Talk:Perpetual motion

Closed system

To: User-Laurent1979 There can be no perfect closed system. A practical "near-perfect" closed system is nothing but an assumed theoretical scenario. When we talk about earth's revolution, it does not mean that it has to be enclosed into something. We are only considering the revolutiory activity alone as a "near-perfect" perpetual system which invlves no(little) external influence. The fact that the duration of 1 revolution changes vey little evey year is a proof for this. I have only said "near-perfect" closed system. If you disagree, can you justify your claims please.Vayalir (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

And by the way earth does not rotate aroud the sun. Around the sun is called revolution. Earth rotates about its axis. Any-way rotation is also another such "near-perfect" systematic activity.Vayalir (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean, a closed system is a kind of assumption that one may make to simplify calculations. However, we are talking about perpetual motion here, and I think that mentioning in the introduction that the Earth rotating around the Sun is somehow a perpetual motion is misleading. Maybe it could be mentioned in the "Apparent perpetual motion machines" section though - i.e. "Under certain assumptions, the earth rotation can be considered a perpetual motion although it has been proven that its motion is actually slowing down."? Laurent (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

First, the earth revolves around the sun, OK!!! not rotates. It rotates about its axis. Anyway, that link was a good search and response. That's what even I said...the duration decreases very little. Probably you might be right in saying we need not add it at the intro.

Vayalir (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The lead doesn't mention the solar system any more, and anything added would require sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Move?

Should the page be moved to "perpetual motion machine"? The page basically talks about machines, and I've never heard of perpetual motion in any context except machines. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it should not. Pepetual motion is a general terminology. If you haven't heard of perpetual motion in any context except machines, you've heard wrong. For a matter of fact, there is no practically working model of a "perpetual machine"!

Vayalir (talk) 09:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Please space your comments per WP:TALK. I realize that perpetual motion machines are impossible, but per WP:NAME, we should chose a page name that is most accessible to most people. The current lead states "The term perpetual motion, taken literally, refers to movement that goes on forever. However, the term more commonly refers to any device or system that perpetually (indefinitely) produces more energy than it consumes, resulting in a net output of energy for indefinite time." That suggests to me that the page is more about machines than the concept, and the rest of the lead backs up this point. The "Basic principles" section has a paragraph with a rather tangential summary of thermodynamics, then a second that talks about machines again, followed bh classification that is totally about machines. The entire page is basically about perpetual motion machines, yet it is called 'perpetual motion'. If perpetual motion actually exists as a separate concept, then the page should be split into machines and concept. From what I've read on this page, the concept page would be rather short. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There are topics like siphon action models, which are not machines. If we rename it as machines, the concept would become secondary supplementing the machines and the definition would have to be changed as to what are perpetual machines. I think an intro of perpetual motion is more attractive than an intro to machines.Vayalir (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

They are still essentially the same thing - devices that attempt to work indefinitely without an input of external energy. WP:NAME states that we should use that which the greatest number of english speakers would recognize. I've never heard of perpetual motion independent of the context of machines. Can you find some sources that use the concept independent of machines? I think it's best to use perpetual motion machines, and in sections that cover topics that are not about machines (and your example, though not strictly speaking a machine, still could easily be counted there as it's a thought experiment using a device to demonstrate a principle). And your statement that "an intro of perpetual motion is more attractive than an intro to machines" is belied by the article, as it is 90% about machines. I am not averse to splitting it into two articles, one about the principle, the other about the devices, provided the sources can be found. I very much think the notion of perpetual motion can't be expressed without reference to the machines except as a dictionary definition. Perpetual motion is somewhat meaningless, something would have to be at absolute zero at the point where the Big Bang took place to be anything other than perpetual motion. But a perpetual motion machine, something that runs without external energy and without running down, is a much different topic. One is merely a historical happenstance (though absolute zero would make it unusual if not unique) while the other breaks several rules of physics. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

OK fine. But don't rename this article. Create a new article for machines and let this concept remain as a stub. Also, you have to do some modifications from this article to make an article Perpetual Motion Machines.Vayalir (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Vayalir. As the article stands now it is more about the concept of "perpetual motion" and it would have to be rewritten considerably for a title of "Perpetual motion machines" to be suitable. If you like you can always make "perpetual motion machines" a redirect to this article. Oh wait... it is already. Problem solved. In any case, please don't simply move this article. Jeh (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Article rewriting

Regarding the recent article rewriting, I think it would be good to discuss the changes here before making massive changes. It's kind of hard to keep track of what has been changed, and I'm under the impression that we are losing information in the process. For example, the "Ubiquitous energy from atomic and chemical bonds" section had been removed even though it's relevant to the article (it doesn't have any sources though and could be WP:OR, but that's a different issue which can be sorted out by doing some research on Google). So my suggestion would be to have a look at the two different versions (this one and that one) and take the best from both of them. In particular, I think this introduction is clearer that the current one. Laurent (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The article has become overly long and chatty, and includes lots of irrelevant stuff. I removed the "ubiquitous energy" section (as it has already been removed numerous times), because it's completely irrelevant and uncited.Prebys (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Perpetual motion is, from what I know, a completely pseudoscientific notion. Having a bunch of information that is unsourced and seems rather unrelated to the actual topic. The section removed [1] looks more like a screed against opposition to nuclear energy or something similar. I totally support removal of the ubiquitous energy section. As for the intro, the last one didn't make much sense to me, I think the body text needs to be adjusted first, then the lead re-written to match. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"Completely pseudoscientific notion" is a bit harsh. The fact that perpetual motion is not possible does not mean that it cannot or should not be spoken about. That it cannot be realized in practice is a fundamental and strong empirical finding. The rejection of perpetual motion is enormously fruitful and underlies essentially all of physics.

In contrast, science has no particularly need to concern itself with astrology or homeopathy; rejecting them is a sterile act that teaches us nothing outside astrology or homeopathy itself. –Henning Makholm (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It is pseudoscience, unless there is a proof that there is a working model demonstrating perpetual motion. Vayalir (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There is already a large free energy suppression article, so I shortened the corresponding section here.Prebys (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Basic Principles

Curious why the first sentence of this section has a "citation needed" tag. It seems to just be restating in brief the longer definition given at the top. Does that really need a citation to be valid? I'd say, if a citation truly is necessary, then it should be applied to the first and second definitions given at the top of the page, rather than to a short restatement at the start of this section. And if so, I imagine one or two of the twenty already-listed citations probably apply, yes? Perhaps if I have time later, I'll scan through them and find out.. ZbeeblebroxIV (talk) 07:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Joe Cell

The reference to "Joe Cell" should be removed - this is nothing but crank science running off of (eyeroll) "orgone energy". -24.130.51.254 (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed, but why does that mean it should be removed? If all references to "crank science" were removed there would be no article left. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

True, the Joe Cell isn’t billed as a “perpetual motion machine”. It’s billed as a machine that draws energy from some mysterious source. But read the paragraph directly above the list. It explains that such claims are just a mask for perpetual motion claims. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 17:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we should create a article about the Joe Cell even if it is seen as "crank science" from the mainstream. There are so many thinks that reveal truth after the skeptics died and experiments on such fields continued. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.158.44.241 (talk) 12:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There are many myths and legends about the Joe Cell, the free energy device, out in the world wide web. Perhaps we could name the article The Joe Cell Myth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Einfg (talk • contribs) 23:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy of explanation

The third paragraph under Basic Principles: Techniques contains errors. It reads:

More generally, magnets can do no net work, as magnetism is a conservative force, although this was not understood until much later. A magnet can accelerate an object, like the metal ball of Wilkins' device, but this motion will always come to stop when the object reaches the magnet, releasing that work in some other form - typically its mechanical energy being turned into heat. In order for this motion to continue, the magnet would have to be moved, which would require energy.

The Lorentz force is indeed a conservative force, but conservative forces can certainly do work. The reason why the force due to the presence of a magnetic field can do no work is because it, by definition, acts only on charged particles and always in the direction perpendicular to the charged particles' motion:

$W_{mag}=\int {{\vec {F}}_{mag}\cdot d{\vec {r}}}=\int {q({\vec {v}}\times {\vec {B}})\cdot ({\vec {v}}dt)}=q\int {{\vec {B}}\cdot ({\vec {v}}\times {\vec {v}})dt}=0$

A magnet and a piece of iron interact via the force:

$\nabla ({\vec {\mu }}\cdot {\vec {B}})$

This is the force that acts in the direction of motion and the object and does work, however, as is shown, this is not the Lorentz force due to the presence of a magnetic field.

Further, the author of the paragraph seems to support the claim that no net work is done by saying that the work done by the magnetic force by saying that, when the ball hits the magnet, the work is "released." This doesn't make any sense. Work can not be "released." Work is done on the ball to move it to the magnet and then more work (of opposite sign) is done to stop the ball. There is no releasing of work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.103.183 (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The section was clearly written by someone without much (or any) understanding of electromagnetism. I was thinking of rewriting it, but it might be better to consider whether it's too much detail for this article and simply removing it. Opinions?Prebys (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't figure out what the author of the paragraph meant, so I have removed it. If anyone can understand what was intended and write a corrected version that would be great, but I suspect there never was any useful meaning there. The rest of the section could probably do with a substantial rewrite or deletion too. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

impossible

The use of the phrase "impossible perpetual motion machine" is redundant; the article discusses why such a machine is impossible. Also using the word "impossible" is inflamatory since the article also disusses the belief that such machines can/do exist. The article provides well supported evidence why these ideas are wrong but it is inappropriate to openly mock a certain viewpoint in the article. see wp:yespov and wp:fringe for the appropriate guidelines Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. The word impossible is apt and removing it would worsen the article. As you say, it would weaken the article - while being fully supported by the article and WP:RS. See WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Verbal chat 18:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Even fringe theories should be presented in unbiased language. You can say that they are impossible according to accepted laws of physics, or that they "are forbidden by the second law of thermodynamics." as the follow sentence states, but wp:npov wp:fringe demand a certain level of journalistic integrity, if we are going to dispute wp:weight then it should be removed altogether, but that wouldn't leave anything left for an article. I know that it hurts to not just squash these kind of conspiracy theories but it is damaging to the article to allow this kind of editorializing. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

1. I am bewildered why anyone should think that describing a type of perpetual motion machines as "impossible" constitutes "openly mocking" the views of those who believe them to be possible. Many times in my life I have been told by someone that they think something I have suggested is impossible. Sometimes they were right, sometimes wrong, but it has never occurred to me that expressing such an opinion automatically constitutes mocking my opinion.
2. Why on earth should using the word "impossible" be "inflamatory"? Much the same applies as in the point above.
3. It would be a disservice to reasonable readers of Wikipedia to present this issue in a way which left them with the impression that the possibility of perpetual motion machines is an open question, with views balanced evenly on both sides. It is Wikipedia policy that we don't refer to supporters of such erroneous ideas as "nutcase fringe", or use any other similar language; however it is not Wikipedia policy that we pretend that such fringe ideas are more plausible than they actually are: this is made quite explicit in Wikipedia:Fringe_theories. The article makes it perfectly clear that there are people who believe in perpetual motion machines: it would be distorting our coverage to go further than that by refusing to give greater emphasis to the fact that the normal, accepted, view is that they are impossible. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

First, it is made clear in the first paragraph of the lead that such machines are impossible, I don't think anyone is going to find that confusing, there isn't any call to talk down to people. Second and more importantly, specifying that there are "impossible" perpetual motion machines seems to imply that there are possible perpetual motion machines. I do not think that removing the word "impossible" in this case weakens that article, and contrary to what you said I never said or implied that removing "impossible" would weaken that article. It is already clearly stated, with evidence, that such machines are impossible, restating it in the second paragraph of the lead is confusing and misleading. And as long as we're expressing faux disbelief, I can't believe that you would deny that this is not an obvious, clumsy jab at people who believe such machines exist. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is complete BS. To prove how stupid it is, I quote the following...

