VIDEO: Evolution of Perpetual Motion, WORKING Free Energy Generator [?]

[Skyfarmr]

I came across this video, and the final machine design is quite elegant.

https://youtu.be/zqG-TL0WnjE?feature=player_detailpage

But, apparently it doesn't qualify as a perpetual motion machine because according to wiki (and some inconsiderate commenters) "This is impossible to ever achieve because of friction and other sources of energy loss.[3][4][5] A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work indefinitely without an energy source. This kind of machine is impossible, as it would violate the first or second law of thermodynamics.[4][5][6]" I'm sort of confused by the whole "impossible" remark.

Perpetual motion is motion that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy. Could someone please explain why this wouldn't fit the criteria of a perpetual motion machine? If it doesn't, might it still be considered a free energy generator?

 

[nicklebleu]

There is a difference between a "Perpetual Motion Machine" and a machine in perpetual motion.

The Perpetual Motion Machine as defined below as "a machine that is able to do work indefinitely without some energy source" is indeed impossible and violates fundamental laws of physics.

Which is not the same thing as a machine in perpetual motion. Imagine you have an exceedingly well built engine and an unlimited supply of oil. So as long as your machine doesn't experience a mechanical failure or you run out of fuel, it is perpetually in motion, but reliant on an outside energy source.

The socalled "free energy generators" that make the rounds on the internet are not Perpetual Motion Machines. They rely on an energy source that is commonly referred to as "Zero Point Energy" or "energy from vacuum" and is a hitherto unknown form of energy - if it exists. So this machine, while again it might be able to run "indefinitely" as long as no mechanical failure interrupts it, doesn't violate any fundamental physical laws.

That's how I understand it at any rate.

 

[whitecoast]

Perpetual motion is motion that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy. Could someone please explain why this wouldn't fit the criteria of a perpetual motion machine? If it doesn't, might it still be considered a free energy generator?

I'll have a go at it. This may be incorrect though.


The way you define perpetual motion, any closed system is a perpetual motion machine. The devil is in the details though. Every mechanical interaction or transfer of energy via physical contact between objects causes a certain percentage of the kinetic energy to be transformed into heat (which is really just kinetic energy dispersed at the molecular level). So as time goes on more and more of this kinetic energy is transformed into heat, which can't really do useful work unless it means doing work on on object which is colder (i.e. has less molecular kinetic energy). So over time the useful energy in the system that can produce mechanical work decreases. It may not be immediately visible in a video or anything, but it would wind down eventually.


The holy grail of the perpetual motion machine enthusiast is a machine which can continue its own motion and motor actions forever. For this to be possible there must be no transformation of energy into heat. This in effect requires the machine to be composed of frictionless materials. It even probably would need to be run in the dark since even the photons and sound vibrations etc all would potentially disrupt the fine-tuned kinetic motions of the perpetual motion machine.


That's not saying perpetual motion isn't possible... I just think that it's impossible using the types of energies known to humans (such as magnetism in the video you shared). Hope that explains a little bit. :)

 

[Duke]

Skyfarmr, Good topic... I've been "into" this subject for a long time. Since I started working in a power station. Now with these 200+ y/old laws they work for basic things. But to say to any young inspiring mind that "you can't do" that is stupid and crushing. Better off saying "I don't know give it a try" Safety first of course! The big thing is we don't know exactly what ALL the forms of energy/fuel there is now do we????????? Go for it mate! let your imagination go nuts!!

 

[mkrnhr]

LOL! The video reminds me of the "magnetic machine" I wanted to "invent" when I was a kid at school.
The device is based upon the repulsion force between two magnets when they are are oriented such as the same pole of each face each other. Magnets are magnetized meterials and the most basic experiment to obtain such is to heat a ferromagnetic material (a needle for example) while subjected to a strong magnetic field (that's how a compass needle can be obtained). However, when this magnetized material is subjected to an opposite magnetic field, it tends to demagnetize (see the magnetic hysteresis phenomenon).
So in this machine, the magnets will demagnetize with time when the whole magnetic potential energy transforms into kinetic energy (the movement) and heat (through mechanical friction). In order to maintain the magnetization, one has to demagnetize the magnets from an external source (via a high current solenoid for example) and that requires energy by itself. In order to help understand why this hysteresis and demagnetization occur from a microscopic point of view, you can search for "ferromagnetism" as well.
A closed system is subject to conservation of energy, that's why strict perpetual motion is not possible. An open system where a constant input of energy (where to tap it from, that's the question) is the way to go if we neglect the natural decay of the materials in use (entropy).

