Cool Perpetual Motion Machines

[penny_075]

I'd have to agree that it is mostly likely that if work is done in the fall, such as pushing a plunger, that the system will eventually run down due to small losses of heat due to friction and such.

If any of the pressurized air manages to get out, you are loosing energy there also. If you have to pressurize the tanks due to lost pressure, very quickly the system will run down to a stop.

I don't think adding complexity to the design will fix the issues. People have been adding complexity to such devices for thousands of years, and not once have they succeeded in anything better then small losses that just let the system run longer, but not perpetually.

I don't think the system is broken, it should work. You are very welcome to use mathematics to prove its inability to work

I also believe plungers will make it possible to make the system more efficient which I will prove with mathematics very soon

I will say this, until I prove my design physically works then it is science fiction.

I will also say, since you have zero mathematical proof that this machine dose not work I will reserve the right for rebuttal.

[theotherguy]

I will say this, until I prove my design physically works then it is science fiction.

I will also say, since you have zero mathematical proof that this machine dose not work I will reserve the right for rebuttal.

Have you tried physically building one yet? If you do, would you please post a video of the results? Mathematics are useful tools, but can't replace a working model.

[aquatus1]

LOL Nobel Prize, priceless. I understand, some people need to be shown real apples and oranges to understand 1 + 1 = 2.

Well...yes. When you compare apples and oranges and your answer is 2, it is understandable that people would be confused.

I welcome you to disprove my theory with hard numbers that is if you have the wisdom or knowledge to do so.

In all fairness, you haven't presented a theory yet.

In the mean time I will prove my concept with hard numbers soon. I will also invite you to debunk it with using hard numbers. I understand how even the simplest of concepts can confuse the best of us my self included. I will post my findings on this site.

Looking forward to it. I won't pretend that i don't expect it to work, but you already new that, I suspect. This is not a field with a strong probability of success.

I wonder if the inventor of the TV won a Nobel Prize? LOL

Farnsworth? Nah, you don't get an award for applied science. You have to make a pretty remarkable breakthrough, and redefining the laws of physics as we know them...yeah, that would definitely count.

I don't think the system is broken, it should work. You are very welcome to use mathematics to prove its inability to work

Your system, or the original?

I also believe plungers will make it possible to make the system more efficient which I will prove with mathematics very soon

This...wouldn't really accomplish much. Efficiency isn't the issue. Any energy loss not accounted for by an energy gain will invalidate this as a PMD (perpetual motion device). Perpetual doesn't mean "really long time". It means "never ending".

I will say this, until I prove my design physically works then it is science fiction.

It's still an interesting thought experiment, though. I find PMDs to be right up there with Goldberg machines. Kind of two polar opposites of the same line of thinking.

I will also say, since you have zero mathematical proof that this machine dose not work I will reserve the right for rebuttal.

Well, let's not get carried away. The mathematical proof of the laws of physics are not quite so easily dismissed, even if we ignore the fallacy of proving a negative.

Edited May 12, 2015 by aquatus1

[ChrLzs]

LOL Nobel Prize, priceless.

It's not all that hilarious. By putting together a couple of VERY basic physical laws, the idea of creating free energy is impossible. It really is as simple as that (as we shall see below, if you are willing to participate in good faith..) If you disprove any of those physical laws, you will almost certainly be in the running for a Nobel..

I understand, some people need to be shown real apples and oranges to understand 1 + 1 = 2.

Could you point out exactly what I or anyone said that indicates that we don't understand fruit or addition? I think most folks here do understand and accept basic arithmetic (why, even maths, heaven forbid). We also understand that if the equation you provided is about FRUIT, then it is true given the assumptions you outlined, namely 1 apple plus 1 orange does indeed equal two pieces of fruit, using dictionary defined words.. If however it was about an apple plus an orange, and the answer was to be in apples or oranges then the equation is false. It's all about careful use of words and logical/lateral thinking. Is anyone here not ok with that?

I welcome you to disprove my theory with hard numbers that is if you have the wisdom or knowledge to do so.

Certainly. Indeed, let's start now. Up above, you used a very simple equation, and we had to assume you were using standard definitions of numbers, and how addition works... Agreed? If not, then any debate about 1+1=2 or anything more complicated is meaningless. So let's start with the basic assumptions.

