the generator (less than 100% efficient). The amount of power out of the generator has got to be, by definition, less than the power that went into the motor. The only way to get MORE power out is if either of the components were greater than 100% efficient, which is not possible in this scenario.

I'm not saying Soothsayer is wrong, I'm just saying that the battery is slowly depleting, even if his electrician friend is not seeing a drop in voltage. By nature, a "deep cycle" battery (such as a marine battery) can maintain a consistent output over a long discharge cycle.

I must admit, though, that a year is well beyond the time one would expect such a device to last. Very impressive.

If it continues to run after lifting one of the leads to the battery, then THAT would be even more impressive!

Agnis:
But that doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't true. Yes, it means that it's probably not true, but it has happened in the past that things pretty well confirmed turned out not to be universal, or even correct. I'm too tired to think of any, but...

I just saw the TLC show on Joseph Newman.
I can't remember all the details, but someone working at state level checked his machine and though he went as a sceptic, he became convinced it worked. He took a load of scientists to confirm it, and they all signed affadavits it did as Newman claimed.

The show talked a lot about the patent battle Newman has been fighting since Reagan. A Senate patent expert said on film the decision against Newman was "outrageously erraneous". Sounds legit to me. I'd like to know more about this guy and his machine. He came across as a remarkable and trustworthy individual. He stated he was motivated by a life-long desire to address the balance between rich and poor.

Incidentally, TLC stated Newman was offered 200 million dollars by a canadian company for the rights to sell his machine, but he turned it down because they would not garuntee to sell it at a fair price.

I might have some beach front property if any of you are interested. One of the laws of themal dynamic rules out your motor generator thingy. Eventually the battery will give all of it's properties through erosion and fail if it is still running.

I saw Nemans "Light and Pump Show". I went to a show at the Hilton New Orleans at the foot of Canal St and expected to be wowed, I was disappointed. He had 4ft by 4t by 6ft high frame with about 24 FL tubes on it. Beside the frame he had a huge coil solenoid about the size of a 5 Gal bucket hook to a reciprical pump in a vertial fasion. Next to and wireded to the coil was a black box unit that I was never able to get close enought to see any more than wires coming from it. The unit was plugged into an electrial outlet, pulling not more than a few amps. When he turned the unit on it began pumping within a few short seconds then all the tubes started flashing at about 2 pulses per second. It ran for about 5 minutes until he shut the unit down. During that time I would say the thing re-circulated about 30 gallons of water back into a tank.

From what I could tell, he was using all the power on the soleniod for the power stroke (pumping) then capturing the gauze of the coil to throw a whopping voltage back at the tubes. The thing about flouresents is that they draw very little energy once you ignite the plasma. It doesnt matter what the voltage was since he was not using the glow emmiters in the tubes as they would not burn out, but they would light for a brief instant and charge the phospar when the voltage jump accross the tued making for a lasting effect on our eyes. Ever notice that a flash from your camer seems to last for a second, it doesn't, your eyes are overloaded for tenthes of a second after the actual light has already faded.

Wrapup, I would say Mr. Newman has managed to make efficient use of energy, but he has little to patent.

Things I'm still waiting to see:
*The UFO in New Mexico.
*The Moter-Generator thingy, under test conditions.
*Cold Fushion.
*The auto that gets 100 mpg, seats four and survives the highest crash tests to rule out covered bikes and other mini-cars. I want to see a big honking buick or something. And it has to run on a form of petrol, no nitrous or fancy gasses that were not used back when the 100 mpg carb was supposed to exist.

Here we are, three years after this thread was posted. I just saw the same show on the Science Channel just now.

I must admit that I am intrigued. I will still have to investigate the device (and perhaps build/test it for myself.

I've long been thinking that the Law of Conservation can be broken, but the more I learn (especially as I'm back in school, going first for an associates in Physics, followed by a BS/MS in Aerospace Engineering), the more I wonder if it really is possible with our current technology.

On this issue, call me an intrigued skeptic.

