Why is Perpetual Motion Considered to be Impossible?

The term "perpetual motion" has a couple of problems.

Problem 1: The machine that uses this term must last longer than forever. That in itself makes it not a real device, but just a suggestion, of a hypothetical question: "What would someone call an unreal device that could run without using energy and last longer than forever?" The term is no more than a question. Somehow, people started using this term to describe real machines. Because people of science get upset over the simplest of things like calling magnetic energy, energy, not to be confused as a repellent. Taking the perpetual motion out of context really drives the science community one step over their refrain.

Problem 2: People that work in trying to make devices that science people say is impossible. That in itself again should not be done because if a person makes something that science people say is impossible, it makes the whole science process have to rewrite the science books and say they may have been wrong.

And because science lawyers make up the rules as they go along what is real and what is not real. It is best if working in something that science proclaimed impossible, don't let them know what you are doing until after it can prove the point.

Even then, it is possible that the science will never look at the project so it can remain impossible forever. Or have the inventor and the machine vanish.

Some how people are confused about the term thermodynamics that deals with perpetual motion as gravity or magnetic gravity. This is not heat related. There is a law that deals with gravity as F = mass and G = gravity with no heat involved. Don't confuse the two. There is no heat in gravity therefor The laws of thermodynamics is not related to energy form gravity or magnetic. Only uneducated people don't know the difference. When talking about heat talk Thermodynamics. When talking energy that produces no heat do not say thermodynamics you just point out how uneducated you really are. Really. People, lean the difference. don't make yourself look uneducated.

Tom W. EttCM Energy Technologies

If somebody tells you that perpetual motion is impossible, then

that person must have had access to a time machine, travelled onward to the end of time, found out for themselves, perpetual motion is impossible, came back and then told you! I don't think so, do you? If perpetual motion is found, and the device breaks the so-called

'laws' of motion, too bad! Post 11 seems to sum things up nicely.

I would like to say that if a system is 100 percent efficient, than perpetual motion is possible only to maintain its own revolution- speed. But, no more energy can be extracted from it! Now if we go higher than 100 percent efficiency, than all that energy from that system is created free! And that's where I would be a skeptic and believe the thermodynamics (for now)!

If you accept the laws of thermodynamics as the whole picture, then you are truly lost in the dark. E=mc2 shines a bit of light, but I can't make you see it anymore than I can make you see the sun for what it is. Happy trails.

The two rules of thermodynamics previously stated are the fact. Everything else is just conjecture. For instance, there is no law of physics that states an aircraft can't fly. We are bound by the rules of the third dimension and earth, friction and gravity are constants. Perhaps where friction and gravity have no place, perpetual motion may exist, e.g., space or another dimension.

There is an example of perpetual motion that is irrefutable. You live in it and you see it every day. It is the "universe"! If you think the universe is limitless, then energy is limitless, for mass is energy. The overriding theory explains this. Einstein and Sir Isaac Newton were both right to a certain degree. Happy trails.

No.energy is not infinite. It's finite, but the quantity of energy is so massive that it virtually seems to be infinite for humans. Also, energy always converts from one form to another and yes, energy can neither be destroyed nor can energy be created.

Also, the Einstein equation suggests a conversion relation between mass and energy.

One scientist proposed further based on this Einstein's theory that mass is nothing but a massively entangled loops of energies. I don't know whether what this new scientist claims makes sense or not.

I'm a rookie at physics, but if energy can be neither created nor destroyed, does that mean energy is infinite? If yes, if you could create something that could store energy indefinitely, wouldn't you have limitless energy? If so, does that mean that machine would be somewhat near perpetual?

Perpetual motion sounds impossible but close examination would reveal that 1+1 does not always equal 2. It can equal 3 or more if the rules change. One example is curved space time, gravity. The laws of thermodynamics are only through if the universe works like clock work. So, if there is a curvature of space, the laws change, allowing 1+1 to equal 3, thus creating perpetual motion in this universe.

@anon309930: Scientists are trying to do this. The magnetic energy deteriorates after a long time, as long as a year, or in some cases, as long as a decade, but magnets could be re-energized synthetically.

Today, scientists are facing lots of problems in providing correct shielding, just like scientists once upon a time were facing problems in cloning.

However, where there is a will, there is a way. So, scientists succeeded in overcoming the problems of cloning through innovative thinking and today, cloning is a reality, and not merely science fiction.

That's why we can say that in the future, magnetic engines could be a reality.

Exactly! But where there is a will,there is a way!

Magnet is itself a battery with energy stores within two poles and the magnetic Energy deteriorates after a long period of time due to Hysteresis.

Research is in place for magnetic batteries and success has been achieved and the related research has developed ways to recharge the energy through synthesis.