1. That addition, multiplication, division and subtraction are valid mathematical tools, and we shall use the standard Base10 numeric system.

Yes?

2. That basic physics formulas, such as Force=Mass x Acceleration (F=MA, aka Newton's 2nd Law) are valid, as long as standard measurements/units apply (eg kilograms, metres, seconds, etc).

Yes? (For the moment, let's just agree on F=MA - I'll add each new one separately, and there aren't many (we don't need E=mc², I don't think..)

3. That the figure used for 'gravity' (ie gravitational acceleration) is 9.8metres / sec².

Yes?

If you dispute any of those, or can't see how they are applicable, please elaborate and I'll try to help...

There are only a few more basics to outline and agree upon, and then, once you have a basic design to show us we can start applying these laws with real numbers (that you will supply) to see where we end up. And I hope others will join in - if anyone sees any errors or problems with the analysis, please post freely. I love being wrong coz that's when I learn stuff......

And of course at the end of all this, you will be able to show us your working device..

In the mean time I will prove my concept with hard numbers soon.

I can't wait! In the meantime, feel free to dispute anything that has been posted on the thread so far, and feel free to show us the calculation approach you will use, and then the actual calculations once you are ready. Take your time, I'll remember the thread and bump it up for attention from time to time..

[aquatus1]

Tone it down, ChrLzs.

[Emma_Acid]

This should remove air friction and solid-solid friction from the equation, so the ball bearing will not lose any rotational energy. A perfect (theoretical) perpetual energy machine!

That's no more a perpetual energy machine than an object spinning in outer space. A perpetual energy machine needs to give out more energy than it takes to run. Simply having something spinning in a vacuum is no good to anyone, and neither is it violating any physical laws.

So what you're actually describing is "perpetual motion", which doesn't take into account the fact that you can never have a perfect vacuum - the objects will always decay into the vacuum contaminating it - also, there will be dust and other particles which will create friction.

The spinning object itself will also create a small amount of heat which it will lose to the surroundings.

So... no. That isn't a perpetual energy machine.

[+DieChecker]

I was doing some rough math on this last night, and I don't see a problem with the ball going into the water and up the other side. What I do see a problem with is maintaining the pressure that allows the column of water to be high enough for the ball to fall. More specifically how the ball gets from the low pressure side to the high pressure side. Even opening a small door for a half second is going to allow the two sides to equalize. If you use a complex system of doors, then you still are going to loose pressure. Assuming you need at least several feet of falling height, I'm not sure a ball light enough to be buoyant will be heavy enough to push a plunger to re-balance the water columns.

If we assume something like a two foot head, that requires a pressure of about 15.6 psi. Atmospheric pressure is 14.7 psi, so that is a delta of about 1 psi. To generate that from a standing still ball would require either a ball of volume 27.7 cubic inches (based on density being less then water for buoyancy), with a diameter of 3.8 inches, or a ball too heavy to float.

And that is just to generate the needed pressure delta. The more work you want to do, the larger the ball has to be, because you can't just make it denser. And with a larger ball you run into all kinds of problems, such as getting that ball under the water and into the other water column.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/hydrostatic-pressure-water-d_1632.html

[penny_075]

Sorry. I am still having trouble understanding this. By definition, static fields are neither one directional or pointing anywhere. They are static, meaning they are in place, motionless, neutral, with no bias in any direction. Any motion or change is, again by definition, not static.

What you are describing there, a downward force being met with an upward force, is pretty much the basics of physics: Force, most commonly displayed with gravity as an example.

If you add energy to either of those forces, movement will occur. This is fairly entry-level physics. There is little left to theorize about in regards to this.

Your use of "offset static fields" is a bit confusing. If something falls, such as the balloon falling through the air, this means that it lost buoyancy. In order to return to its original height, enough energy has to be used to increase the buoyancy. The amount of energy needed for this is going to be equivalent to the energy it lost before. It may be where it was before, but it isn't going to be doubling anything, because it consumed the energy to get back up there.

In the real world, of course, it will actually have a net loss in energy, as energy is always lost in conversion, and you can't do work without expending energy.