Yahoo search "grim and smithy's wheel" for details, drawings, etc. of the experiment. A counterweighted arm, aided by a spring, lifts a weight every 180 degrees, raising the center of gravity of a rotating system. It answered my daughter's question "what happens if someone turns DaVinci's wheel drawing upside down and builds it?". Not bad for an eight year old (at the time). Verified in Australia. The drawing and construction data was put in public domain on purpose.

something like this? i know the magnets eventually depolarize but i think there is a way of remagnetizing them ....if so and if enough energy is produced to slide the thing back and forth .. surely this qualify's?

at the very least could be attached to an accelerator pedal?








[edit on 22-7-2007 by Quantum_Squirrel]

reply to post by jupiter869


Joesph Newman?

Originally posted by Quantum_Squirrel
something like this? i know the magnets eventually depolarize but i think there is a way of remagnetizing them ....
[edit on 22-7-2007 by Quantum_Squirrel]

I took this from the ou site.

Originally posted by Earl
If people would simply ask NEO manufacturers this question instead of speculating, they would have the answer:

Two NEO magnets can not weaken or demagnitize each other in repel mode. If not heated excessively or violently vibrated, the great-great-grandchildren of your great-great-grandchildren will not be able to measure any weakening of NEOs in repell mode.

People who say that NEOs can demagnetize themselves, usually can not tie their shoes on in the morning.

End of discussion.

No offense personally, I've just heard a lot of people say this will happen, but I haven't seen evidence of this being the case the neodyniums. If it doesn't demagnetize they would be ideal for a magnetic powered device to last lifetimes.


[edit on 9-9-2007 by Freezer]

Originally posted by deevee
I am sorry. This is simply not true as it violates the second law of thermodynamics. Something is amiss as the law is NEVER broken.

Perpetual motion machines are not necessarily against the second law of thermodynamics. Superconductors (zero "friction" of electrons) are technically speaking perpetual motion machines or devices. Anything that we consider a real "machine" however, that has friction, would violate the second law of thermodynamics indeed.

reply to post by shbaz

JUST BESCAUSE U DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ELECTRIC MAGNETIC PERTUAL MOTION MACHINE IS NO REASON TO CALL THIS MAN A FRAUD.

DR, FERRIDAY INVENTED A MOTOR AND A GENERATOR. BACK IN 1791.
DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THE GOV'T DOESN'T WANT ANYONE TO HAVE A PATTEN BECAUSE THOUSAND MAYBE MILLIONS WOULD BUY IT AND MAKE GAS OBSOLETE.

MY FRIEND AND I BUILT A SMALL ELECTROMAGNETIC DEVICE THAT HAS BEEN RUNNING FOR 5 1/2 MONTHS ON ONE NINE VOLT BATTERY, BUT THE THING IS THE MACHINE IS MAKING MORE POWER THAN IT'S TAKING IN. WE PUT A LIGHT THAT TKES 200 VOLTS AND CONNECTED IT AND IT'S STILL LIT UP AND THE MACHINE IS IS PUTTING OUT SO MUCH POWER THAT OR GAUGE OF VOLT; THAT GOES UP TO A THOUSAND IS NOT NO SUFFICIENT TO REGISTER THE AMOUNT THE POWER THIS MACHINE IS PUTTING OUT JUST ON A 9 VOLT BATTERY. SO DON'T BE CALLING PEOPLE FRAUDS WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE ABOUT NEWMANS WORK. IGNORANCE IS BLISS, BUT JUST PLAIN STUPIDITY IS IGNORANCE AND CLOSED MINDNESSNESS.

First free energy patent:
link

With visions of Tesla's original water wheel and doing one better
than Niagara Fall ... why have a river when the ether advantage
of H2O and electrical windings and permanent magnets store
ether energy for all time.

Ether awareness is here.

Tesla Free Energy is on the move.

The Second Lie of Thermodynamics against the ether nation has
been exposed again. Expect more.