"A second type of impossible "perpetual motion machine" is one which does not violate conservation of energy, but produces work by extracting heat from its surroundings, thereby cooling them down, and converting the heat energy into mechanical work. Such machines are forbidden by the second law of thermodynamics."

Obviously the alleged defender of scientific fact has his heads in the clouds. Look at the article for Sterling engine. Clearly that is NOT a perpetual motion machine. Yet it 1) produces work by extracting heat from its surroundings, thereby cooling them down and 2) converts the heat energy into mechanical work. Rockets, as well as any other engine that relies on explosions, proves that heat can be converted into kinetic energy.

Heat is kinetic energy of atoms, molecules, and unbounded subatomic particles.

If you want to defend laws of science, know what they are!Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 15:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the above statement is not clearly written, however, a sterling engine requires a temperature differential to run; what the article is talking about and the second law of thermodynamics forbids is a spontaneous movement of heat, i.e. transfer of heat between two areas of equal temperature so one gets warmer and the other cools, without using any work to move that heat. The discussion above "impossible" concerns some less clearly written portions of the lead. If you have any ideas please feel free to edit and contribute to the article. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed the sentence in question to forestall future trolling. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Language links

For some reason I messed up and thought Verbal had REMOVED the links the previous guy had added while in fact it was the other way round. My apologies to all. --uKER (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I assumed that was the case, but didn't want to revert in case my diffs were giving me incorrect data. Verbal chat 16:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Exception

The famous Ludwig - Maximillians - University, Munich, Germany, introduced a so called Capillary-Perpetual-Motion last week. Its claimed that in a capillary you would not find the negative pressure which is expected. "To replicate you only have to put a capillary over a float" is said by the university. A replication of the principle made by german pupils you will find here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB2JUq8tXl0 . As to be seen is the float outside the capillary in a lower position as the float inside the capillary when the capillary is inverted over it . Therefore a perpetual motion is easily to built for every pupil as you may see here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ9E30j1sZw

-this is a fact, claimed by a famous member of a german university and i wont stop posting this until a scientist has to decide - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.106.24 (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

And, with that attitude, you will find yourself blocked. —DoRD (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is what is wrong with this and why several other editors are reverting the IP's insertion of the above:

• The title of the first YouTube video translates to "buoyancy-capillary" - nothing to do with perpetual motion. Neither the video description or viewer comments there reference perpetual motion either (indeed there is no description or comments at all), not that that would constitute a reliable source anyway. I can't find a translation of the title of the second video ("sapalott").
• Google searches for "capillary perpetual motion" or even just "perpetual motion" along with "Ludwig-Maximillians University" have found no evidence that the University has introduced or claimed any such thing. The closest I can find is a reference to a children's program at the Deutschesmuseum, under the supervision of an LMU Professor, in which the children attempted to achieve perpetual motion. ( http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:OUGc1bCK4OEJ:www.deutsches-museum.de/en/information/kids-co/films/+Ludwig+Maximilians+%22perpetual+motion%22+-calendar+-gmt&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us )
• In some edit summaries the IP editor has mentioned Prof. Axel Schenzle. Prof. Axel Schenzle is indeed Dean of Physics at LMU, but he seems to have a strong specialty in optics. I'm not sure why he would be involved in what appears to me (from the YouTube video) to be a freshman physics demonstration of the principles of buoyancy and capillary action. But in any case, Google searches of his name combined with "capillary perpetual motion" or "perpetual motion" have not been fruitful. I find nothing to indicate that Prof. Schenzle has made any claims of "capillary perpetual motion", or indeed has been associated with even the words "perpetual" or "capillary" or "kapillar" at all since 01 Dec 2009.
• The IP has claimed in an edit summary that "if you dont agree you have to do the experiment, and not to remove anything". Sorry but that is not how Wikipedia works. It is up to the contributors of content to provide reliable, verifiable references. As it says in WP:V,

Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is 
challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. 

• The IP has again stated "than you have to ask Herrn Prof. Schenzle himself". Again, this is not how Wikipedia works. It is up to the contributor to provide references. It is not up to later editors to find disproof before removing unreferenced claims.
• Note that claims of perpetual motion are extremely likely to be challenged, therefore the standards for reliable, verifiable sources are higher than for ordinary claims of fact.
• "Capillary perpetual motion" is indeed a class of claimed perpetual motion mechanisms. However the concept is analyzed and shown to be not possible [2] and [3].

In sum - so far you have only provided your claims of what LMU has said. You need to provide verifiable, reliable sources to show that LMU said what you're claiming. If you provide such then this text (with said references) may be included in the "Recent examples" section. Jeh (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

oh i see, a perpetual motion cant work if there is nothing to find at google. may i remember you, that there is a complete world outside the net, and in this world, called the real world, there is no negative pressure in a capllary. and if you contact Prof Schenzle he will tell exactly this to you. and now for the last time, until i get realy angry, no negative pressure in a capillary means a perpetual motion without doubt, and only a budhead can be able to ignorate this. why are you an admin inhere, when you no nothing about physics ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.106.24 (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and you're missing the point. Once again: It is not up to me or anyone besides yourself to email Prof Schenzle or anyone else - it is up to you to provide verifiable, reliable sources for your statements. If those sources are not on the net then provide references to reliable print publications. Until you do this, this content of yours will continue to be deleted. And if you continue to edit against consensus, to violate WP:3RR, etc., you will be banned from editing. Nobody cares if you "get really angry" either, except that expressing such an attitude makes it more likely that you'll be banned. This is the last time I will explain this to you - with future violations I will simply revert your edits and put additional warnings on your talk page. Jeh (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

To the IP editor, we are not here to ruin your fun or repress truth or distort physics with misinformation, but as any good scientist knows all systems have rules. And the system that is Wikipedia is no different. All claims, especially those which may be controversial, must be cited from a reliable source per the appropriate wikipedia guidelines, which you can find at the link provided; unfortunately youtube is not a reliable source and the youtube links you have provided do not seem to support the claims you have made in the article. For this reason we connot include these claims in the encyclopedia. If you still have questions I suggest you take a few minutes to read this very helpful essay about tigers. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Before adding content to the article, people are strongly encouraged to consult something like this page, to make sure it's not something that's been debunked countless times already. In particular, perpetual motion machines based on capillary action have been proposed for hundreds of years and they don't work - period. All are variations on this or this, and as such, their perpetual operation would violate basic laws of physics. I suspect the poster is simply trolling, so I'm not going to spend a lot of time arguing, but if he's not, I sincerely encourage him to educate himself.Prebys (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent Examples

All proposed additions to the Recent Examples section should be posted here before being added to the article per WP:SOAP and WP:FRINGE. Generally additions must be accompanied by reliable secondary sources showing that they are notable. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Concur that there has been on-going problem and that this is a good editorial solution. DMacks (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Concur Only I wouldn't limit it to recent examples. I propose any additional examples, new or old, be summarily undone unless first discussed on the talk page. Without diligence, pages like this always run the risk of becoming simply clearing houses for nutty claims.Prebys (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Concur If something can't stand discussion here then it has no business being on the article page. I also wonder if the article page shouldn't be protected against edits by IPs? Jeh (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea. 90% of the problems are drive-by edits by IP's. I've never understood why WP allows anonymous edits in the first place. How does one go about semi-protecting it?Prebys (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if it were possible to semi-protect certain sections individually.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 23:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Then they will just add the drivel to other sections. Jeh (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You can make request at WP:PADLOCK (if you can figure it out). My own experience is that it's not worth it. After spending an hour of your time figuring out how to make a request, some idiot will come back saying it hasn't been vandalized "recently." The truth is that nobody will every do anything about IP vandalism on WP so long as there's a cleanup squad willing to work for free, by hand. Nobody has proven that WP's quality will decrease if IPs are forced to register as nameusers. There have been 11.5 MILLION nameuser registrations on en.wiki alone (about 150,000 still edit). See SPECIAL:STATISTICS. Retention of IP users is the least of WP's problems--- they can't retain nameusers and this vandalism problem is one of the reasons why. SBHarris 04:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"After spending an hour of your time figuring out how to make a request, some idiot will come back saying it hasn't been vandalized 'recently.'" Wow, just wow!Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 11:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, some of those idiots also read this page and watch the article as well. Fact is, it's against policy to protect pages unless there is sufficient constant disruption to really interfere with things. One or two drive-by IP postings a week followed by someone clicking [rollback] or [undo] to clear it just isn't that bad a problem. And some of the worst disruption comes from logged-in users, who are much harder to lock out of a page. I'm sure the idiots would be happy to hear how to make the protection-request process easier as well. However, consider your ill-formed request granted, and consider whether you think admins will be more or less likely to help you in the future based o it. DMacks (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Help me??? Ah-ha. Ha. ho. Oh, feel free to punish me, DMacks, by making more work for yourself; that will show me. FYI, I've mostly gone on strike about doing anything about IP vandalism to articles, unless I'm actually in a middle of editing them. Although the guidelines about sprotection are in a state of flux and very rough (in fact, see WP:ROUGH) and though it's almost always true that vandalism of unprotected articles fits the criterion that "All or almost all of the vandalism is coming from unregistered users," I find that it's still a waste of time to request anything at individual articles. Sprotected articles are those that some administrator has a personal interest in, like Neptune but not helium, or perhaps some WP muckymuck protecting their own BLP. There's no rhyme or reason to it. It's more useful to go to a list of administrators willing to make long blocks of IP users (for which policy is also without rhyme or reason, but at least you know who the proper people are). This system is broken. Flagged revisions is one suggestion on how to fix it, but semi-protection of key sections of WP would have been far easier. However, you can read about all of that at WP:PERENNIAL, and I'm not going to do wasted-work that results from some people setting policies in absense of data, or misinterpretation of data. There are no prospective studies of semi-protection. Instead, we have people using retrospective analyses of French WP data to argue against a policy for the English Wikipedia, that is far less draconian than the German Wikipedia already has in place. Do what you like. SBHarris 03:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The value (and cost) of semi-protection varies tremendously depending on the nature of the article. Those articles that schoolkids first think to type in when they first encounter Wikipedia are vandalized the most. Computer, Car, Sex...simple things like that. I did a careful study of Computer - which at the time was getting a couple of dozen edits per day - and found that over a one month period without protection, 95% of IP edits were vandalism, 3% of them were anti-vandalism and only 2% of them were useful additions to the article. On the other hand, 80% of named-user edits were anti-vandalism and not one of the named user edits were vandalism. When semi-protected for a month, the number of good edits went up by about 15% and there was only one incidence of vandalism. Evidently, the loss of 2% of IP-created "valuable edits" was vastly outweighed by the ability of named-user editors to do useful work rather than simply fighting off vandals all the time.