Magnetic energy is a source of freely available energy but it isn't a permanent source of energy.

If we can develop an easier way to convert Photon energy into compression magnetic energy in the magnet itself, then it will be really a better, freely available source of energy.

@anon309930 (Post 52): The problem with using shielding to interrupt magnetic fields is that the shield itself is strongly attracted to the permanent magnets, thus engaging and disengaging the shield would require an amount of energy that is equal to or greater than the kinetic potential of such mechanisms.

No excess energy can be derived from this approach, the overall interaction of magnetic fields will not violate the conservation of energy. Therefore it's impossible to mechanically extract "free" energy from the alignments of a permanent magnet field (even in spin based mechanisms).

Perpetual motion (for now) does not exist, simply because man still does not know how to produce work and heat without reducing the concentration of the energy required to produce it.

In other words, all designs of constructed machines by man (so far), and the phenomena that occur in nature, all energy consumes to produce work and heat (irrespective of the fact that the process is reversible or irreversible). When designing machines (with special designs, avoiding the decline of the "energy" of the machine, without expansions, involving mobile boundaries), that produce work and heat without decrease of the concentration of the energy of the machine, only this thus obtain perpetual motion. --Ramiro

To believe the earth is in perpetual motion does, in fact, infer that there is a celestial body, but in order for it to be considered perpetual motion, the celestial being must be never-ending, thus causing its force to continue forever.

And such suppression is not mainly related to politics or petroleum industry politics.

Such suppression is due to man's ego, which did not want to accept the reality, and didn't want to explore new things. Just like some people believe religion madly without questioning the logic behind it. This stupid dictatorship created words like "perpetual" and definitions like "a machine which creates more energy than input."

Do you think that it was rally necessary to create such definitions in thermodynamics? Rather, all these stuff is more common sense.

Why include the word "friction"? The inclusion of the word "friction" itself makes the definition wrong, as if the machine will run forever in absence of friction without energy input.

They can officially define any machine to create madness within the public to suppress inventions which only convert energy. At least the madness will create awareness in general public about such energy suppression.

I only know that gravitational energy powered engines or magnetic energy engines are possible. Any naturally available energy can be converted to other form of energy. I am fascinated by such a machine and sure that it can happen.

Society’s definition of perpetual motion as “motion that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy; impossible in practice because of friction.” Now tell me: Is it possible for anything to move without external sources of energy? Not at all. You also must agree that it is impossible to make anything move on its own.

Another official definition of a perpetual motion machine is a machine that produces more output than input.

I will tell you what may be the possible reason for making such definitions. You will find that people with attitudes like Hitler (dictatorship) probably did not want the creation of gravity engines and magnetic engines. Therefore, these people started creating nonsense definitions of perpetual motion machines, just to suppress real free energy devices.

They wanted to make us fool by creating new words like “perpetual” and by creating a wrong psychology between physics teachers and engineers.

@Aman123: I was going to stop but I can't. Your post 67 is full of confusion. You say that ”Perpetual Motion as per official definition does not need any input or need less input than output.” This sentence shows a lack of understanding about what a perpetual motion machine is. Based on your statement, it is a magical machine that creates energy and every inventor dreams of becoming a god.

Inventors are fascinated by energy sources and create machines to use this energy – existing energy!

No scientist can say that a perpetual motion machine is impossible. Please read the first few posts on this topic. Those people know what they are talking about.

You continuing to talk about perpetual motion machines. Let's say I agree with this.

Don't you think that you are redefining the perpetual motion machine by saying that a perpetual motion machine only converts energy, and does not create energy? Don't you think that will create confusion? How would you convince the majority of society to accept this?

A machine running continuously is possible only if it is fed with energy continuously. Perpetual motion, as per official definition, does not need any input or need less input than output.

Don't you think that it's not feasible to say that perpetual motion is possible?

With a population of billions of people on earth, it's very possible to someone already have a running gravity engine or magnetic engine, but it's unconfirmed.

I see that you like to participate in the conversation without providing any substantive arguments.

One more thing: most inventions do not work or are ridiculous because they are based on a very poor energy source. One of those is the gravity engine! Gravity can be useful only in large scale projects like hydroelectric power plants. Another similar type of poor energy source is solar. Again, if you use it in the desert, it works perfectly, but in northern regions, it is difficult to cover the cost of the installation.

The last one I want to mention is the worst green energy idea there is – wind! A wind turbine will never produce enough energy to cover the cost of installation. This is the worst, worst, worst idea to date! Companies producing turbines (smart) make money on ignorance!