Google patents copy from that page

[edit on 7/17/2008 by TeslaandLyne]

[edit on 7/17/2008 by TeslaandLyne]

reply to post by soothsayer


soothsayer, i have accomplished this 4 years ago and the motor is still turning but i have a different setup. my setup is totally self sufficient and creates power stored in a power station ready to be used at a moments noticeit does not use the power of a battery the only reason a battery is involved in my equation is for storage only

[edit on 24-5-2010 by doneit]

In the late 1880's, trade journals in the electrical sciences were predicting "free electricity" in the near future. Incredible discoveries about the nature of electricity were becoming common place. Nikola Tesla was demonstrating "wireless lighting" and other wonders associated with high frequency currents. There was an excitement about the future like never before.


Within 20 years, there would be automobiles, airplanes, movies, recorded music, telephones, radio, and practical cameras. The Victorian Age was giving way to something totally new. For the first time in history, common people were encouraged to envision a utopian future, filled with abundant modern transportation and communication, as well as jobs, housing and food for everyone. Disease would be conquered, and so would poverty. Life was getting better, and this time, everyone was going to get "a piece of the pie." So, what happened? In the midst of this technological explosion, where did the energy breakthroughs go? Was all of this excitement about "free electricity", which happened just before the beginning of the last century, all just wishful thinking that "real science" eventually disproved?

Read the Source for the rest of this article. It answers a lot of the questions on this thread..






[edit on 24-5-2010 by Magzoid]

reply to post by shbaz

Anyone else want to jump on the bandwagon of denying ignorance by assuming things without any evidence?

Not me, Hoss. If I had such a device, I would make several of them and spread them throughout the world as quickly as I could. If such a device existed, a less humanitarian person would made a BUNDLE, and patent offices be damned. What this person -- nor I -- would NOT do is write a book about it and try to sell the @#%#@ book.

I don't believe that our current understanding of the laws of physics are invoilate. They are for us humans, now, at this moment in our history. I believe someone will discover the processes to harness the weak forces and global/solar system energy will be solved, and the world will be changed, and borders and political boundaries will crumble, and the world will be rent, but eventually better off. It will be epoch-changing. I hope to see it in my lifetime.

In the meantime, I'm not buying a book that describes alternate theory of known physics principles for the low, low price of $19.95.

Not even if I buy TODAY and get a special pamphlet FREE.

When the truth comes, we will all feel it, and it will be a scary time and it will be wonderful.

ETA: HEH! Just noticed that I replied to a post of Shbaz's that was more'n SIX years ago. Well, take that Shbaz! haha. I agree with you, even though I'm a tad late.

cheers

[edit on 24/5/10 by argentus]

electrons in rocks hundreds of millions of years old are perperual motion machiines. The Electrons have been spinning for that same amount of time.

Question: Where does the energy come from to power the electrons?
A: it comoes from the environment.

In the same way that electrons have seemingly perperual motion they are not breaking the laws of thermodynamics.

In the same way, machines that seem to power themselves are in fact drawing the extra energy from the zero point energy field so they don't break the laws of physics. They only "appear" to do so because science can't measure the cause and effect. This is the major stumbling block for scientific acceptance.

however, if you go back to the days of James clerk maxwell (19th century)- he theorised about the nature of electricity and then came up with a formula which also included a lot of unknown factors - it was difficult to understand and at a time when electricity was in great demand, simplification was needed. Then a guy calld Heaviside came along and simplified the theory and this is still in use today for electrical engineering.

Maxwells theories are understood by few but it seem that the people who do understand it have also created free energy devices - Tom Bearden is one example of this.

Of course the only way to find out is to build one yourself - then you will have the ultimate truth.

Then you will have to do battle with your ego and greed - most people will sell out to big oil and the invention will get shelved.

It will take a man of steel to open source the technology to the masses (which is the only way to do it in this economic climate) It won't make you rich but it will probably save the world from pollution, war, famine, drought, pestilence and many more ills.