If you drop a rubber ball, the energy it gains from the fall is going to be equivalent to the energy required to lift it back up to it's original height. However, it will not have that energy available, because the act of falling, compressing, rebounding, and rebounding, is all going to require Work, which means you will lose energy. That is why a bouncing ball eventually stops. Every bounce requires energy, and since no new energy is being added, eventually it runs out. In your above example, you won't even be able to get the object back to its original height without adding energy to compensate for the lost energy.

Not sure what "energy signature" is being used for in this sentence.

Well, yes. This is the definition of a perpetual motion machine.

Again...it's all good stuff and I strongly encourage you to experiment, however...a good Intro to Physics class will cover most of this.

I love how you left out the fact that the law of conservation is based on an object moving through one static field.

Please explain where the machine fails. its easy to pull information from an abstract principle like the law of conservation but it dose not apply here because there are two fields. IE the balls don't lose buoyancy because its traveling through air and then travels through water. the buoyancy differs because its traveling through different substances.

example if I submerge a basket ball under water and it floats dose it mean it continue floating when it comes in contact with 1 atmosphere of air.

you have to remember there are two different substances the buoyant objects travel through just like a basket ball it floats in water and falls in one atmosphere of air.

once again I will encourage you to take that physic class. If we lived by your rules an object that floats in water would float away into space LOL

Edited May 30, 2015 by penny_075

[penny_075]

Ok I've been gone for a while. My apologies. I wanted to give you guys a chance to disprove my concept by way of pointing out where it would fail mathematically so I simplified.

Die checker brought up something very important. He said it may not be possible to pressurize one of the chambers because the high needed to pressurize the chamber would adversely effect pressure in the main chamber IE he feels there no point of equilibrium between the main and secondary chambers. in simpler terms increasing one increases the other infinitely. I feel that modern mathematics gives us the ability to balance the volume of each chamber so it would work. Balancing the equilibrium between the chambers is not simple concept to convey and it was not what I set out to do. So I altered the machine simplified so that I would not have to explain terminal velocity, and solve a complex quadratic equation the layman would not have the ability to understand.

I said all of that to show you this https://youtu.be/M0xY4Vrvpm8

and give you these

Figures Used

Large sphere: diameter = 0.3178048 m or 317.8048 mm or 12.512 inches large, weight = 100 lbs sphere 1, volume = 16806.60 cm^3

Small Sphere: weight =85 lbs

Hollow Sphere: weight = 15 lbs, buoyancy force = 164 newton's

Gates: weight = 111 newton's or 25 lbs

Pulleys: maniacal advantage = 5

Flappers: Weight: 5 lbs or 25 newtons

Formulas used

Buoyancy Force = density of water *volume of the object or displaced water * gravity

V = Pie/6 d^3

Pie/6 d^3

Volume= 0.52359877559829887307710723054658 * 0.032098250128462446592 = 0.01680660446611087654868031899161 m^3

Buoyancy Force = 1000 * 0.01680660446611087654868031899161 * 9.8 = 164.70472376788659017706712611778 newtons

Buoyancy Force =164.816444 newtons

Sphere weight = 15 lbs or 66.72332442375 newtons

164.816444 newtons - 66.72332442375 newton's = 98.09311957625 newtons of upward force

Pulley: the pulleys mechanical advantage can be increased these figures are not static

you can go here to create two metal spheres http://www.custompartnet.com/quick-tool/weight-calculator a large one and small one I subtracted the small one from the large one to simulate a hollow sphere.

If you have trouble with converting units go here http://www.convertunits.com/

if you don't understand how a pulley works go here

I used flappers to contain the water coulombs on the left and right. If you don't understand how its possible separate two atmospheres go to your bathroom take the lid off the top of your toilet and flush it. if you don't understand what's happening there then you wont understand what's going on in this machine.

I invite to use your math skills, physic skills to prove exactly where the machine will stop working or where it fails. Please keep in mind the figures are abstract, IE just to prove fundamental mechanics of the machine.

Oh and please if your going to give an example don't compare what's happening in this machine to a hot air balloon floating through one static field type. My machine uses air and water. if your going to use an example of how it doesn't work please point out how it doesn't work using the static fields present in the machine.