However, those IP vandals almost never vandalized the same article twice - it's a one off: "Wow! Can I really write "Obama sucks!" in this important-looking encyclopedia article!?!". More obscure articles are targetted more by 'serial vandals' who will repeatedly hit the same article or the same small 'family' of articles.

But here is the problem (which, sadly, those in charge of semi-protection don't seem to understand) - in the "serial vandal" situation, a fairly brief (say, one week) semi-protection period is often enough to get the serial vandal off our backs. He/she gets bored with being unable to vandalize the article and 'goes away' (skeptics would say "picks a different article to attack"). But in the case of Computer, a one-week semi-protection is nothing more than a temporary respite for the serious editors because every day brings a flock of new vandals who have no idea that the article was semi-protected for the past week. What that article needs is permanent semi-protection. It's sad that those 2% of serious IP editors then can't contribute directly anymore - but the benefits to the encyclopedia by far outweigh the costs - and if they are serious about wanting to improve the Computer article, they'll get accounts.

It is sometimes argued that if you semi-protect an article, the vandals will just create accounts and carry on doing what they do. That might be true in the case of serial vandals - who will create accounts, get them blocked and proceed to create drawerfuls of socks. But it's not true of the petty one-time vandals - when we locked them out of Computer - the vandalism did almost completely cease abruptly. That article is now pretty much permanently semi-protected - but it took a lot of arguing to make it so - and it's still the case that once in a while some random admin will come along and unprotect it "to see if the vandalism situation has improved" (which it never will) and the case has to be argued all over again. In the best situation, the article gains a 'guardian angel' admin who'll just reapply the semi-protection when asked because he/she is already familiar with the situation there.

So the question is, what kind of vandalism does this article suffer? Is it the same small range of IP addresses, or even the same single address that hits us all the time - or is the article being hit from all over the IP map? If it's the former then a brief period of semi-protection might well be all we need to drastically cut the amount of vandalism - if it's the latter, then the only solution is a permanent semi-protect and that's a MUCH harder sell to the admins. All I can suggest is to gather data (as I did for Computer) and see if you can use that to argue your case.

SteveBaker (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Since people are working on this article again, it seems to me the "recent examples" section is rather weak and arbitrary. For example, the Stanley Meyer Fuel Cell was patented 18 years ago, so doesn't really qualify as "recent". Perhaps Genesis World Energy would be a better example, or perhaps this section should be simply merged with the (much better) patent section above it. There are so many perpetual motion claims that managing to patent something might be a reasonable requirement for "notability". Thoughts?Prebys (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, I propose replacing the Meyer reference with a generic reference to water-fueled cars. After all, nothing is really more notable about his claims than the dozens of other identical claims over the years - many of which are much more recent.Prebys (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Go for it! (Both proposals.) Jojalozzo 14:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I replaced the Meyer fuel cell with a generic reference to water-fueled cars, as I proposed. Of course, while the Bearden claim is a slightly more original than water powered cars, there are plenty of similar examples. It might be more informative to replace the "Recent examples" section with a section categorizing the various types of modern claims. 99% of all claims are either:

• Motors that run on water
• "Over-unity" transformers or motors

but I haven't been able to find a discussion along these lines, so it would qualify as original research. Ideas?Prebys (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Video claims from and re. Steorn

WP:FORUM: Off topic/speculation.

"Straight from the horse's mouth" doesn't qualify as RS on Wikipedia, I know. Nevertheless, something interesting has recently been posted as videos that editors here might find interesting. I shall recommend viewing in the following order: 1 (Wait for page to load; ignore almost everything on the page and go directly to the bottom; watch the Steorn/Orbo video): http://jnaudin.free.fr/steorn/indexen.htm This video does not seem to be available any more at the Steorn web site, perhaps because it contains one or more spoken error (eg, "counterclockwise" instead of "clockwise"). The interesting thing is the "toroidal" electromagnets. 2 The next video is at the bottom of this page: http://jnaudin.free.fr/steorn/html/steffecten.htm The other stuff on this page don't have to be ignored. 3 Next is an attempt to somewhat replicate the Steorn/Orbo motor: http://jnaudin.free.fr/steorn/html/steornv1en.htm Now, if Steorn makes a wild claim that someone can replicate, is the replicator also trying to fool you? 4 The same motor with some beefed-up coils. http://jnaudin.free.fr/steorn/html/steornv2en.htm At the bottom of this page are links to two other pages that might be worth seeing. They are about locating the best places, during rotation, to activate the toroidal electromagnetic coils. http://jnaudin.free.fr/steorn/html/currentlagen.htm AND http://jnaudin.free.fr/steorn/html/inducten.htm 5 Now for the horse's mouth: http://www.youtube.com/user/SteornOfficial --there are 6 videos to see, of which the first 4 are the most interesting. The main speaker admits to making errors in the first video. 6 The replicator-guy has a new motor, and attempts to replicate Steorn's oscilloscope pulses: http://jnaudin.free.fr/steorn/indexen.htm#Orbo 7 Full circle, now it is appropriate to see the stuff on the first web page linked above. --Enjoy! V (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC) I have taken the liberty of properly sectionifying your text as it did not fit with the previous section. Now that that's over with... Steorn's claims have already been refuted by that panel of scientists they signed up. A few videos on YouTube, even from Steorn, don't change that; please see WP:REDFLAG. Steorn is already mentioned in the article as one of the recent claimants and it is not up to WP to provide a web index for their later publicity efforts or for others' related efforts. Jeh (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC) I don't recall seeing any such refutation. Can you provide a link? V (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC) There are a couple of links at Steorn but a more direct link: The Irish TimesVoiceofreason01 (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC) OK, thanks. The only thing that bothers me about the refutation is that it seems almost as nebulous as the original claim. No details about what they tested, that they decided was inadequate. I suppose that non-disclosure agreements had something to do with that. However, these videos let us all see the key thing that they are attempting to exploit, the attraction between the end of a bar magnet and a nonmagnetized toroid/core. Current is only applied to the toroid-coil to cancel that attraction. I'm not going to claim that this trick can lead to overunity, but it seems to me that some more research might be worthwhile, if they are not lying about the lack of significant inductive reactance in their coils. The independent exeriments by J.L.Naudin imply that Steorn is not lying about that, at least. Not to mention that I know of a way to "go one better" than zero inductive reactance, and have some negative inductive reactance in an electro-magnetic system (but I don't know that that could lead to an overunity motor, either, so, not a big deal). Anyway, the Steorn site claims there will be a big "final" demo starting this Saturday, and certainly I expect to look into it. I only found out about it yesterday; haven't looked at the Steorn site for several months. But it is "news" that didn't seem to have been posted here, so.... V (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Steorn's own panel of experts rejected their claims. It's a con. Verbal chat 17:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Is this section aimed at discussing improvements to the article? If not then it is off topic for a talk page. The point made above by Jeh "it is not up to WP to provide a web index for their later publicity efforts or for others' related efforts" also seems relevant. The original post does not say anything about improving the article, and moreover finishing with the word "enjoy" suggests that that was not the purpose. If nobody has an adequate answer to this then the section should be removed. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC) The answer is: "Nobody can edit a Wikipedia article accurately from ignorance." That means editors need to be informed of recent developments relevant to an article, regardless of any immediately-proposed edits. Some developments may be more entertaining than others (I personally find thought-provoking things to also often be entertaining, thus the "Enjoy!"). In this particular case the information I posted above relates to the "trick" that is claimed to be exploitable, to achieve Perpetual Motion (perhaps a description of that trick might someday belong in the article); the actual news is the demonstration scheduled for Jan 30. Unlikely as the possibility may be that Perpetual Motion will become real at that time, it is simply reasonable to think that an editor would prefer to acquire direct rather than indirect information about it. That is, if P.M. actually is demonstrated, would an editor rather see it with own eyes, or only "hear about it"? Note that the Rules here tend to disallow first-hand sources of information; editors are supposed to wait until an event is reported in a relevant Reliable Source. But there are very few RS sources for P.M. gadgets! That leaves us with a potential dilemma between the editors who might accept the claims reported in some Source, about some demonstration, and editors who won't. But what if all the editors saw the demo? Then, when it finally gets reported, such that an edit could be proposed to this article, certain aspects of the "Reliability" of the Source might not matter so much; a News Source could be accepted instead of a Science Source, I mean. V (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC) An ingenious attempt to produce an apparent justification, but the original post did not appear to have any such purpose. As for the idea that we ought all to look at every claim of perpetual motion so that if one turns out to be valid we would be there on the spot, well, we could as well spend our time looking in pumpkin patches for the Great Pumpkin. No, this section is not about improving the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC) To JamesBWatson, this isn't the first time or place I've pointed out that editors need to be up-to-date on developments in a field, regardless of whether or not an edit is immediately proposed. V (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC) I think we should tend toward being inclusionist on the talk page, we are not here to silence anyone; certainly the term "enjoy" is not enough to dismiss the post. JamesBWatson, given the circumsances you could have been a little more diplomatic in your comments. That being said, this talk page is not a forum for general discussions about perpetual motion or anything else, but only for topics explicitly and directly related to the editing of the article. If V's original post was not a suggestion that this topic, or some of the material he linked to, be included in the article than it was inappropriate and should be removed; but lets be civil about it. As for including stoern or it's projects in the article, it has been debunked i.e. it is not perpetual motion, consensus seems to be against any mention at all. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC) For something you say has been debunked (in what Science publication was that, exactly?), the Steorn people still seem to think they can make a case for their claims. In this video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7i7P63IByY ) they say they have an overunity device running, and they openly invite others to bring their test equipment. It's not the kind of device I'd prefer to see (I want to see a motor running a generator), which makes it less easy to tell if the claims are valid. It seems to me that the wisest approach at this time is to wait for some other engineering company, that examines Steorn's device, to start making similar claims. If Steorn is right, then that other company won't be able to sell anything without paying Steorn a royalty (there has been too much publicity for anyone to get away with such a blatant theft of intellectual property). Perhaps Steorn's entire plan (assuming they actually have something) has been to ensure that even if every patent office in the world refuses to accept claims for perpetual motion machines, their company will still profit if their technological trick actually gets widespread implementation. (What would you do if you had a genuine PMM and wanted to profit from it, without getting ripped off?) V (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC) This is not a forum or place for speculation. To answer your question, I'd publish it (and get the nobel prize, etc.). Further off topic posts will be removed. Verbal chat 20:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Law of Thermal Dynamics