The conclusion to my posts: a perpetual motion machine is not only possible, but it is already made and used. The reason why there are no small scale perpetual motion machines is that there is only one known powerful small scale permanent energy source – magnets (several years of life is permanent enough) and we have not learned how to use them, yet.

When I said, definition set by society (public in the majority of the population) as the standard, I meant the official definition.

I am not contradicting myself. Whenever I say that I have invented a gravity engine, people laugh because they think that I am trying to make something which creates energy. How can they not have common sense?

When I say gravity engine, it means it is a gravitational energy powered device.

If the official definition is followed, then I am creating a gravity engine which isn't perpetual.

@Aman123: Why do you call it "your definition?" This is not my definition; I took it from some official site. Is there any other definition for perpetual motion machines? Do you have a different definition?

In your posts, you continuously contradict yourself. On one hand you agree with me, but then try to defend your own words: "A perpetual motion machine is impossible."

All my posts were against the main article at the top of this forum and all those who say that a perpetual motion machine is impossible.

In post 59 you said that "there is a standard definition set by the society." Can you please post this definition and give example of the perpetual motion machine invention that fits this definition and thus is "impossible"? I will repeat from my previous post: please find one perpetual motion machine that tries to create energy!

Somebody several years ago got bored with the large number of ridiculous perpetual motion machine inventions and said "a perpetual motion machine is impossible," so now everybody repeats it like parrots, without understanding the subject and some try to explain this absurdity.

@anon315117: I am doing the same thing. I am tying to use the available energy for what surrounds us -- like gravitational energy. I am not disagreeing that it's possible to make a working gravity engine.

I am just trying to say that even if your definition of a Perpetual Motion Machine is correct, and other people's definitions are wrong, it's better to stop fighting for a correct definition. It's better to use the word "non-perpetual" or to tell society that a gravity powered engine would only consume energy from its surroundings and would not generate energy.

Realistically, you can't teach the correct definition which you or I think to everyone. A name is just an arbitrary name and if a meaning of that name is recorded as a standard by majority and in most textbooks, it's better to stick to the definition by using the terms like "non-perpetual".

Our final aim is not fixing the correct definition of perpetual motion machines. Our aim is to explain the reality that gravitational energy powered engines or magnetic energy powered engines are possible. When we say "powered", it means it consumes gravitational energy. Our final aim is to make a working gravity engine.

@Aman123: This is official definition of PMM "motion that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy." People use this term to name ridiculous machines that don’t work. I was trying to say that perpetual motion machines are possible and cannot be dismissed, only because the ideas and prototypes are ridiculous. The first planes were ridiculous also.

As I said, all inventors try to use the surrounding energy, and some of those inventions work and convert energy (hydroelectric, wind, solar) and some of them don’t. None of the inventions try to create energy! And none of them are against the laws of thermodynamics. Every single perpetual motion machine was created to utilize some existing, energy not create it. Go and try to find one invention that tried to create energy!

Regular people are fascinated by gravity and magnets, and scientists are fascinated by more complicated energy sources, but both groups have ridiculous ideas for perpetual motion machines. This will continue until somebody comes up with an invention that will produce electricity dirt cheap. It is possible that something like that exists, but it could create chaos in the world so it is kept locked until we will run out of oil.

Robots in factories put thousands of people out of work. Can you imagine what would happened if oil were no longer necessary? Total disaster and hunger -- totally opposite of what everybody imagines.

I appreciate your views, but the thing is, everyone can have different definitions of their own, but there is a standard definition set by the society. And you know if you don't follow the universally famous definitions of PMM, people won't believe us and understand the reality. That's why I prefer separating the terms, "perpetual motion machines" and "gravity engines" by mentioning "non-perpetual."

Why create confusion within society which could have been avoided by using the word "non-perpetual"?

Further, there are two kinds of perpetual motion Machines defined with respect to the laws of thermodynamics. Here again, people get confused!

The definition for perpetual motion machines “motion that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy” is ridiculous. That is why I consider only first part: “motion that continues indefinitely”.

This definition makes no sense as nothing will move without energy. Now what is “external” source? Is there any internal source?

None of the inventors of the machines (that did not work) tried to create energy (first law) or use some alien source of energy! Most of them built their machines using gravity as the source of energy. Now is gravity an external or internal source of energy?

Every single invention was created to utilize the energy surrounding us. We utilize energy coming from burning something (coal or other fuel) and most recently, solar energy. Over the years, the most fascinating source of energy is gravity and that is why so many inventors try to utilize it; because it works! It is called a “hydroelectric" power plant. Water evaporates, rains on the mountains, creates rivers, goes through turbines then evaporates. This is a perpetual motion machine that not only works but produces power -– sorry -- converts energy!

All inventors try to build this exact machine on a small scale and I say that this is against laws of physics.