I know I wont change the mind of the hard core disbelievers. take the time to look it over objectively I think you will be surprised.

[penny_075]

Oh I wanted to say if you can disprove the mechanics of how the machine works I applaud you. I know there are people here that believe its impossible for such a machine to work. There is nothing I can say to change that but I do want to say thanks for your comments. It actually furthers the conversation for both sides and we all come out better. I say that to say I don't take offence to any of your objections. If I have offended anyone here I apologies

[ChrLzs]

So you've worked out a bouyancy force, and think that will give you perpetual motion from a machine that involves other aspects, aspects completely ignored by your 'maths'?

No velocities, no vectors, no momentum, nothing else?

Sigh. I would suggest talking to an engineer, or take this to a university high school student doing physics...

BTW, can you please look up significant figures (in particular the bits about false precision) and learn how to use them properly.. - my eyes started to hurt when I saw you got to over thirty, and I lost the will to keep reading.

[penny_075]

So you've worked out a bouyancy force, and think that will give you perpetual motion from a machine that involves other aspects, aspects completely ignored by your 'maths'?

No velocities, no vectors, no momentum, nothing else?

Sigh. I would suggest talking to an engineer, or take this to a university high school student doing physics...

BTW, can you please look up significant figures (in particular the bits about false precision) and learn how to use them properly.. - my eyes started to hurt when I saw you got to over thirty, and I lost the will to keep reading.

Thanks for your input. You bring up something that's very important I didn't provide velocities, vectors or momentum because these things are self explanatory. That is these are not factors that impede the machines functionality. They would explain how the speed of which the machine works, the speed in which the spheres travel through water ect.... It is not my intent to show how quickly or slowly the machine works but convey an ideal how it works. If you would like to calculate these please be my guest. The formula I used for buoyancy actually assumes the liquid being used is water at 20 degrees centigrade. Knowing these you can give arbitrary figures to height in which the machine drags the weighted gates out of the water multiply that times 5 to get the distance in which one sphere would have to do work. You can also create your slope of the inclines and calculate these speeds yourself, even calculate terminal velocity lol. I think you will find like I did knowing these factors are good for creating a actual machine but as far as conveying the ideal they can they can all be neglected.

Velocities, vectors, and momentum Good question but not needed

Edited May 31, 2015 by penny_075

[DarkHunter]

I just looked at this machine for a few minutes and already found multiple problems with it, since it is late I am going to keep this short and not get into the math of it.

The first major problem with this machine is keeping the unbalanced water levels. No matter how creative you can get with moving the ball from where it raises up to where it drops you are going to get pressure changes that will cause the higher water level to drop and the lower water level to rise till they are equal to each other.

Second problem is with water displacement. When the ball goes into the water it is going to displace its volume and that water is going to have to go somewhere. Due to the higher pressure of the atmosphere in the low water level it will mostly if not fully raise the water level on the high water level part which will cause the water to spill out of its container. That can be avoided by increasing the height to account for the displaced water but then you would need to add in a mechanism to raise the ball. Just getting the ball out of the water itself is going to be problematic since it is going to require energy.

The third problem is getting the ball or whatever object you want to use under the water itself. The object in question is going to have to build up enough energy to get itself completely submerged under water using just gravity. This plays a bit into the second problem, if the object isn't dense enough it will never fully submerge itself and if it is dense enough to fully submerse itself using the energy it gained from gravity then when it raises itself on the other side you are going to need to use energy to move it out of the water.

Given more time I could probably find a lot more problems with this but I am getting tired and just want to go to bed, not even sure if I described what I was pointing out accurately enough to be understood correctly.

If I have the time later in the week I will try to prove mathematically why this won't work but to put it bluntly to prove why this won't work is going to suck. To prove it doesn't work is going to require using fluid mechanics and dynamics at the least and it is the part of fluid mechanics that I really don't like. Could take the easy way out and just use thermodynamics but I feel like those proofs would really be accepted as reasons why it doesn't work cause it wouldn't do it directly but with enthalpy and the conservation of mass/energy.

[+DieChecker]

Second problem is with water displacement. When the ball goes into the water it is going to displace its volume and that water is going to have to go somewhere.