 

[JonnyRadar]

If you're totally literal, then perpetual means perpetual and infinite, which yes, is impossible, because the materials involved would decay over time. Even the planets themselves are not infinite. But what stops us from making a machine that will run for say, even a year? Within that time you could charge a battery bank, disconnect the machine, maintain it, and turn it back on. Doesn't seem like that big of a leap to me. Even if you could get a machine to run off of a trickle charge, it seems like that would work.

I think they key here is to just STOP using the phrases "perpetual motion" and "free energy." I mean, geez, a little break on my power bill would be awesome. It doesn't need to be a worldwide-game-changer to be useful.

I have seen some of these machines that run at quite a clip, even very large ones using 3"x6" neodymium magnets (hand-destroyers). I would love to employ one in my home, though the sheer cost of the materials is prohibitive for me, for something that big.

Skyfarmr, I'm with Duke on this one. Try it out! Magnets are a great deal of fun to play with anyhow, and at the very least you'll learn something. I would encourage you to get a few small neo magnets and just play around with various arrangements. Who knows, you may discover an implementation that no one has yet. One thing is for certain, if everyone gets discouraged and doesn't try, no one will find that implementation!

I tried to build this machine once: _https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYcjjSfiNNE but failed for lack of the right materials. It fell off my radar for a few years, and your post has kind of inspired me to give it a shot again. Why not, eh? If you can wrap it in a copper coil, maybe it'll power a lamp. One or two of those, and that's less spending on the power bill, ultimately.

 

[trendsetter37]

{snip}

I think they key here is to just STOP using the phrases "perpetual motion" and "free energy." I mean, geez, a little break on my power bill would be awesome. It doesn't need to be a worldwide-game-changer to be useful.

{snip}

Skyfarmr, I'm with Duke on this one. Try it out! Magnets are a great deal of fun to play with anyhow, and at the very least you'll learn something. I would encourage you to get a few small neo magnets and just play around with various arrangements. Who knows, you may discover an implementation that no one has yet. One thing is for certain, if everyone gets discouraged and doesn't try, no one will find that implementation!

{snip}

LOL! The video reminds me of the "magnetic machine" I wanted to "invent" when I was a kid at school.
The device is based upon the repulsion force between two magnets when they are are oriented such as the same pole of each face each other. Magnets are magnetized meterials and the most basic experiment to obtain such is to heat a ferromagnetic material (a needle for example) while subjected to a strong magnetic field (that's how a compass needle can be obtained). However, when this magnetized material is subjected to an opposite magnetic field, it tends to demagnetize (see the magnetic hysteresis phenomenon).
So in this machine, the magnets will demagnetize with time when the whole magnetic potential energy transforms into kinetic energy (the movement) and heat (through mechanical friction). In order to maintain the magnetization, one has to demagnetize the magnets from an external source (via a high current solenoid for example) and that requires energy by itself. In order to help understand why this hysteresis and demagnetization occur from a microscopic point of view, you can search for "ferromagnetism" as well.
A closed system is subject to conservation of energy, that's why strict perpetual motion is not possible. An open system where a constant input of energy (where to tap it from, that's the question) is the way to go if we neglect the natural decay of the materials in use (entropy).

I agree with everything that has been said. My question is why not build something that can pull energy from its environment? For all intents and purposes it would/could function as if it was "perpetual" because you wouldn't have to constantly charge, fill up a tank, plug it in etc. The biggest hindrance to forward thinking ideas imo comes about when someone starts out by solving a problem that is superfluous to a functional energy source. I.e. how does one power a device in a closed system. Well we don't live in a closed system to begin with so why start with that handicap?

Examples of drawing power from the environment:

_http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2351791/Ann-Makosinski-Canadian-girl-invents-flashlight-powered-body-heat-earns-spot-Google-Science-Fair-finals.html

This 15 year invented a Led flashlight powered by the body heat (Infrared Electromagnetic resonance?) of your hand.