I will give you another example why it is a misunderstanding of the laws of physics. Everybody knows Archimedes’ principle: “Any object, wholly or partially immersed in a fluid, is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object.” Now, if I take piece of metal bar, it will not float, but I can work on it, doing some experiments and eventually form a boat which will float. Is the boat floating against Archimedes’ principle? That is why experimenting with gravity or magnets will eventually result in discovering new ways of utilizing those sources of energy. Saying that something is impossible slows down civilization.

They were saying that flying is against the laws of physics, and they repeated it every time anew invention did not fly! You know how it ended.

@post 56: I agree with you that magnetic engines and gravity engines only convert one form of energy to another and hence it is possible, no doubt, and not against the laws of thermodynamics.

The problem is you should use the universal definition of perpetual motion machines. An "arbitrary name" can be given to any machine, but the thing is, it's better to follow the universally accepted definition of a perpetual motion machine to avoid any confusion.

While any machine which does not create new energy, but converts one form of energy to other form, like gravity engines or magnetic engines is possible, the universal definition of a perpetual motion machine is: "Any machine which makes new energy is a perpetual motion machine. Any machine which gives more output than input is a perpetual motion machine." Now you cannot call it by a wrong definition.

You simply need to stick to the universally known and popular definition. Either way, you can say that gravity engines and magnetic engines, which are not perpetual motion machines, are possible.

To those who say that the perpetual motion machines are impossible and magnetic generators are impossible, unfortunately, you are wrong.

The universe, all the planets and every single atom are the perpetual motion machines. You are trying to say that electrons will eventually stop moving? Or that the universe will freeze its motion? And you are calling yourselves scientists?

The Laws of Thermodynamics do not apply to perpetual motion machines. They tell you how the universe works. Perpetual motion machines do not create energy; they convert it. They do not create gravity; they use it. Wind turbines do not create wind; they use it! A magnet is like a battery, not a power plant. So it is matter creating the technology to use it.

@anon309930: Exactly. What we scientists are trying to do is a similar thing. But remember that magnetic hysteresis means after a long period of time, the magnetic energy is lost due to disorientation of magnetic dipoles. However, photons from the atmosphere try to slightly modify the atomic dipole orientations or repair these orientations, increasing magnetic energy a little bit. Similarly, we scientists are trying also to make gravity powered engines.

But hey, neither gravity powered engines nor magnetic engines are perpetual motion machines.

So perpetual motion does not exist. However, we can create perpetual motion and give free energy to all!

I would like to propose a solution to this problem of "perpetual motion" and hopefully receive some good feedback. I'm not looking for a fight; I'd just like to propose a theory.

In post 48, they describe that by turning one form of energy into another, even if this may create perpetual energy, it is not in and of itself a perpetual motion device. By that definition, what I will describe is a form of free energy that would seem to be perpetual motion, though is not.

In every example that was given in post 48, each energy source is classified as “potential energy.” Changing potential energy into any other form of useful energy is exactly how we receive power in virtually every situation. Think about the potential energy of coal, gasoline, oil, the sun and so on. What I propose is that a machine may be created harnessing the "potential energy" of magnets.

Things to consider: Kinetic energy. The most immediate potential of magnetic energy is kinetic energy. The largest problem with creating this kind of energy out of the potential energy of magnets is the opposing force from the opposite pole.

The possibility of removing the force from the opposite pole of the magnets using magnetic shielding. This would remove the variable that on a whole, has shown to bring magnetic machines to equilibrium, thus effectively stopping the machine.

Once you have created a magnet that only produces force on one side (having shielded the opposing pole) you can now create a system of magnets that will solely "push". This gives you the ability to create a machine that will effectively change the potential energy of a magnet into usable kinetic energy. I would like to hear your thoughts.

Obviously, that car is related to perpetual motion, but this is not possible.

Can you tell me if a car is started, and can run, and create energy, and save this energy, and continue to run, would this be considered perpetual motion? I have a grade 9 education and am in awe of your posts. I also am a professional tradesman (Got lucky and lied my way into trade school) Be kind. I'm just someone who is interested!

@comment 47: There is nothing called extra energy being produced. A perpetual motion machine is impossible. A real machine alternative for a perpetual motion machine is a gravity powered engine, nuclear engine or solar engine and is 100 percent possible, provided we minimize our losses.

A gravity powered engine converts gravitational energy in to electrical energy. Similarly, a nuclear engine converts nuclear energy (a converted form of solar energy) into electrical energy. Such machines which run on gravity or solar power are open loop systems.

I don't know why people relate a gravity powered engine to a perpetual motion machine. This is a false belief.