This is a really good point. The volume of water could be set so that the ball floats to the top right at the level for it to roll into the drop cylinder, but.... You'd need some kind of device to prevent any water from getting into the other cylinder when the water level rises, when the ball enters the water. This rolls into the pressure issue, which also would require some kind of impossibly tight, efficient seal, otherwise replacing the pressure loose will quickly eat up any energy generated.

Here is a demonstration example:

Try taking a cylinder open at both ends (like a straw) and submerge it in water a known distance, like say 4 inches. Being sure to cover one end with your hand/finger. This will create a pressurized air column in the cylinder. Then momentarily, as quick as you can, fully lift your hand/finger off and slap it back on. Then raise the cylinder from the water and see how much water you have let into it.

Now imagine having a device to move the ball in this system so fast through a gate that the loss is very low. That's going to be very hard to engineer.

Originally the concept was to use a air lock type intermediary chamber, but that is just making the loss a known. The loss will still be there and be significant.

Edited June 1, 2015 by DieChecker

[penny_075]

I just looked at this machine for a few minutes and already found multiple problems with it, since it is late I am going to keep this short and not get into the math of it.

The first major problem with this machine is keeping the unbalanced water levels. No matter how creative you can get with moving the ball from where it raises up to where it drops you are going to get pressure changes that will cause the higher water level to drop and the lower water level to rise till they are equal to each other.

Second problem is with water displacement. When the ball goes into the water it is going to displace its volume and that water is going to have to go somewhere. Due to the higher pressure of the atmosphere in the low water level it will mostly if not fully raise the water level on the high water level part which will cause the water to spill out of its container. That can be avoided by increasing the height to account for the displaced water but then you would need to add in a mechanism to raise the ball. Just getting the ball out of the water itself is going to be problematic since it is going to require energy.

The third problem is getting the ball or whatever object you want to use under the water itself. The object in question is going to have to build up enough energy to get itself completely submerged under water using just gravity. This plays a bit into the second problem, if the object isn't dense enough it will never fully submerge itself and if it is dense enough to fully submerse itself using the energy it gained from gravity then when it raises itself on the other side you are going to need to use energy to move it out of the water.

Given more time I could probably find a lot more problems with this but I am getting tired and just want to go to bed, not even sure if I described what I was pointing out accurately enough to be understood correctly.

If I have the time later in the week I will try to prove mathematically why this won't work but to put it bluntly to prove why this won't work is going to suck. To prove it doesn't work is going to require using fluid mechanics and dynamics at the least and it is the part of fluid mechanics that I really don't like. Could take the easy way out and just use thermodynamics but I feel like those proofs would really be accepted as reasons why it doesn't work cause it wouldn't do it directly but with enthalpy and the conservation of mass/energy.

DarkHunter you pose some very interesting questions. Thanks for taking the time out to further the conversation

I apologize if the video did not answers most of your questions.

so I will.

question 1 "The first major problem with this machine is keeping the unbalanced water levels." this is done two ways. one I use

weighted flappers similar to what you see in a toilet they are located on the outer section of the machine. the video shows how they work they open at varying times the top ones will not open until the bottom ones shut close and are sealed. the second way the water level is kept even is via air pressure like an upside down cup. if the flappers fail then the water levels on the right side will fall and the water level in the middle will rise. but as long as science provides for sealing one pressure system from another like a toilet it will work.

question 2 "water displacement. " if you notice in the video there are gaps in the lower outer portion of the machine these gapes lead to a open water source like the ocean, a river, or lake. the displaced water flows through the gaps when the spheres are in the water. when they are not in the water that displaced water comes back into the machine.

question 3 "The third problem is getting the ball or whatever object you want to use under the water itself. " this is done by the weighted gates which sink in water with 111. newtons or more of downward force. the spheres have an upward force of 98 newtons of upward force if you subtract the two you should get at least a net downward force of 13 newtons which means the gates have the ability to push the balls underwater at an angle.

Thanks again for your repay let us know If you able to prove mathematically why this won't work

[penny_075]

This is a really good point. The volume of water could be set so that the ball floats to the top right at the level for it to roll into the drop cylinder, but.... You'd need some kind of device to prevent any water from getting into the other cylinder when the water level rises, when the ball enters the water. This rolls into the pressure issue, which also would require some kind of impossibly tight, efficient seal, otherwise replacing the pressure loose will quickly eat up any energy generated.