This girl's science project really puts your baking soda volcano to shame
A 15-year-old girl in Canada has invented a flashlight that only needs the warmth of the hand to turn on.
Ann Makosinski, a high school junior in Victoria, British Columbia, was trying to think of a way of harvesting untapped energy when she was inspired to make the flashlight.
She realized that the warmth generated by the human body was an overlooked energy source.
Her project objective was to create a flashlight that ran solely off the heat of the hand.
That objective was accomplished when she discovered Peltier tiles, which produce electricity when one side of the tile is heated and the other is cooled.
Makosinski realized she could use these tiles to create energy for her flashlight if she left the device hollow.
Holding the flashlight on the outside would cause the tiles to heat up on one side while the ambient air would cool down the tile on the inside of the flashlight.
The power created by the tiles was enough to power an LED light, but it did not create enough voltage.
To troubleshoot that issue she created a circuit that would allow for transformers, upping the voltage.
It worked! The flashlight does have one issue: it works better in colder temperatures since the inside is better able to cool down comparative to the person's body heat.

That is pretty awesome if you ask me.

Charging batteries through wifi emanations

_http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/180936-researchers-develop-wifi-for-power-that-works-up-to-15-feet-away

For the record I would never dream of using wifi like that for health reasons BUT it should get your imaginative juices flowing. Wifi is not the only frequencies out there by a long shot but the question is how to couple with and or tap what is already out there.

 

[Divide by Zero]

The flashlight is interesting, but this technology has been out for a long time. Peltier plates work in both ways, they can take electricity and create a cold side and hot side. They can also use a temperature differential to create electricity.

However, a LED bulb takes very little power, like that "perpetual" machine spinning and doing almost no work (besides miniscule friction).

Sometimes these things look amazing, but the science behind them are not revolutionary.

Now if the machine or flashlight could power a car or heat up a home, then I would be wondering how it worked and where it was getting its energy from!

 

[monotonic]

For the record I would never dream of using wifi like that for health reasons BUT it should get your imaginative juices flowing. Wifi is not the only frequencies out there by a long shot but the question is how to couple with and or tap what is already out there.

It could be that there are forms of electromagnetic transmission that would not negatively affect health and would be useful for power distribution, but I don't see a chance for such technology to develop the way things stand.

 

[HowToBe]

LOL! The video reminds me of the "magnetic machine" I wanted to "invent" when I was a kid at school.
The device is based upon the repulsion force between two magnets when they are are oriented such as the same pole of each face each other. Magnets are magnetized meterials and the most basic experiment to obtain such is to heat a ferromagnetic material (a needle for example) while subjected to a strong magnetic field (that's how a compass needle can be obtained). However, when this magnetized material is subjected to an opposite magnetic field, it tends to demagnetize (see the magnetic hysteresis phenomenon).
So in this machine, the magnets will demagnetize with time when the whole magnetic potential energy transforms into kinetic energy (the movement) and heat (through mechanical friction). In order to maintain the magnetization, one has to demagnetize the magnets from an external source (via a high current solenoid for example) and that requires energy by itself. In order to help understand why this hysteresis and demagnetization occur from a microscopic point of view, you can search for "ferromagnetism" as well.
A closed system is subject to conservation of energy, that's why strict perpetual motion is not possible. An open system where a constant input of energy (where to tap it from, that's the question) is the way to go if we neglect the natural decay of the materials in use (entropy).

That was the most reasonable-seeming explanation I came across when I encountered this same video a few years ago. Put simply, the idea is that the magnets are being "used up" like a sort of battery to create the extra power that keeps the device turning.

If this is true, it raises a question I've had ever since; might it be possible to use magnets to replace batteries as a power source? They could be recharged indefinitely without degrading, it would seem. There are claims about "battery powered motors" out there, but the ones I saw all claimed to be "free energy" and didn't address this challenge about the batteries being demagnetized.