WP:FORUM

The theoretical claim that perpetual motion is impossible assumes operation in heavily thermal and mechanical systems by applying the second Law of Thermodynamics. This is a blatantly incorrect assertion of scientific laws. The Second Law is frequently violated in systems which exchange energy between atomic, electrical, quantum, acoustical, and other energy forms. Electromagnetic and acoustical resonances are simple phenomena in which standing waves demonstrate energy gain in a stateless system. Additionally, in electricity, a common misunderstanding is made that current is required to do work, but basic science experiments show that voltage does work. Voltage generates very little heat while current generates massive amounts of heat. Since all of our engineering is based on harnessing current, we have falsely applied thermodynamics principles to electrical systems. For further support of this, investigate seeming paradoxes such as the fact that thinner conductors can carry heavier voltage and transfer the same wattage yet the magnetic field created by longer lengths of conductor is greater at equivalent power levels. Freely gained magnetism without additional power!? For further understanding of paradoxes which have come from incorrectly applying laws from one system to another system, consider a base unit of electricity. One watt is equal to One Joule / sec. This is a measurement of energy consumption over time. Prior newtonian physics states that one joule in terms of energy equals one joule of work, because it is assumed that you must always have equivalent energy to do equivalent work. This holds true in Newtonian mechanical systems where the primary culprit to energy loss is heat (thus the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies). But this is where modern electrical paradigms have erred by applying that same law incorrectly. If you consider that voltage can do work, and you examine some of the strange phenomena caused by inductance, such as voltage spikes and arcing, you will realize Newtonian physics holds no water in electric and magnetic systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pha3z (talk • contribs) 01:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC) It is not clear that this is not an attempt to use the talk page as a forum. Unfortunately the post is entirely based on misunderstanding of the physics involved. I will not spend time explaining every error, but I will just deal with one: "the magnetic field created by longer lengths of conductor is greater at equivalent power levels. Freely gained magnetism without additional power!" As long as the magnetic field does no work it requires no power. There is nothing paradoxical about that. Once we start getting work out of the field the above account fails. That is the point about "perpetual motion": the claim to do work with no input of energy. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

At the heart of the problem: Force versus energy.

WP:FORUM

I think this article is missing an opportunity to explain why perpetual motion machines (which don't work) continue to be "invented" and pursued with such passion by their proponents. The thing that almost 100% of free-energy/perpetual-motion "enthusiasts" fail to understand is the difference between "force" and "energy". It is perfectly possible to exert a force without expending any energy. If I stick a fridge magnet onto my refrigerator, the magnet exerts a force against the door of the fridge. However, so long as the magnet doesn't move - it doesn't expend any energy to do that. That's why magnets don't "run down" like a battery and eventually fall off the door! Forces don't consume (or create) energy until/unless something moves. Capilliary action (suggested, above, as a means for producing perpetual motion) does indeed produce a force between the liquid and the container. So long as the liquid doesn't move - the level of the liquid can be higher than you'd expect it to be - because just like the magnet, there is a force that is counteracting gravity there. However, as soon as you try to extract energy from the system, you'll fail because capilliary action is only the source of a force - not a source of energy. When you look at supposed perpetual-motion machines, they almost all attempt to employ something that exerts a force that does not require energy to do so - magnets, gravity, capilliary action, etc. The "inventors" of those machines just naturally assume that they must be able to extract energy 'somehow' because there are all of these forces present - and in their minds, force and energy are the same thing. We get this all the time - take "the Casimir effect" - beloved of free energy nuts and science fiction writers - is a classic case in point. There is real science that says that two parallel plates that are close enough together exert a force on each other for interesting and difficult quantum-mechanical reasons - and that's a wonderous and fascinating thing. But there is no energy involved...and hence no motion - perpetual or otherwise - and no 'free energy' to be had, because all we have is another 'fridge magnet' force. So if we could somehow correct this single misunderstanding about force versus energy in the minds of these "amateur scientists" and would-be inventors - then almost 100% of all crackpot theories about free energy and perpetual motion would simply go away. The difficulty is that in the minds of most people who are not scientists, those two words are used almost interchangeably. It would be nice if our article could somehow explain this point...but I don't know how to provide references for a coherent explanation. SteveBaker (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Good points - I agree it would be nice to mention them. I'm afraid I don't really know where to find sources either, but I'll keep an eye out. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC) One facet of the problem (as Steve may remember from some old WP:RD/S questions about it?) is that it one can observe that it takes energy for a muscle to pull or push against a force. I guess it's easy to extrapolate/generalize that "force requires energy"? DMacks (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC) SteveBaker is, of course, right about what the misunderstanding is. However, I strongly suspect that he is wrong about how to deal with that misunderstanding. In my experience a large proportion of the "I know better than scientists" people don't want to learn true science which contradicts their beliefs, and explaining to them is usually a complete waste of time. However, there is probably no harm in trying, if someone is prepared to work at it. Incidentally, the point that DMacks makes about muscle is an interesting one. I remember long ago when I was at school a fellow student absolutely refusing to believe that the definitions of work and energy given by our applied maths teacher were correct precisely because of that "muscle" example. How he eventually did in his exams I don't know. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC) I agree that the source of the misconception probably has a lot to do with how the human body works. If you extend your arms with palms uppermost and place a heavy book on top of each hand, it seems to take a lot of energy to counteract the force of gravity. But a table can support the books indefinitely without using any energy at all. But that's to do with the biochemistry of how muscles work. An even simpler example is if we replace our canonical fridge magnet with an electromagnet powered by a battery. In that case, the magnetic field only stays on so long as the battery supplies energy. So there are cases where to maintain a force, you do need to expend energy - but that doesn't make the two the same - as you can immediately deduce if you replace the electromagnet with a normal magnet. I think it's worth looking to see if we could find a way to explain this difference in the article. SteveBaker (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Motionless over-unity

The page "Over-unity" redirects to this article, I noticed. But in the case of for example the MEG and the ORBO, the claim of over-unity does not necessarily involve any motion. --95.34.1.57 (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your general point. A lot of current "free energy" or "over-unity" devices out there, which their inventors claim produce more energy than they consume in violation of the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics, don't produce mechanical energy (motion) but electrical or some other kind of energy. So they don't technically fit our definition of "perpetual motion machine". I think the definition should probably be expanded; I suspect the current useage of the term "perpetual motion machine" includes any production of energy in violation of 1st or 2nd LoT. However I'd like to see other opinion or sources on that before it's changed. --Chetvorno^TALK 08:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If it's not perpetual motion at all, but it's worth mentioning, should we put it in some separate article and link to that?

bobrayner (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

For example? --Chetvorno^TALK 20:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Law Violation of the Third Kind

The first two kinds of perpetual motion devices clearly state which natural law would be violated if they were to exist, however, the third kind does not. For consistency, should the violated natural law be stated for the third kind, instead of just mentioning that a frictionless machine is impossible? --TheAlmightyGuru (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the impossibility of a "3rd kind" perpetual motion machine is more uncertain because it is a "boundary case" between an (impossible) "1st kind" perpetual motion machine, which produces more energy (work) than it consumes, and a normal machine, which produces less. A "3rd kind" machine would be a perfect energy storage device, a thermodynamically reversible process which stores energy in some form and then can return it without any losses. It's not clear to me that this violates any laws, or is technically impossible. I have heard at low temperature there are a few quantum processes which are dissipationless (zero entropy), such as superfluidity, mentioned in the article. I think under some conditions superfluid Helium-4 can rotate in a container without viscosity, forever, making it (literal!) "3rd kind" perpetual motion. However I think at normal temperatures all processes are irreversible and result in some energy lost to heat. If true, I guess you could say that at normal temperatures the 2nd law is what prohibits "3rd kind" perpetual motion devices. --Chetvorno^TALK 07:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually a 3rd kind pmm is a boundary between a real machine and a perpetual motion machine of the second kind, not the first (though still impossible); it is in fact a Carnot engine driven by a heat pump. Were infinite energy reservoirs possible (the observable Universe isn't big enough!), heat engines could tap some gradient or another and, in principle, run forever. 24.184.234.24 (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)LeucineZipper

Minor Edit

I made a minor edit to the first paragraph of the lead. I altered it to remove the implication that 'perpetual motion devices' are impossible in relation to the laws of thermodynamics. My edit is accurate. I hope it doesn't cause any problems with personal bias, but that is what I am about to discuss.