Here is a demonstration example:

Try taking a cylinder open at both ends (like a straw) and submerge it in water a known distance, like say 4 inches. Being sure to cover one end with your hand/finger. This will create a pressurized air column in the cylinder. Then momentarily, as quick as you can, fully lift your hand/finger off and slap it back on. Then raise the cylinder from the water and see how much water you have let into it.

Now imagine having a device to move the ball in this system so fast through a gate that the loss is very low. That's going to be very hard to engineer.

Originally the concept was to use a air lock type intermediary chamber, but that is just making the loss a known. The loss will still be there and be significant.

DieChecker I'm happy to see you reply. I made this modification in response to your original question. I'm very please to answer you questions with its operation.

question 1. You'd need some kind of device to prevent any water from getting into the other cylinder when the water level rises, when the ball enters the water

answer part a. Please keep in mind the video is very abstract and not exact. If I were building the machine today not fill the outer coulombs with water but compensate for the volume of the spheres. IE the levels would seem higher when the spheres are present then when they are not it would seem like less is there.

example if I put a ice cube in a glass of water it will increase the water level of the glass if I take it out it would decrease. calculating the volume of water to fill the cup with out spilling is the key

answer part b if water were to spill from the outer coulombs to the inner ones it would not effect the operation of the machine. as long as the water levels allowed the spheres to float past the gates on the outside of the machine and did not implead the ball from

falling past the inner gates.

The real problem would be water drying up or significant losses of water from its outer source if this cant be maintained the machine wont work right

[Sundew]

The closest thing I have seen to PM is the Jaegar Le Coultre Atmos Clock. I happen to own one and it runs without electricity, or batteries, or winding. It runs off of barometric pressure in the atmosphere if I remember correctly and presumably can run pretty much longer than I will live, perhaps "forever." It does, therefore, has a source of energy input, but not an obvious one.

[+DieChecker]

An idea I just had is...

If you're planning on collecting energy from the falling ball. Then shouldn't you be able to also collect energy from the rising ball? Isn't the upward draw of buoyancy going pull the ball up regardless of if it turns a wheel or not. Just as the downward energy could be collected from a wheel/piston.

Just a random thought.....

[+DieChecker]

The real problem would be water drying up or significant losses of water from its outer source if this cant be maintained the machine wont work right

If there is water loss in the system, due to leakage or somesuch, then eventually the system would fail to go high enough for the ball to return. A major issue. So, the system would have to be sealed.

This thing will start turning into a monster if you have to have all kinds of trap doors, and wheels and piston pumps trying to maintain air pressures, and move the balls around.

Any luck on equations, or hard numbers yet?

The potential energy of the fall would seem to be critical as to what kind of other actions the system could support. Pistons, wheels and such are going to have losses due to friction/heat.

[penny_075]

An idea I just had is...

If you're planning on collecting energy from the falling ball. Then shouldn't you be able to also collect energy from the rising ball? Isn't the upward draw of buoyancy going pull the ball up regardless of if it turns a wheel or not. Just as the downward energy could be collected from a wheel/piston.

Just a random thought.....

I thought about collecting energy from the rising ball too but I then I remembered there's a lot friction assisted with transferring energy from one form to the next mechanically.

I'm sure the rising ball would have to have enough force to overcome friction and still have some left over to move upward but I figured its already moving pretty slowing through water IE (drag and viscosity) the time it takes it to get to the top for another cycle would more than likely make it very inefficient, that is a free floating sphere would more than likely go through 2 or 3 cycles during the time it would take the one sphere that is transforming energy

[StarMountainKid]

The closest thing I have seen to PM is the Jaegar Le Coultre Atmos Clock. I happen to own one and it runs without electricity, or batteries, or winding. It runs off of barometric pressure in the atmosphere if I remember correctly and presumably can run pretty much longer than I will live, perhaps "forever." It does, therefore, has a source of energy input, but not an obvious one.