The problem is, I haven't found any sources to back up this idea; normal "official" sources seem to say that magnets can't store energy in this fashion. Here's an example:
_http://engineering.mit.edu/ask/why-can%E2%80%99t-magnetism-be-used-source-energy

Obviously you can store energy in magnets by forcing same poles of magnets together or holding opposite poles apart (much like setting a spring to hold mechanical energy), but in terms of the magnet itself holding energy, I've not seen a good scientific comment on this. Where/how is the energy being stored, if so? After all, if the individual atoms inside the magnet are like little magnets, wouldn't they "want"/tend to line up in the same direction, meaning that is a low-energy state for the magnet? Here's what Wikipedia has to say:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferromagnetism

The above would seem to suggest that every piece of ferromagnetic material should have a strong magnetic field, since all the spins are aligned, yet iron and other ferromagnets are often found in an "unmagnetized" state. The reason for this is that a bulk piece of ferromagnetic material is divided into tiny regions called magnetic domains[12] (also known as Weiss domains). Within each domain, the spins are aligned, but (if the bulk material is in its lowest energy configuration, i.e. unmagnetized), the spins of separate domains point in different directions and their magnetic fields cancel out, so the object has no net large scale magnetic field.

Ferromagnetic materials spontaneously divide into magnetic domains because the exchange interaction is a short-range force, so over long distances of many atoms the tendency of the magnetic dipoles to reduce their energy by orienting in opposite directions wins out. If all the dipoles in a piece of ferromagnetic material are aligned parallel, it creates a large magnetic field extending into the space around it. This contains a lot of magnetostatic energy. The material can reduce this energy by splitting into many domains pointing in different directions, so the magnetic field is confined to small local fields in the material, reducing the volume of the field. The domains are separated by thin domain walls a number of molecules thick, in which the direction of magnetization of the dipoles rotates smoothly from one domain's direction to the other.

So, that says it; there is energy contained in the macro-alignment of the magnetic moments. Next questions relevant to the "magnet motor" in the video: How much energy is stored in this manner? Is it enough to explain the effect? Is there a known mechanism by which this occurs?

 

[A Jay]

For the record I would never dream of using wifi like that for health reasons BUT it should get your imaginative juices flowing. Wifi is not the only frequencies out there by a long shot but the question is how to couple with and or tap what is already out there.

Exactly, the universe is already teeming with energy, so no sense in reinventing the wheel if there's one sitting beside you. I guess the challenge is seeing the wheel for what it is and realizing it's potential, even if all our lives we've been told it was something unusable.

 

[Divide by Zero]

That was the most reasonable-seeming explanation I came across when I encountered this same video a few years ago. Put simply, the idea is that the magnets are being "used up" like a sort of battery to create the extra power that keeps the device turning.

If this is true, it raises a question I've had ever since; might it be possible to use magnets to replace batteries as a power source? They could be recharged indefinitely without degrading, it would seem. There are claims about "battery powered motors" out there, but the ones I saw all claimed to be "free energy" and didn't address this challenge about the batteries being demagnetized.

The problem is, I haven't found any sources to back up this idea; normal "official" sources seem to say that magnets can't store energy in this fashion. Here's an example:
_http://engineering.mit.edu/ask/why-can%E2%80%99t-magnetism-be-used-source-energy

Obviously you can store energy in magnets by forcing same poles of magnets together or holding opposite poles apart (much like setting a spring to hold mechanical energy), but in terms of the magnet itself holding energy, I've not seen a good scientific comment on this. Where/how is the energy being stored, if so? After all, if the individual atoms inside the magnet are like little magnets, wouldn't they "want"/tend to line up in the same direction, meaning that is a low-energy state for the magnet? Here's what Wikipedia has to say:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferromagnetism

The above would seem to suggest that every piece of ferromagnetic material should have a strong magnetic field, since all the spins are aligned, yet iron and other ferromagnets are often found in an "unmagnetized" state. The reason for this is that a bulk piece of ferromagnetic material is divided into tiny regions called magnetic domains[12] (also known as Weiss domains). Within each domain, the spins are aligned, but (if the bulk material is in its lowest energy configuration, i.e. unmagnetized), the spins of separate domains point in different directions and their magnetic fields cancel out, so the object has no net large scale magnetic field.

Ferromagnetic materials spontaneously divide into magnetic domains because the exchange interaction is a short-range force, so over long distances of many atoms the tendency of the magnetic dipoles to reduce their energy by orienting in opposite directions wins out. If all the dipoles in a piece of ferromagnetic material are aligned parallel, it creates a large magnetic field extending into the space around it. This contains a lot of magnetostatic energy. The material can reduce this energy by splitting into many domains pointing in different directions, so the magnetic field is confined to small local fields in the material, reducing the volume of the field. The domains are separated by thin domain walls a number of molecules thick, in which the direction of magnetization of the dipoles rotates smoothly from one domain's direction to the other.