Deleting Talk is Harmful

Please use this page to discuss improvements to the article, not debate the topic. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 04:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for you concern, however please read Talk_page_guidelines#How_to_use_article_talk_pages Communicate By removing my talk you are disabling communication Stay on topic By removing my talk you stray off topic Be positive By removing my talk you are being negative Stay objective By removing my talk you are being subjective Deal with facts By removing my talk you are not dealing with facts Share material By removing my talk you are hoarding material Discuss edits By removing my talk you are not allowing editorial discussion Make proposals By removing my talk you do not make proposals Nevertheless, I will further comply with these guidelines by editing my talk to further meet your needs.Lawstubes (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC) Many pages, particularly pages on "fringe friendly" topics tend to attract editors that are not interested in expanding an encyclopedia. They are here to wax eloquent on their latest genius insight to provide free energy. We are fundamentally an encyclopedia, but by being a wildly popular, free one, that is openly editable we are also magnets for people convinced they have overturned the laws of physics, and just need a venue to get their idea out there so they can be recognized as the world-changing geniuses they are (i.e. they are nutters). Everyone once in a while wants to point out how great or stupid an idea is - among my first edits were for this very purpose. Some do so on main pages, some do so on talk pages. Irrespective, it is of the utmost importance that people realize, quickly, that wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Opinions are great, but meaningless here. It is only by adhering to these central policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, along with the guideline WP:RS and the rules in general) that we write an encyclopedia that is worth reading. I won't reply to your issues point-by-point, but it is important that all editors who want to edit on a long-term basis understand this quickly. Thank you for your civility in understanding this, but if you plan on editing this page (and others such as intelligent design, global warming, 9/11 conspiracy theories or George Alan Rekers) it is quite important to realize that we must represent the mainstream opinion which is very, very clearly that perpetual motion machines are nonsense. All the convincing dialogue in the world, all the original proofs, all the math (even really good math) is less valuable than a source. Since the talk pages are for improving the main page, and not a place to discuss ideas in general, it's a time saver to make the point quickly. You are welcome to, encouraged in fact, to improve the page by adding, summarizing and even eliminating sources and text - but it must be source based. Without that, we're not really much different from a blog with comments. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC) Ah, yes, but this is just the issue. I am not editing the page. My only edit to the actual page was a minor edit pointing out the fault in assuming that the laws of thermodynamics explicitly state that perpetual motion devices can not be created. The truth is that the laws of thermodynamics account for perpetual motion devices, however humans have been unable to recreate such devices. No one is trying to edit the page so drastically as to say Human Beings know how to recreate isolated systems. I was merely trying to enable reasonable discussion on the topic. I see you points, but you are mistaken. It is your bias that is at fault. As I have stated, I am not making major edits to the page, I am creating discussion topics within the talk page... Lawstubes (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC) Talk pages are not for "discussion on the topic" where such "discussion" consists of completely unsourced speculation on your part. If you have reliable sources for your material, please provide them. Otherwise your material is your own interpretation, usually referred to here as "original synthesis". It isn't for WP any more than is WP:OR, and talk pages are not an exception. Yes, deleting talk page content is against talk page guidelines. So is using a talk page as a platform for your own ideas. Jeh (talk) 03:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC) Okay, this is reasonable, however I have cited works within the 'proof' section, I realize that I do reference the Wiki article on isolated systems in the first proof. I am currently inserting direct references to cyclic processes. Once finished, I will remove 'proof' from the forum tags, and keep the technology section as such.Lawstubes (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC) Are you aware of the No Original Research policy? Unless your "proof" has been previously published elsewhere, in it's entirety, it can't be used here. Trying to cobble together various bits from disparate sources is known as synthesis and is likewise prohibited. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 04:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC) Indeed I am, are you aware of the meaning of the first law of thermodynamics? Oh yes, indeed it does entail that all energy exists all the time & indeed I have referenced a book written that also talks on this subject.Lawstubes (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Perpetual Motion is Not Impossible

The article should be improved so that it does not implicate that perpetual motion is impossible but rather has yet to be reproduced. I am not debating anything, this is not debatable. However, as the affirmative party I am subject to the burden of proof. I provide such publicized proof. If you can disprove the first law of thermodynamics, then perpetual motion is impossible.

• The First Law of Thermodynamics : The First Law of Thermodynamics is deceptively simple & therefore commonly misunderstood. The obvious proof lay in understanding two words: created & destroyed. If energy can not be created this entails that all energy already exists. If energy can not be destroyed this entails that all energy will always exist. This basic understanding undoubtedly proves that thermodynamics as a whole are a perpetual motion. Therefore, perpetual motion devices are not impossible. (Refrence Material)

It is extremely essential to understand this: 'perpetual motion devices are impossible' is a downright lie & a genuine pseudoscience. Every scientific observation pertaining to the conservation of energy proves the feasibility of such devices. Just because technology has not advanced to a point where it has the ability to use this perpetual energy, does not mean 'impossible' is valid terminology.Lawstubes (talk) 05:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This vastly misunderstands the nature of this topic, perhaps indicating that the article should be clarified. Can you point to any specific sections that are in need of improvement? In any case, please focus on specific ways to improve the article and stop misusing this talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you (Lawstubes) are grossly misinterpreting the laws of thermodynamics. The fact that the first law says that mass-energy can neither be created nor destroyed does not mean that perpetual motion is possible. You see, it is not enough for the energy to always be present. For energy to do work it must also exist in different energy levels. For example, water at the top of a dam spillway has more gravitational potential energy than water at the bottom. If all of the water on the Earth were to somehow run down into the oceans, with no means to lift it up to the higher ground again (as is done by heat from the sun), then no more energy could be obtained from water wheels or hydroelectric plants even though all of the water would still be here. When it's all at the same energy state, you can't extract energy from it.

Similarly, a heat engine requires a "hot side" and a "cold side." If both sides reach the same temperature and pressure then the hot gases have no reason to go somewhere else and expand (since it's just as hot wherever they're supposed to go), hence the pistons or turbine blades no longer experience force - even though the energy is still in the system, it's gotten to places you don't want it, therefore the system no longer runs. (This is why a car engine loses power when it overheats.)

Now, in a lossy system, where does the energy "go"? Simple example: Start a wheel spinning... it eventually stops. But why? The energy isn't gone, right? No, it's not gone, you are right about that. The trouble is that it is in a much less useful form than it was; it has been dissipated as low-grade heat, that is, at not much higher temperature than the surroundings (assuming you have good wheel bearings). You could recover a little of that, but due to the Carnot principle, nowhere near as much as was in the spinning wheel originally, even with a perfect heat engine. Carnot says that the efficiency of any heat engine is limited to 1 - (Tcold / Thot): If the hot side isn't much hotter than the cold side, efficiency is very low and the rest must be lost again as even lower-grade heat.

Note that since "zero" is not a possible value for Tcold (you can't reach absolute zero), efficiency can never be 1. There always must be some losses.

Now here's the kicker: The three laws of T.D. seem to prove that this will eventually happen to the entire universe; if it lasts long enough, the universe faces an eventual state of universal entropy, where everything is the same temperature, therefore no more work can be done even though all the energy is still there. (Or "here.") The principle is called "heat-death". There are other considerations (like the possibility of a cyclic universe) that may override this for the universe as a whole, but they don't much apply to a closed, isolated system.

Another whimsical, but useful, way of thinking about the three laws: The first law says you can't get more energy than what you started with - you got that part. The second says you can't even "break even," i.e. there will be losses to friction or whatever, except at absolute zero. And the third... well, the third says that you can't reach absolute zero. So the construction of a lossless system (necessary for perpetual motion, by your own theory) is indeed a matter of theoretical impossibility, not just a practical matter of finding a better lubricant. And that is why you can't use "energy can't be destroyed" as a way to justify the possibility of perpetual motion. It's a true statement, but it isn't complete. Jeh (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Two examples that require improvement:

1. "universal scientific view that they (Pm devices) are impossible" is not cited, off topic and false.

It's perfectly true. See above. That you don't believe it doesn't matter. Jeh (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

1. "Perpetual motion violates either the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics, or both." is also not cited, off topic and false.

Combined with the third laws's fact that you can't reach absolute zero, which is required for a lossless system, yes, it's true. And it most certainly is on topic. Jeh (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not pulling this stuff out of my anus people! This Article REQUIRES CITATIONS all over. I'm not misusing this page, I am beseeching the Wikipedia community to slap some sense into this article.Lawstubes (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Citations are highly desirable for everything but only REQUIRED for "controversial statements that are likely to be challenged." As I have shown you above, your challenges are easily answered by a fuller understanding of the three laws of TD. Indeed, there are few things less likely to be challenged in science than the statement that the thermodynamics laws preclude perpetual motion; you might as well demand a citation for a claim that water in its liquid form is wet. While you are learning more about your topic, you would do well to learn more about WP policy, too. The citation policy is not intended to be used to challenge content, to demand rewrites, etc., of articles you happen to disagree with. Please also see WP:POINT. Jeh (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead should be focused on what perpetual motion is, not how perpetual motion devices are claimed to be impossible by the psuedoscientific community, that belongs on a 'perpetual motion device ' page! This page should make clear that the laws of thermodynamics are based on a principle of perpetual motion (that of the universe through space @ unknown speeds that are possibly infinite). It should be perfectly clear that the quality of this page is bad.Lawstubes (talk) 06:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I feel that the theory concerning perpetual motion and the attempted devices that have been built are sufficiently intertwined such that one article is sufficient. I also feel strongly that most people interested in the topic would end up reading both articles anyway. Similarly the editing job would increase. All with no benefit that I can see. Jeh (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

As for your theory here of perpetual motion: the universe doesn't move through space, the universe defines and contains space. Nor does science have anything to say about what's outside the universe, as anything outside the universe is (by definition) unobservable. So you are free to make up any ideas you like about what's beyond the universe (you might start with a defense of the notion that "what's beyond the universe" has any valid semantic meaning whatsoever; by the usually accepted definition of "universe," it does not) but they don't belong here, nor do any theories you derive from them. Similarly, if you want to claim that the whole of the motions of every particle in the universe constitute "perpetual motion" and that therefore p.m. does exist... well, free speech says you are free to claim that, but that isn't what anybody coming to this article is thinking of and you full well know it. Nor, I suspect, will edits to that effect be accepted by consensus. Jeh (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Only a single source was provided, and it does not appear to be reliable. There is no reason to continue this conversation. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Lawstubes' call for citations is laudable and should be supported, not disputed. I strongly disagree that we don't need citations for statements that are in accord with the laws of physics. Citations are required for "controversial statements that are likely to be challenged." The discussions on this page and this section make it blindingly obvious that anything about PM being impossible will be challenged and requires a reference from a verifiable source. There is too much original research in this article dressed in the guise of scientific explanations as to why various approaches to PM cannot work. All of that must be backed up with citations. Jojalozzo 16:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Relocate All Information on DEVICES to a separate (new) article

Title this article "Perpetual Motion Device", it doesn't exist, yet. & I'm too busy to do it myself & would rather have someone else take the credit.Lawstubes (talk) 06:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless nobody thinks your idea has merit, right? If you actually think this is worthwhile thing, you should know that technically you are proposing a "renaming" of the article (moving all content from current A to brand new B by copying in the edit window is prohibited by Wikipedia policy). You're welcome to start a move-request discussion to see if others support your plan. I'm guessing no, but you're the one that seems to think it's a good idea so it's your responsibility to try to get WP:CONSENSUS your way. DMacks (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the term "perpetual motion" classicly refers to perpetual motion devices, and not the expansion of the universe or the motion of the outer electron in a boron atom, I think renaming this article would be harmless. And as it is, I think the lede should make clear that "perpetual motion" in English doesn't just refer to stuff that moves all the time, like light rays. You know? This is just common sense. SBHarris 23:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite happy with some of the recent changes to the article: there is no need to introduce confusion which amounts to "perpetual motion does not work, except for some stuff where it does". The term "perpetual motion" has nothing to do with light or super conducting or similar: it is an attempt to get perpetual motion out of something that a human can directly observe, and preferably derive work from. I think we should stick to material in reliable sources where the sources have focused on "perpetual motion". Johnuniq (talk) 01:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