My dad had a clock like that all made of brass in a glass case. It would always stop working after a little while. I guess because the barometric pressure in the room didn't change often enough. A more sensitive mechanism would only work as long as planet earth has an atmosphere, therefore not a real PM mechanism.

A real PM machine would produce more energy than it requires to operate. Therefore, if not connected to some output that transfers this additional energy it creates to this output producing work, the PM machine would increase in speed exponentially, due to the fact that the excess energy it produces would be applied to itself.

[penny_075]

If there is water loss in the system, due to leakage or somesuch, then eventually the system would fail to go high enough for the ball to return. A major issue. So, the system would have to be sealed.

This thing will start turning into a monster if you have to have all kinds of trap doors, and wheels and piston pumps trying to maintain air pressures, and move the balls around.

Any luck on equations, or hard numbers yet?

The potential energy of the fall would seem to be critical as to what kind of other actions the system could support. Pistons, wheels and such are going to have losses due to friction/heat.

Before I answer your question I want to say, Dude you are on it, you don't waist your time trying to disprove the obvious.

You are right the system would need to replenish the water in the outer tanks that are lost over time but the water lost from the side tanks are neglected because the time it would take to drain a significant amount of water from those tanks varies.

1) The temp inside the system cant be too high. if temp is too high water can evaporate inside cause loss of air pressure and water from the outer tanks. I believe the machine should be located deep under water to naturally regulate its temp.

2) Water loss can be prevented by the speed in which the gate and spheres are pulled out of the water if its regulated or timed mechanically if its done properly all of the water on the sphere and gate can drain back into the outer tanks before moved in to the upmost position limiting the water loss from the outer tanks to the inter tanks to a minimum. IE It may be humanly impossible to stop all water loss. but it should be possible to minimize the loss such that it would be 60 or 70 years before you would have to use a water replenishing cycle. The parts of the machine would wear out before then and the tanks could be topped off as part of regular maintenance. Or a replenishing cycle could be added in to do so automatically

I guess the short answer would be theoretically if temperature is kept the same and all the water from the outer gates and sphere is drain back into the tanks there should be zero water loss but we both know humans are imperfect and that if a machine was built produce power people would not wait the full time to drain the water back into the tanks call it neglect able and there will be water loss which would need to be attended to from time to time.

You had a question about the math. I provided a small portion of it in previous post. I figured it would be enough to show the basic mechanics of how the machine works. It would take me a while to publish a full diagram with facts and figures. Building perpetual motion machines is not my full time job. Let me know if there is a section you looking more details on I will try to post an analysis of it. Please keep in mind the more complex your quire the longer it will take me to answer.

Edited June 2, 2015 by penny_075

[penny_075]

My dad had a clock like that all made of brass in a glass case. It would always stop working after a little while. I guess because the barometric pressure in the room didn't change often enough. A more sensitive mechanism would only work as long as planet earth has an atmosphere, therefore not a real PM mechanism.

A real PM machine would produce more energy than it requires to operate. Therefore, if not connected to some output that transfers this additional energy it creates to this output producing work, the PM machine would increase in speed exponentially, due to the fact that the excess energy it produces would be applied to itself.

You are correct the definition of a perpetual motion machine is a machine that has a higher power out put than its power input

giving it the ability to power itself with some power to spare. There are a few principles of physics that wont allow for a traditional perpetual motion machine to work. One would be friction and gravity. Because a machine works in environment where there is friction and gravity it is impossible for it to have a output that is equal to is input. these principles fall under the laws of conservation and are all based on closed systems

I think the definition of perpetual Motion needs to be re evaluated to included systems that use large energy sources like solar, wind, hydro, and gravity. Of course, I have zero publications who's going to listen to me

[StarMountainKid]

Let's not forget entropy in this discussion (if it hasn't been mentioned before). I'm wondering if dark energy could be considered perpetual motion. Also, the creation and destruction of virtual particles. In relation to that, since Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that the lowest possible energy of free space always has some positive value (vacuum energy). I suppose space itself is a perpetual machine.

Edited June 2, 2015 by StarMountainKid

[+DieChecker]

I've read that even a object moving in a pure vacuum and no gravity will eventually run down to a stop as quantum fluctuations and random photons, will eventually create drag on it.