So, that says it; there is energy contained in the macro-alignment of the magnetic moments. Next questions relevant to the "magnet motor" in the video: How much energy is stored in this manner? Is it enough to explain the effect? Is there a known mechanism by which this occurs?

To see the problem with these perpetual motion machines, let's go into the basics of energy.

Work (energy) = force X distance , In engines of rotational power, HorsePower(hp=work energy)= torque (force) X rpm (function of distance+time)

Force or torque is static. You can have a 10lb weight suspended by a rope, and the force to hold it there is 10lb. Same with torque, you have a wheel on your car static, put a wrench 1ft long on the center bolt, and put 10lb on it. That is 10lb/ft torque to the wheel.

Both objects have a force applied, but are not moving- which leads us to why time/speed is important.

That same 10lb weight being lifted up a certain distance requires energy. No longer it is just static.
That same wrench with 10lb/ft torque to turn the wheel a certain distance per time (rpm) requires energy. No longer it is static.

So Work= force X distance... The same force, but more it moves the object is work.... Work is a force that is applied to change something.

Now the machines that turn turn turn with no input, are they actually doing work?

Well, those machines are where you have very little, if almost 0 force (just against friction), but with speed/distance per time.
The spinning wheel can be started with an initial force to get it spinning, and if the bearings have very little friction, it will keep spinning and spinning. Almost no work is done, because there is almost no force

Work= force X distance = (almost zero) X huge distance = almost zero.
OR
Work= torque X rpm = (almost zero) X high speed(rpm) = almost zero.


So, the problem that happens with a lot of these machines is that we see something spinning quickly and it doesn't stop. Looks like it takes a lot of energy, but no- there is nothing that is being done by that rotation. It's just doing a tiny bit of work against friction to keep it spinning.

Magnets can store some energy, but like a capacitor, it is very small compared to the battery or other chemical source.'
A battery with a loop of wire (coil) can make a very strong magnet for some time until it is depleted.

A static magnetic force is like lifting the weight up and holding it there. (force)

To get work from the magnet, there has to be movement too (distance). In an electro magnet like in an electric motor, the magnetic forces are being switched back and forth to create that movement, but it takes energy IN, to get energy out.
Or, you can flip the magnet back and forth to create the same effect, which is pretty much what a dynamo/generator is.

So, we see how everything is dependent on time in the world of energy.
It is linear time, which is what we have to work with here in 3rd density.
I can't imagine how energy works in 4th density and up where time is not linear.
That puts a different explanation to "distance" in that work(energy) formula.
I suppose that is why UFO's etc, can seem to violate the laws of physics from our perspective.

 

[Zasino]

So, that says it; there is energy contained in the macro-alignment of the magnetic moments. Next questions relevant to the "magnet motor" in the video: How much energy is stored in this manner? Is it enough to explain the effect? Is there a known mechanism by which this occurs?

Here's one way to prove or disprove the "magnet motor".
Let's imagine an identical setup, but with non-magnetic pegs of the same weight and dimension in place of the Nd magnets.
We can easily measure the amount of work required to keep it spinning at the same rate as the magnet motor.
Then, let the magnet motor spin until it stops, i.e. the magnets are exhausted.
Now, work required * duration of spin gives the total energy consumed.
If the latter is about the same as the (calculated) potential energy in the fresh magnets, the device is "debunked" and Q.E.D.
Otherwise, we're in business
.A

 

[monotonic]

Theoretically, if letting the device run itself will exhaust the field of the magnets, then forcing it to run backwards by connecting it to a motor should recharge the fields of the magnets.

And I just can't forget about Leedskalnin's Perpetual Holder thing. Yet I feel it deserves mention in any fringe magnetics discussion.

 

[QuantumLogic]

Well, one source of input energy that could be used is RF. When you have an antenna on a tower for a transceiver, you have to be VERY careful disconnecting the antenna from the radio. There is an enormous charge residing in the antenna/cable assembly- enough that it can kill you. I've actually been curious to see exactly how much amperage and voltage can be measured, but considering the risk, I have not tried it yet. Even if it didn't kill me, RF burns hurt