All languages have terms that are not, and never were meant, to be taken exactly literally. The underground railroad wasn't underground, and wasn't a railroad; in other words, it wasn't a subway. "Losing your nerve" doesn't really mean losing your nerve. The g-force isn't really a force, and so on and so on. "Perpetual motion" does not literally refer to perpetual motion, but rather perpetual motion in friction-producing devices. That's it. It's one of those peculiarities of how English is. Live with it. SBHarris 01:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sbharris that "Perpetual motion does not literally refer to perpetual motion, but rather perpetual motion in friction-producing devices." However this would be easier for readers if the lead section actually made this statement a bit more clearly. The content is mostly already present, but I think we should reword the existing sentences of the first two paragraphs, for clarity. Wdford (talk) 04:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite THIS Article

Useful references can be found here & here—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.85.222 (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait, should we rename it (previous comment) or add references to it (this comment)? DMacks (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Ramp-and-magnet perpetual motion

WP:FORUM
One of the earliest examples of a system using magnets was proposed by Wilkins and has been widely copied since: it consists of a ramp with a magnet at the top, which pulled a metal ball up the ramp. Near the magnet was a small hole that was supposed to allow the ball to drop under the ramp and return to the bottom, where a flap allowed it to return to the top again. The device simply could not work: any magnet strong enough to pull the ball up the ramp would necessarily be too powerful to allow it to drop through the hole. I believe this is just a technical problem; it should be possible - at least, in theory - to design the final section of the ramp so steep that the ball is barely able to climb it, so that it is still able to fall down the hole. The true problem is that the apparatus would just convert potential energy into kinetic energy and vice versa - in other words, it would have been a perpetual motion of the third kind, and as a result a) it wouldn't be able to do any work, and b) friction and other losses of energy would have soon stopped it (probably before the completion of the first cycle). (A simpler explanation: Without friction, the ball would be able to cycle around the ramp indefinitely even without the magnet, given a sufficient initial impulse. But in practice, the ball will stop sooner or later - very soon, in fact. Adding the magnet doesn't add any source of energy to the device; it just changes the forces affecting the ball.) Without energy loss, a simple bouncing ball would have acted as a perpetual motion of the third kind. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC) "I believe this is just a technical problem; it should be possible - at least, in theory - to design the final section of the ramp so steep that the ball is barely able to climb it, so that it is still able to fall down the hole." Sorry, but no. Remember that the magnet has to lift the ball against gravity from a significant distance. Remember also that the force of a magnet at significant distance (where "field closure" effects are significant) falls off as the cube of the distance - closer in, where only one pole is important, it approaches the square of the distance. (This is why magnetic monopoles would be so interesting if we could have them.) So when the ball is close to the magnet (at the hole) it is experiencing a far greater force from the magnet than it did at the bottom of the ramp. Now if the magnet could lift the ball up the ramp from a distance, how are you going to arrange for it to release the ball when it is far closer? It is true that since the ball is suddenly not supported by the ramp (the vertical acceleration due to gravity changes from sin(angle) × g, which is smaller than g, to just g) but it turns out that this effect is not enough to overcome the increased force of the magnet. Try it yourself; the equations are pretty simple and easy to set up in a simulation, or even a spreadsheet. There is simply no combination of ramp slope, distance, etc., that allows it to happen. "Without energy loss, a simple bouncing ball would have acted as a perpetual motion of the third kind." And so would a frictionless flywheel. So what? As a matter of fact, a lot of p.m. "loop" schemes (water pump / water turbine, motor / generator, etc.) are basically just overcomplicated flywheels. Jeh (talk) 11:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC) I have been thinking about it (naturally, I am not proposing an actual perpetual motion machine, just making a thought experiment). Suppose we have horizontal platform (so that it , with a vertical wall next to its end:	.__________________*		Now at the . point the ball is still being attracted by the magnet - but that's irrelevant, because it's pulling against the wall, and - naturally - the ball would fall. (I am assuming no friction - that's the advantage of thought experiments that I can assume counter-facual premises.) Of course, the after going some distance down the wall changes into a ramp connecting back to point *. Without the magnet, a stationary ball at point . would have been able to return to point * (again, assuming no friction); the extra force of the magnet will prevent that. But what if the ball has sufficient speed at point .? I'd say that it would have returned back to point ., with the same speed as it was initially given; and if we can prevent it from losing its speed at point . by adding a curved ramp there... But I agree it's all a pointless exercise. As I had said, the only way the contraption could function is without friction (and without friction, it would have functioned even without the magnet); and even then, it wouldn't have been able to do any work. And this is the reason why this device (and any other perpetual motion machine) fails. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Also: regarding the original arrangement of the machine, again see the schema: .| / | / | / | * | Suppose that at point * the magnetic force is barely enough to pull the ball up the slope; what prevents me from placing the hole (point .) in such a way that the magnet isn't yet attracting the ball strongly enough to overcome the gravity (e.g. if 5 Newtons are needed to pull the ball up the ramp, and 10 Newtons to pull it in the air, then what prevents me from setting up the ramp so that at the magnet's pull is 6 N at the beginning and 9 N at the end? (Also, there's nothing forcing the ramp to have the same slope along all of its length; if at the beginning the ramp is horizontal [as in my first scenario], then - barring friction - the only thing that's needed is for the magnet to exert any force at all on the ball. Moral: it's friction and other losses of energy (and - if the machine were to do some useful work - the law of conservation of energy) that's the real deal-killer in perpetual motion, not technicalities. (It may well be so that in the real-life experiment as originally envisioned, where the magnet needs to overcome friction as well as gravity, it would need to be so strong that it prevents the ball from falling.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Ok, I see what you're saying. Now that I remember there's even a theoretical basis for it which is pretty well covered in Phys 101: The integral of force on an object over ANY closed path through a magnetic field OR a gravity field is zero. Expressed crudely, that means that the sum over time of the force x time that you will have to apply to the object to get it to move away from the magnet (or earth) is exactly the same magnitude, but opposite vector, as the integral over time of the force the magnet (or earth) applies to the object. btw the shape of the path, curved, complex curves, 3-d or whatever, doesn't matter; it just makes the job of finding the integral tougher... if you get back to your starting point and repeat the path, everything still sums to zero. (btw, don't forget that the magnet acts on the ball throughout its path, including the "return" path. If you try to use shielding materials like Mu-metal you change the shape of the field elsewhere, too...) Schemes like this are attempting to get the g and magnetic fields acting "out of phase", or to exploit the difference between the magnetic field's inverse square to inverse cube strength vs. gravity's essentially constant strength (assuming that the tower height is small compared to the earth's radius), or to exploit the momentum... none of this makes a damn bit of difference; everything still integrates to zero. So, yeah, it's a "flywheel," at best. Jeh (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Indeed - the integral over the path is zero. So the machine could maybe allow the ball to roll around forever if there is utterly zero friction and uttery zero air resistance, etc (I don't believe that for one moment - this idea of magnets and funny shaped tracks with holes in them has been argued to death by much greater minds than ours - and the answer thus far has been "Hell no!"). But it doesn't harm the debate to admit the possibility that you might have something that could theoretically work like that. But before you get too excited about this amazing breakthrough - if you're prepared to accept those fairy-tale conditions of no friction whatever, no air resistance whatever, etc - then let's dispense with the magnet and the complicated track and all that baloney and just have a simple toroidal tunnel - no magnets, no nothing. Put the ball in the tunnel - give it a gentle push to get it started and if you've really eliminated friction, etc - then it'll roll around there forever. All of the B.S about magnets and things having just enough speed to fall down some hole onto some super-specially shaped ramp...ALL of that crap doesn't add a thing to the core issue! In a totally frictionless universe with perfect-everything - you can have an object continue to move forever. You can't extract any energy from it - and you can't even watch it doing it because it has to be kept in utter darkness to avoid photon pressure slowing it down...but that is a perpetual motion machine of the third kind (read our article!). At it's simplest, you don't even need that toroidal track. Just head out into deep space and throw your object at a nice black bit of sky and it'll keep going at the same speed forever (neglecting friction, yadda, yadda, yadda) because Newton's first law of motion says: "Every body remains in a state of rest or uniform motion (constant velocity) unless it is acted upon by an external force". By carefully assuming no friction, no gravity, no air resistance, no photon pressure - you are merely eliminating ALL of the forces - and leaving yourself with an idealized first-law machine. If you could manage all of that (and you most certainly can't) you'd have perpetual motion of the third kind. Sadly, that kind of perpetual motion isn't interesting...and it's certainly not achievable in any real universe. The only interesting kinds of perpetual motion are those of the first or second kind - but those don't work because the laws of thermodynamics don't allow them to - even in a perfect universe without friction, etc. SteveBaker (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Variations of the magnetic ramp idea have been "invented" on a regular basis for as long as there have been magnets. The only interesting thing are the complex explanations people come up with as to why it will work. One description has a page of bollocks about why it was crucial to use a rolling magnetic bar made out of those little round refrigerator magnets. I recommend the book "Perpetual Motion: History of an Obsession", by WJG Ord-Hume. It's an entertaining and informative compendium of perpetual motion ideas that have been suggested (and in many cases patented and/or built) over the last few centuries. Anyone who thinks they've "invented" a new type of perpetual motion concept should at least leaf through it. Spoiler: whatever it is, it's been tried and it didn't work. In fact, tinkerers in the 19th and early 20th century were far more imaginative about complex arrangements of gears, weights, magnets, hoses, bladders, etc than your typical free energy blogger today.Prebys (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Math is not scientific

In the section on the term "impossible" there is the following: "outside of pure mathematics, stating that things are absolutely impossible is un-scientific." I find this confusing because no one wants or expects math to be scientific and mathematical "impossibility" is axiomatic or meta-axiomatic. We need to be careful not to conflate these two quite different meanings of impossible. That is why I rewrote it without mention of math: "stating that things are absolutely impossible is un-scientific." This rewording was reverted with the comment that "this is an important distinction, since e.g. Noether's theorem is proven by math". If we need to emphasize that math has a notion of impossible that we can express without being unscientific (I don't think we do) perhaps we can add that in a separate sentence. Jojalozzo 18:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Math may not be "scientific" in that it is not dependent on experiment. But mathematical derivations of equations that describe scientific theories (such as Maxwell's equations) are certainly considered by scientists to be valid manipulations, and are considered to be sufficient to prove the truth-equivalence of such equations. (For example, the derivation from Maxwell's equations of mass-energy equivalence - if the former are correct, and the derivation is correct, then so must be the latter.) This section makes an important point based on Noether's theorem, which is a matter of mathematical proof, and that point is weakened considerably if such proof can be dismissed as "just another scientific theory, it could be wrong too." That's why I disagree with omitting the point completely. In fact, I think it could stand being stated more strongly. I understand your objection to the phrasing, however. Jeh (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I see your point but I'm not sure it makes sense to defend against ignorance by suggesting that math can be considered as scientific or unscientific, i.e. the notion that mathematical results are "just another scientific theory." Would it make sense to leave my wording of the first sentence and emphasize in the Noether paragraph that the results are mathematical and not subject to scientific methods. Jojalozzo 20:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

My feeling is that there is a strong need in this article to defend against ignorance, considering what it often attracts! Trying something. Jeh (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The rewording is an improvement I think, but it left a somewhat non-sequitur sentence about math, which I removed. I don't think it's really necessary to comment on the nature of math, but if someone does, I suggest it be done in a more integrated way.Prebys (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Cannot only? Closed cycle ... in a region of constant temperature?