Can you move any object without applying external force? You will have to say no, and so, perpetual motion is impossible, even if you try to mimimise losses. A perpetual motion machine is defined in one way as one which creates energy on its own (not converts one form to other) or which gives more energy than input. Gravity engines do not fall in this category.

Classically such a device would be a 'machine' that could produce its own motion without (additional) external input.

In order to start up, work has to be done in order to start the initial motion, which in turn requires an 'input' of external energy! This energy would rapidly dissipate due to the effect(s) of (thermal) entropy. (release of excess energy...) As such, in order to sustain the energy gained from the initial input in order to maintain the motion obtained from it, such an apparatus (in this case) must be placed in an environment where (thermal) entropy is 'zero'.

In order to obtain 'zero' entropy, one must have an environment where temperature (T) is also zero! The temperature of the (visible) universe is about 2.73K due to the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), as such even in 'free space' the temperature is not absolute zero.

At T=0, all fundamental particles retain an intrinsic energy known as the ground state, or 'zero-point energy' which is the lowest energy state particles may have.

In order to balance their energy state with their surrounding (which is the vacuum), all particles tend to move towards a thermal equilibrium (state of balance), and as such release excess energy. As a result, the entropy increases over time.

Therefore, as any excess energy will be released (mostly in the form of thermal energy), the additional energy given by the initial start up will dissipate and as such, the motion obtained by it will decrease and eventually come to a stop.

The only way to replace this loss of energy is by providing more energy to the system (or apparatus), which in turn requires more input.

The above explained is merely an example of what's required in order to maintain such a device in its motion, let alone being able to draw additional energy from it for the use of further work.

It is for this reason that the Second Law of Thermodynamics (also the law of entropy) holds, and therefore such a machine (device) cannot exist!

Some hints: Gravity, tubes, coils, magnets, vacuum of space.

Perpetual motion is not possible. No material gives more energy than it gets! If it was possible, Despite its epistemic impossibility, Bhaskare the teacher found this in the 12th century. Over many years, people have tried (Paris Academy, etc.), but the facts are there! It cannot work!

@c27 The problem is, most machines operate by confining energy to specific points, such as electric motors, batteries, and spark plugs. Energy has a tendency to disperse into its surroundings until each and every component has the same amount of energy as the other components.

As a motor rotates, for example, some of the electrical energy coming into the wires into the motor changes into heat and moves into the metal surrounding the wires.

Even if you created a machine in which energy never left or entered, the energy inside would eventually distribute itself throughout the machine, and the machine would shut down. This would happen whether the machine was grounded on Earth or floating in the heavens.

Partially rightly said in post 42.

But scientists can manipulate the nuclear energy direction and maneuverability near the ends of tubes to make water move like a wheel and it's not at all an easy task to do. It will need lot of research and development, and it won't be violating any physics laws since you are using the atomic force of attraction (nuclear energy).

This energy used in capillary action is the result of nuclear energy converted from other form of energy from the outside environment. We have various forms of energy around us in large scale.

So what's the problem? The problem is that the technology is not efficient. If you think that gravity engines are perpetual, then solar energy and tide energy should also be perpetual, which is not true and which can never be true.

To the capillary action person: You're wrong. That wouldn't work because if you take a capillary tube and allow water to "climb" up it, there's a point at which the water can no longer climb. This is due to gravity pulling down on the water. The gravitational force is equal and opposite to the force of capillarity.

Has anyone ever thought that maybe it isn't as complicated as they're making it sound? Maybe it's a very simple concept and we're trying way too hard to figure it out. If gravity is perpetual, then why isn't our energy? What are the most perpetual forces known to man, and how can we use them?

It amazes me how just because we can't get it all, we walk away from what we have. If there are machines that are close to seeming perpetual motion, but require a minimal or periodic outside source of energy to keep going it's still something highly efficient -- not perpetual, but so what? If you can run generation of electricity on something like this, it could serve not as a limitless provider or energy, but as a "booster" in the capacity of generation possible.

For instance, we have the over-balanced wheel machines that are fairly simple in principle. They do wind down, but what if that principle were applied to the innards of a wind turbine? Current wind turbines stop moving when the wind stops blowing, but this kind of wind turbine might just need a light and periodic breeze to spin for a while, and by the time the spinning is likely to stop another light breeze could just refresh the decaying movement and keep the spinning going. That would solve the criticism of wind turbines that they are good at producing power but not always a predictable source with a consistent output and make them more practical.

Yes, you are right and I and one or more other scientists have already thought about that and are considering this. But there is a huge challenge in that.

The challenge is not the validity. The challenge is producing capillary action on large scale. Capillary action occurs near the ends of a capillary tube, just like two magnets (N and S poles) attract each other when they come near to each other and this action is very small.

Of course, this is proof that magnetic engines and Capillary based engines are possible, but scientists will need a lot of research to make this possible.

The challenge is actually to amplify the small scale capillary action.

Did you ever think of using narrow tubes to make water climb up because of capillary action, then using a siphon to create water flow back down? Poof! Unending loop.

Thermal dynamics are not violated because no energy is being transferred, there are no moving parts, and gravity can be relied on as an eternal force because all objects exert some form of gravity, however weak. By doing this, you can set up a water wheel at the end of the siphon and collect energy.

On a grander scale, imagine if perpetual things or infinity does not exist. That would mean the universe magically came from something and some day, everything will end. There will be no other universe, no other earth, nothing. Just nothing. Does that make any sense?

If you speed up the process of the universe forming and then just going away, what you are basically saying is we just appeared one day, and the next day we will be gone, and you can't explain that.

Maybe it's the fact that scientists need things to be finite, when in actuality everything is infinite.

Post 30, 31 and 32 are all my posts!

I just want to ask everyone here to spread my message/comments in these posts to as many people as possible! I want people to understand the reality so that one day, we can really achieve our dream: Eco-friendly power! Please don't simply make statements which don't give any solutions.

Explain the reality to everyone of why and how non perpetual gravity/magnetic machines are possible, and how they work.

Simply making statements that gravity engines exist will not convince other people. Most people are falsely thinking that gravity/magnetic engines are impossible because they are perpetual. This is false!

Magnetic engines? Yes, possible but they are not perpetual.

Photons (light) hit the atomic particles continuously to compress particles inside atoms and thus store energy in them similar to a compression spring in the form of nuclear energy!So you can extract that energy to get required electrical power!

So non-perpetual magnetic engines are possible, but some people can cheat by claiming to invent perpetual machines.

Just an important note: It's obvious to me that there are lot of people here are imagining perpetual motion to be true! This is impossible! Perpetual motion strictly means "output without input." Apply your common sense and tell me really, is it possible? Never! But real gravity and magnetic, non-perpetual engines are possible, but difficult to invent! You need lot of intelligent, genius brain power to invent such things!

A perpetual motion machine violates first law thermodynamics. Such a violation is impossible. The three well known laws till now are more common sense for real scientists and engineers.

So, I just want to say that gravity engines and magnetic engines (which are not perpetual) are possible. But don't get cheated away or misled by those claiming to invent perpetual motion machines.

I am Aman. Perpetual motion machines are impossible. I am inventing an engine that runs on gravity for small domestic use and also optimising it for next world future cars. But my engine is not a perpetual motion machine!

This is “gravity-piston impulse kinetic power technology.” It’s like releasing a heavy ball over a small, lightweight ball at some distance from the earth’s surface in a vacuum. This means, without any considerable reduction of speed of the bigger ball traveling towards the ground, the smaller balls get extra energy due to gravitational amplification. Well, my engine works on a similar principle. In other words, it works on the principle of gravitational amplification.

What happens is very similar to this equation: “Impulsive gravitational energy absorbed and used by lightweight small ball from the heavy ball due to gravitational amplification plus standard gravity (9.8); as output electricity (converted) equals small loss of big ball due to impulse resistance/back reactance plus energy equivalent to go against standard gravity plus fictional energy loss plus impulsive energy applied.” I can’t disclose the whole concept to general public because we want to apply for a patent. There are a few diagrams relating to my idea, but I fear someone would copy them. Please wait until I get patent so that I can disclose my engine’s whole concept.

At first, I intended to produce products only for domestic use and as a camping accessory. I am doing more research for increasing power output so that it can be used in the future in cars. My engine uses heavy weight piston gears, and four flywheels in an unconventional and different way and pusher rods, but not balls. It was necessary for me to use the example of balls to explain the basic idea I used in my concept. (The ball system is analogous to the piston-gear system I am using in my engine).

Note: This is not a perpetual motion machine. This is a real machine. My engine is inspired by nature. My idea is based on general laws of physics/nature and is based on what we see daily in nature! The example of balls I mentioned is related to what we can see daily. We can see the apple falling over a leaf of the tree holding it. This sets the leaf in oscillation due to impulsive energy and can be useful if tapped.

So there is no chance of failure of this concept. There is no superior bigger proof or evidence than nature! Nature proves that my concept is absolutely right. Surprisingly, modern aircraft wings designs are inspired from nature: the wings of birds! My invention is no exception. It’s also inspired by nature!

I can't believe what I'm reading. Perpetual motion machines will never be made. Not even in a billion years from now. It is mathematically proven that perpetual motion machines are impossible, even in the atomic or quantum scale. No amount of technology can make a perpetual motion machine.