The following sentence at the end of the first paragraph of Basic principles seems unnecessarily awkward. However, I'm not clear what is being said so I dare not touch it.

"As a special case of this, any machine operating in a closed cycle cannot only transform thermal energy to work in a region of constant temperature."

Please explain this so I can reword it or just edit it so I can understand it. Thanks. Jojalozzo 02:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't put a machine in a room which is all at one even temperature "(a region of constant temperature"), switch the machine on, and have it cool the room down by it taking the heat of the room to generate electricity or do some other kind of mechanical work. (Well OK, a machine could do it for a while, if it had ice inside for example, but eventually it would run out and stop, because that's not a "closed cycle").- Wolfkeeper 05:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

More like "because the machine is part of the room and the ice inside it violates the condition that the room is a region of constant temperature", I think. Jeh (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The original wording seems more to mean that the machine can't use the heat to do work. It's the same issue as Wolfkeeper mentions (executive summary: need a temp difference and have heat flow to a cold sink), but focused on the work output rather than the cooling effect. That directly attacks a common PE claim: everyone knows heat can be used to do stuff (steam engines, thermoelectric effects, etc.), so just put some sort of device in a hot place and extract that energy from it (period, without sending that heat energy somewhere as part of the process). It's also true that you can't cool a hot object without either a cold-sink (to dump the energy) or an energy input (to overcome normal heat flow), but I don't think that's as common a PE-related concern. DMacks (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What does it mean for a machine to operate in a closed cycle? Please give me an example. Jojalozzo 15:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

See Closed system.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 23:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I know what a closed system is but a "machine operating in a closed cycle" is new terminology. Are you saying a closed cycle is the same as a closed system? If so, why introduce new terms? If this is just really crappy writing(as I believe) then please fix it rather than explain it. Jojalozzo 01:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

1) Yes. See Closed cycle. 2) I have no idea.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 11:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Since it seems clear that no one else can explain that sentence, I'll remove it. Really, this article needs a major overhaul. These piecemeal efforts of mine are pretty futile. Jojalozzo 15:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Classification of PM

The classification section appears to be someone's original research. Are there notable sources that were referenced in that section?

In at least one case, the classification appears to be incorrect: as I understand it, "free energy" folks believe there is a way to access undiscovered sources of energy in the universe (cold fusion?), not "energy from nothing". If this is so, then free energy is not a challenge to the first law, it's simply Wishful thinking. Jojalozzo 03:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you are mixing in a different meaning of "free energy entirely". Those looking for ways to tap actual potential energy sources (low-cost fuel, just don't have the ability to do it cheaply or practically now--H/H fusion starting with water) are dreamers and wishful thinkers and sci-fi writers and physicists and engineers. That's not perpetual motion though. There are alternative-energy articles, but that's not the topic here. Here we're talking about those looking to violate laws of physics (essentially lost-cost because there isn't a fuel). Really free, not just trivially cheap. DMacks (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the footnote refs linked in that section specifically says "perpetual motion machine of the third kind", so there is some sort of first/second/third-kind classification. The ref itself got broken long ago, I'll fix it momentarily. DMacks (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not talking about alternative energy. Free energy folks work with tesla coils and talk about the zero point. Free energy machine are designed to access sources of energy that physicists don't know about, "yet". That's wishful thinking, not alternative energy. Jojalozzo 16:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"Cold fusion isn't perpetual motion" is my point here. Converting H+H -> He looks like a one-way street that releases energy. It might be impossible to harness it, but it's still thermodynamically available. DMacks (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You are making my point for me. Cold fusion is thermodynamically possible but I consider it to be an over-unity, "free energy" device in it's present state since it is not replicable and there is no accepted theory to explain it. In my mind most free energy folks are looking for new undiscovered sources of energy that conform to the first law, not trying to get around the first law. I doubt if most free energy seekers would say they were trying to get energy from nothing as the article puts it. They have an explanation for where their free energy is going to come from (e.g. H+H->He without sweat). The article wording appears to be POV hyperbole.

Try this thought experiment: if we had cheap battery-pack, household, and industrial cold-fusion, how many PM inventors would keep gluing magnets to wheels and wrapping miles of copper around mu-metal cores? What would be the point? The wish is fulfilled, the dream comes true, no? :-)

In my view, the point of PM is not to prove that thermodynamics is wrong. PM inventors are not challenging the scientific status quo; they seeking to make this a magical world where there is enough of everything to go around. If we want this article to define PM, apriori, categorically, as only those devices that violate thermodynamic theory, if we want to exclude devices that purport to tap into wishful, practically unlimited, heretofore unknown, but first law compliant energy sources, then we need to be clearer about that so those who want an article about such devices can work on other pages. Jojalozzo 22:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of unreferenced material.

I'm sorry, but I have the right to just delete all of this. & I am... sorry, it's just a bunch of babble. IT jumps all over the place an NOTHING is referenced. The first & only reference is dead & I don't even think Encarta allows their publications to be references in this manor. I'm rewriting with dictionary references. o? I also condensed most of the information into the few sentences that close the lead. Lawstubes (talk) 06:29 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Old

Perpetual motion is the hypothetical indefinite operation of a mechanism (a perpetual motion machine) that does work, without the introduction of energy from an external source (known as perpetual motion of the first kind), or the hypothetical operation of a mechanism that would convert heat directly into work (known as perpetual motion of the second kind).

It can be shown from the laws of thermodynamics that perpetual motion devices cannot exist. Nevertheless, despite the enormous experimental support for these laws and the universal scientific view that it is impossible, the lure of perpetual motion has always attracted inventors, and many people still try to build perpetual motion machines. The most commonly contemplated type of perpetual motion machine is a mechanical system which (supposedly) sustains motion indefinitely, despite losing energy to friction and air resistance. This violates the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy). A second type of perpetual motion machine is one which produces work by extracting heat from a lower temperature source, thereby cooling them down further, and converting the heat energy into mechanical work. Such machines do not violate the conservation of energy principle, but are forbidden by the second law of thermodynamics.

Since the term perpetual motion has acquired a stigma, a number of other terms are used by current enthusiasts of this technology, such as over-unity devices (referring to devices with an energy efficiency greater than 1.0), free energy technology, etc.

The term "perpetual motion" is usually not employed as a description of natural frictionless moving systems, such as the quantum motions of electrons in atoms, the movement of light in vacuum, and other similar phenomena that involve motion without the input of energy. Devices which generate useful energy from "perpetual" external sources, such as ocean current turbines and Cox's timepiece, are also generally considered not to be true “perpetual motion devices”, as they are actually drawing in renewable energy from external sources.

Further discussion

You are mistaken. An article lede doesn't absolutely require references, as it is simply summarizing the rest of the article, where the references should be. Nor is there anything "controversial or likely to be challenged" in the lede here. And since it is summarizing the entire rest of the article, some amount of "jumping around" is expected when the article is long. Please reconsider. Jeh (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that refs aren't required in the lead for material that's ref'd in the rest of the article. However the old lead was pretty windy and disorganized. In fact, I believe that there was info in there that is not covered in the rest of the article and would be lost if we went with a shorter lead and didn't move some of the old into the article. If that's so, then that stuff doesn't belong in the lead and requires refs when it gets moved. Jojalozzo 15:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. The old intro was way too long and rambling. It reads much better now. If people think that important points have been left out, I recommend that they find an appropriate place for them in the body of the article.Prebys (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This is reminicent of an old argument on this article: is the article about perpetual motion in general or perpetual motion machines only? The lede should make it clear what the article is about. I also think that the phrase "the allure endures" is needless flowery and not encylopedic, I suggest that it should be reworded. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason why it can't be about both the concept and "machines." There is some "motion" that is likely "perpetual" (theory says that electrons in their clouds around nuclei don't stop at absolute zero) but use of the term "perpetual motion" to refer to such is not done. Properly speaking it isn't even "motion" in the ordinary sense, as I understand it; it is just ever-changing probability densities. Jeh (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Newtonian physics and therefore what we usually think of when we talk about perpetual motion machines doesn't work at the subatomic level; which is why we use quantum mechanics to describe motion at that scale. I think that's beyond the scope of this article. Why are we so stuck on trying to justify including that citation in the lede? If you like it so much find a place to put it in the body of the article. The lede still needs work(especially that last sentence), we are not here to debunk, we are here to write an encyclopedia. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

a) I'm lost. What citation are you referring to? b) In this case, the vast body of apparently valid theory that shows PM to be "impossible under physical law as we know it" is a completely valid part of the topic coverage. Just because something happens to "debunk" doesn't mean it shouldn't be in an encylopedia. Jeh (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

{undent} The only citation in the lede, the one for the Museum of unworkable devices. The last sentence "Despite the lack of a scientific basis for such devices, wishful inventors continue to add to the vast log of failed designs." is problematic and seems to be there to mostly as an excuse to use that link. I think it would be good to include a short explanation that perpetual motion machines are impossible, but trying to typify or describe the people who believe in such devices is not encyclopedic, that means no "wishful inventors" and no "allure". Voiceofreason01 (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my positive comment above was made just before a current round of edits that made it worse (Latin derivation, word "allure", etc). I agree that the reference to the "unworkable" link is problematic. If it belongs anywhere, it's in a further reading list. I've changed the intro a bit, but I'm still not really happy. It might be better to leave the last sentence off entirely.Prebys (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead - no etymology - just say what the article is about