Without getting into the math, the reason why perpetual motion machines will never work is that there are always more states of equilibrium than imbalance. How machines work is by converting imbalance to equilibrium. A battery works by the transferring the electrons from negatively charged ions to positive ones to reach equilibrium.

Believing that perpetual motion machines are plausible means that you do not understand physics, no matter how educated you think you are.

The laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe. There isn't such a thing as perpetual motion. You cannot get more out of a system than you put in. All the arguments about rain and magnets etc., well there is always another input of energy. Stars create energy by fusion, no more no less. So don't talk like that.

Even at superconductivity, we have to put in massive amounts of energy to get to that temperature.

Why can't moving parts of a car (an engine fan or wheel motion etc) charge electric cars' batteries? Isn't this occurring already to a minor extent with cars regular batteries. Just as a windmill creates electricity a forced air fan could be placed in a car's grille area.

The perpetual machine is possible and now this is ready to work for all. Please wait for some days, only less than two months. And this is not changing any law because it has existed forever.

If anybody were to invent a perpetual energy machine would the governments of this world ever allow it to be produced? How much money do they make from fossil fuels? A perpetual energy machine would cost the governments of the world billions in lost revenue. Scientists would have you believe it is impossible but nothing is impossible, the only reason such inventions would not be produced is because somebody does not want it to be produced, i.e., patents not being granted for such devices.

I truly believe that perpetual energy is possible but will we ever see it in our lifetimes? No! Not as long as the governments can continue to make money from fossil fuels!

yes some one gave the planet a shove and yes it could stop. The sun does die every moment of its existence, collapsing into itself, plus it gives energy off from itself and it does not regenerate back to a period of time when it first started but dies every moment again of its life.

what happens when it does? all orbits in the universe have to make adjustments, whether sucked into a black hole or gathered into a new orbiting realm.

Wow, so many rocket scientists ready to jump on someone with inspiration. I agree with a few posts: it can be done and we haven't found the way or maybe we are over complicating it and just need to look at it simpler. Perpetual motion does, however, exist in nature: rain. Rain goes to the ground, evaporated up to the clouds, and comes down. Or maybe in Nature. Didn't anyone see the lion king - everyone sing, "The Circle of Life!"

Good luck fellow inventors, but remember when you see the Father of Perpetual Motion, his name will be Phil.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could solve this riddle? But there is only one "perpetual motion" throughout the universe, and that is the continuum.

Matter is changing constantly from one form into another in the realm in which it exists, but can never be a part of. Perhaps down the road a trillion years or so into the future, the cycle will be complete and a new big bang will occur.

Do I know this for a fact? I wish, but no one can make that a true statement!

@c27: Are yo saying that we are here because of some violation of natural law? If that is so you are positing creationism. On the same vein, why didn't god create a perpetual motion machine while creating the whole of the universe we know, including its laws? It seems rather weird.

Perpetual means for ever, something that runs for 1, 2, 3, 1000. 1^9 is not perpetual and it must use and external source of energy, much like our planet does. It gets its energy from the sun. Perpetual motion only exists in the minds of those who choose to accept whatever is fed to them. Sad, but nevertheless true.

I recently graduated college with a business degree only to return for an engineering major. Why? Because my fascination with perpetual motion.

I'm 22, but just a rookie when it comes to physics, all the numbers and designs in my head, no way to put it on paper. Many of my designs resemble ancient drafts of a perpetual machine but with twists using other contradicting forces. Two questions. If my design looks somewhat ancient, is it useless or do most perpetual machines have the same basic concept?

Also, I'm sure as individuals who are trying to prove perpetual motion you've run into the nay Sayers, so how do you block out the people that tell you no every day and find inspiration?

--A kid searching for answers, and learning from the journey.

I also have a design for a perpetual engine. The concept engine will cost about $200 to make and will power a simple light bulb for a minimum of six months. That's my goal.

External energy does not equal proof that perpetual motion is impossible. In fact, modern scientific advancement pretty much proves that the very concept of 'external' energy is, in fact, as proven within the laws of thermodynamics, a physical impossibility!

All energy (mind you) is contained within the universe as a single source, known as The Universe. Though, not yet proven, the very motion of the universe is perpetual. The motion of the universe almost certainly provides it with all the energy needed to power stars. Stars provide all our energy, and therefore, perpetual motion is not only possible, but a fundamental element of the physical Universe. Without it, bye bye reality.

Perpetual motion is not violating any laws either -- just the few ideas that have been tried are violating laws.

I myself designed a perpetual motion machine and am building it as the money flows in. I designed it with no prior research. Now after the research i find no one has tried it and no law states it won't work. sure the second law of thermodynamics says that a perpetual motion machine that relies on heat differences won't work. Well, stop trying to use heat to make perpetual motion and use a new idea. Quit relying on failed research and make your own attempts.

I believe perpetual motion is possible and attainable. new technology makes it easier and more possible than ever.

You will see me in the near future: the millionaire who revolutionized the power industry and saved the world from pollution and solved the energy crisis, all because i found why my designs would not fail and why others' failed.

My newest design has no flaws, even after i compared it to every known attempt and naysayers' laws. -LSA

@Ike, The world was believed to be flat because the church made people think that to brainwash them. Flight is not in violation of any scientific laws, and neither is the phonograph.

the world is flat! man cannot fly. these were all believed true. same with perpetual motion. someday, some person who refused to give up will invent a simple way to create perpetual motion. and everyone will say, "Damn! why did i not think of that?" Look up how the phonograph was invented for a perfect example. once you read how it was done, you will say that is very simple. you just have to be the fist.-- IKE

Indeed, perpetual motion is a possibility. I tend to think the notion that it is not possible has been made in error due to the numerous attempted machines which in themselves try to 'create energy'.

In a way, the argument today is more against these machines than perpetual motion itself. The way these machines try to attain perpetual motion is not scientifically sound. This however, does not mean perpetual motion is not possible! It only means the method used is wrong.

Further, many people today make attempts with this background and end up with similarly unworkable devices which do not satisfy known scientific laws. What we need is to work from a fresh mindset and try to find a mechanism to convert energy from gravity to motion. In this way we will achieve it.

joseph newmans machine is not a perpetual motion machine.

Just a small comment on this not really adding or commenting on anything anyone said but, the bird that drinks the water and tips back up and keeps drinking is perpetual motion so long as there is a fluid for it to withdraw from the container.

again just a small little note.

like what about those desk top toys where the balls hit each other and keep on doing it?

forget machines, what about perpetual motion in general, does it exist?

I'm trying to make a perpetual motion machine for my fifth grade science project. I've got the prototype and everything. It's really awesome. It applies two waterwheels, and of course--water.

Marknelson, c27 isn't using "big" words. He simply knows what entropy is. Don't insult him because he reads and you don't.

c27, you say the Earth doesn't need a "nudge" to remain in orbit, but the Sun's gravitational pull is a hefty nudge! without it, the Earth wouldn't even exist. I don't see how we shouldn't exist as a result of entropy. It has been noted by minds much greater than mine that evolution is compatible with exact fulfillment of the second law of thermodynamics in closed cosmological models. Then again, I always enjoy embracing all possibilities.

I'm still hung up on the conflict between Thermodynamics and Newtonian laws.

perpetual motion!! Understanding that word is everything to building such a machine, and such machines have existed for over 200 years. the first man to make such a machine was a noted clock maker named james cox,, now there exist a clock called the atmos clock and it can be bought for a reasonable sum of $3,000.00 and well worth the price for it is designed to run for a thousand years before it needs servicing these clocks had an outside source of air to wind the mechanism the barometric pressure change and the temperature change would wind the mainspring,and that is the difference from not knowing the word perpetual,,which brings to mind of an inventor named joseph newman. check him out he has a self sustaining system that generates electricity and has an enclosed system that contains 2 systems combined and generates more power than the machine consumes and is therefore perpetual and does not violate thermodynamics in any way!!just remember know what you are talking about before you mention the word perpetual energy cannot be created or destroyed so it must be perpetual and if it is perpetual then it must be useful so therefore a machine can be created producing larger outputs that inputs provided you use the outside source for the catalyzing of the energy.

c27, stop using big words, they don\'t impress anybody.

just say that people should try to make machines MORE efficient. A catalog I read sells a earth model that spins for months after its started. but it doesn't go on forever. i think it uses a solar cell though.

By the way, let me add to the above: With the new developments and discoveries in superconductivity (frictionless magnetic bearings, superconducting motors and generators) perhaps we are closer to the realization of such machines ( Perpetual Motion Machines ) more than we realize. ( I know what you are thinking: Entropy gets in the way. But let's not forget that according to this law of entropy we are not suppose to exist either!)

I think that what the author intended to ask was: Are perpetual motion machines possible within the confines of a celestial body, ie, Earth? I say this because perpetual motion is a veritable reality. Really, when was the last time someone gave a shove to our planet in order to keep it in orbit around the sun? Now, are perpetual motion machines possible? I answer with a resounding "maybe." Why? Because just a few years back the authorities of the day were stipulating that a heavier than air machine would never fly. Today we call these machines "aircraft." Remember: The dream of yesterday is the reality of today and the hope of tomorrow.