The first sentence of the article should not be the derivation of the term - it should say what the article is about. Albeit, my version takes two sentences to say what it's about but it gets to the point quickly enough. If we want to be more succinct we can drop the original meaning and just go to the modern day over-unity sense of the term which is a more accurate description of our subject. Jojalozzo 23:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm liking your changes so far. Not just the lede. Jeh (talk) 05:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In not opposed to your changes, but removing etymology is foolish. Starting pages with '___is' is also foolish because it is implied. All articles should begin with etymology because if a reader doesn't know what the word means, they will be reading in a state of confusion. It's basic.Lawstubes (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

FWIW you're constrained in an encyclopedia as articles are on the topic that is identified by the name, not on the name itself (unlike a dictionary, where the entry is about the uses of the entry name/term). The first sentence or so must therefore be about the topic, not the name or the etymology of the name. We're not usually that concerned about etymology that it has to be in the lead, because the primary topic is not the article name.- Wolfkeeper 23:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Lawstubes: It is simply not Wikipedia accepted style to include etymology of the terms, except in very unusual circumstances - and I can't remember EVER seeing a WP article where it was done in the article lede. As Wolfkeeper stated, encyclopedia articles are not about the words themselves. Encyclopedia articles are about the thing that is named by the words. There are many cases where meanings have shifted such that the etymology would actually be confusing. And there are others, like this one, where the etymology helps in understanding not at all: Since "everlasting" is about as near a synonym to "perpetual" as one will ever find, a statement (however true) that "The term 'perpetual motion' is derived from the Latin for 'everlasting' and 'motion'" is tantamount to saying "The term 'perpetual motion' means 'perpetual motion'" - a tautology, and not at all helpful. In any case, if you want to change Wikipedia policy on this point, trying to force your point upon this article against consensus is not the way to do it. Please take it to WP:MOS. Jeh (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

n.b.: Trying to force your idea about division of this article into two articles, one about machines and the other about theory, is also contrary to current consensus. You are welcome to try to make a case here for a change of consensus, but until you have done so, any undiscussed moves, renames, or splits of the material will, I suspect, continue to be reverted. The pattern is Bold, Revert, Discuss: You made a bold change. It was not accepted, so it was reverted. The next step for you is not to once again put etymology into the lede, and certainly not to split the article again - it is to use this talk page to discuss the changes you want to make, in an attempt to reach a new consensus. Jeh (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

First, we all know this but no one has said it yet: etymology does not tell you what a word means, it tells you what the roots of the word are, which can be quite obscure; the etymology of a word is not the word's definition. Second, and this has been said already but bears repeating, this isn't a dictionary. Articles here are not about the words in the title, they're about a topic that is best described (and searched for) by a given title. Jojalozzo 01:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Electron

Aren't electrons perpetual? If they stopped.... 72.199.100.223 (talk) 06:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Properly speaking, what electrons are doing isn't necessarily "moving", let alone "orbiting;" that is a simplification that dates to the Bohr model of atom-as-solar-system - a model almost a century old, and now considered obsolete. Rather it's an ever-changing probability density function. In any case it's a "lossless" environment, and there is no question that perpetual (but not self-starting) motion is possible in a completely lossless environment. The second and third laws of TD state that such an environment is impossible at the macro scale. Jeh (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

A definition of Over Unity

I have created a page under my name that defines what these guys have all been trying to get at.

Just look me up and it goes directly to that page's definition. User:Robert135

The lack of proper terminology and utter lack of consistency in presentation of this topic has hampered its proper understanding. Every reference that tries to explain what it is generally goes off the deep end and does not even try to explain things in a mathematical way.

I have worked out what they are trying to say into a simple page. Please take a look at the page and edit it there.

There are no sources because everyone of the sources I can find are hogwash.

In the end what these guys generally are trying to accomplish is relatively simple, they just don't know how to say it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert135 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - but no sources and all original-research means we can't do anything with what you wrote - be it right or wrong.

But aside from that, I strongly disagree with what you wrote. A sailboat is NOT an "over-unity" device - and if you think it is, you badly misunderstand what we're talking about here.

The important thing in these discussions is to place an imaginary box around your "system" and to ask whether the energy that comes out of the box is greater than the energy that goes in - paying careful attention to ALL of the energy sources and sinks. If the energy coming out is more than went in, then you need to ask whether this is merely stored energy that is being released resulting in the energy output of the system eventually running down and ceasing.

This is all about "closed systems". In a closed system, you can't get more energy out than you put in to start with - there is no free lunch - which is essentially what the first law of thermodynamics and the conservation of energy is telling us.

• If you draw your box around the sailboat, then wind energy goes in - and heat and sound energy comes out while some kinetic energy is stored inside the box. When the wind energy input ceases, the kinetic energy soon turns into heat too - and pretty soon the system "runs down" and stops. It's not over-unity, it's just unity...which is boring.

• You could draw a bigger box around the sailboat plus some large wind-producing weather system - but again, the force of the wind inside the box comes from the solar and tidal energy that comes in from outside the box. Still no over-unity.

• Place your box around the solar system and finally, we see more energy coming out (in the form of light and heat) - than goes in (starlight, a few stray cosmic rays) but the sun's energy stores are continually being depleted and will eventually run out - so, again, not over-unity.

In truth, you can't come up with ANY valid examples of an over-unity system because the laws of thermodynamics prohibit them from existing. As our article explains "over-unity" is a synonym for "perpetual motion" (and arguably, a much better term for it)...but it's still impossible. SteveBaker (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What, then, of winds on Jupiter, which is far from the Sun? What keeps the wind blowing there? 24.184.234.24 (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)LeucineZipper

Despite its distance Jupiter still picks up some heat from the sun, and has its own (nuclear) internal heat source as well. Still not overunity. Jeh (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I applaud your attempts to get clarity on this problem but I think your definition, based on the desires and inputs of an actor, is not the common one. Your definition encompasses all sorts of mechanical advantage, leverage, any system with stored or potential energy, and, carried to an extreme, would include someone purchasing energy with money (put in a paper check with 1 BTU of energy and get back a nuclear power plant).

As I understand it, a claim of over unity requires counting all the known energy inputs (wind, BTU's of fuel, represented energy of money, etc) and still getting back more than was accounted for. Since magic is not acceptable in our modern times, most over-unity claimants explain that the device is tapping into some as-of-yet undetected energy source (i.e. copper atoms, coil field dynamics, extra dimensions, etc.) Jojalozzo 23:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand your skeptism and agree that the concept is generally spoken of within frames of reference. But it is precisely the frames of reference that are at play in my example of a simple sailboat. The laws of thermodynamics were not known at the time when sailing was invented. At the time they too would have described unaccounted for energy. When the energy is accounted for it is a known source and is put into the system, and will be accounted for as part of the system. But in the definition that I have given, you don't need to know what the source really is. You don't care. All you care about is the effect of the source and the input into the system that an actor puts into the source to generate a desired output. Once measured, is that output greater than what you put in?

Lets look at the sailboat. draw a box around the sailboat with the sail down alone. it does nothing. Draw your closed system around the boat, with the sail up. It still does nothing. Draw your box, around the sailboat with the sail down then transitioned to up and you get wasted work. No desired output. Now draw the box around the sail boat and add the sun into the system and the fact that the world is round so you get a therodynamic system... and you get a HUGELY efficient and effective system. The frames of reference you speak of can disprove something as common as sailing if you do not account for all sources.

What most of these inventors are stating is that there is a source that is unaccounted for. They don't have an accepted name for it yet, and there is no theory that explains it as well. But to define the effects of what they are talking about You or I do not need to know the definition of it either. We just need to know the effect they are attempting to attain. That is what I have described by that definiton. If we know what that effect is, we can properly define it, and it will become scientific knowledge.

Whether they can attain it using the methods they say is entirely irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.216.48.254 00:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah. It sounds like you think that inventors are really building devices that are accessing unknown, as-yet-to-be-explained sources of energy. If so, this is not the right article for you to be working on. This article is about devices that do not achieve over-unity when all inputs of known energy are accounted for. Jojalozzo 02:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually what I believe is irrelevant to the definition of "over unity". My issue arises that "over unity" as an effect is a definable concept that has nothing to do with perpetual motion, and when you go to "over unity" on wikipedia, you get redirected to "perpetual motion". One does not mean the other. robert135 05:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears that your definition of over unity is something you have devised yourself, original research. I have not seen the term used except to describe devices that demonstrate effiencies greater than one when all energy inputs are accounted for - in a universal frame, irrespective of the operator's point of view, in violation of the laws of thermodynamics. I do not know of any uses of the term in the literature that differ from that common usage or any that concur with your proposal. If I am wrong about that then there could be other articles about other uses of the term separate from PM and we can add a disambiguation page. Jojalozzo 12:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Right. If there were some untapped source of energy - as yet unknown to science - then a device that tapped into and consumed that energy to produce some kind of output would NOT be an 'over-unity' device. Our lack of knowledge about this mysterious energy source might make it appear to be over-unity - but when we'd finally understand the processes, we'd say that this was not over-unity and not perpetual-motion. But if this unknown source of energy eventually runs out - then that would clue us into the idea that there is some as-yet-undiscovered source. We'd know that this mysterious contraption was not over-unity. Now - the tricky part: IF someone comes up with a device that emits more energy than it consumes and NEVER runs down - then you have a genuine "over-unity" device - which is capable of "perpetual motion".

Some "free energy" nuts claim to have tapped into energy sources that will eventually run down - others (like Meyer's and his water fuel cell) claim do not. The former may be wrong about their fuel source (or they may be lying, cheating scumbags!) - but they aren't claiming over-unity or perpetual motion. The latter are certainly claiming perpetual motion - even though they may choose to use words like "over-unity" in an effort to seem more legitimate - or perhaps to get around the patent department rules (which, at least in the US, prohibit the patenting of perpetual motion machines). SteveBaker (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is not a dictionary entry

The lead does not need a definition of the words in the title. The first sentence should let the reader know what the article is about. Likewise we do not need an etymology of the words in the title. Jojalozzo 03:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It is particularly silly when the "definition" says something like

Perpetual motion" is derived from words meaning "everlasting" and "movement"

It's just saying the same thing as the original term, with very slightly different words. This adds exactly nothing to the readers's understanding of the subject.

Nor does the lede need references. The lede merely summarizes what is said in more detail - with references - later on. Jeh (talk) 04:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Etymology was already discussed above (same editor even still trying to insert it after that?), and also concur that lede is just an intro/overview of the formal article (the support for "X is a Y and Z" is the whole rest of the page, where the more detailed discussion of Y and of Z are cited). DMacks (talk) 05:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Not just "some editor" but the same one as before. Jeh (talk) 05:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)