Perpetual Motion

I was reading about perpetual motion machines, and basically how they have been completely dismissed as they don't fit the laws of thermodynamics. But. I was thinking, who actually needs created or infinitely re-used energy?

Perpetual Motion, in its name doesn't explicitly demand the same energy perpetually moves, it is simply a description of a reaction.

One would only need to create something that runs continuously, by its own actions, not continuously with a finite set of energy. And it isn't the continued functioning that is against the law of nature, it's the re-used or imagined energy that can't be harnessed.

Looking at the goal of Perpetual Motion, I realize the standard has been set way too high for practicality. And the true desire for Perpetual Motion is not about what energy is used, but rather if it is costly to people.

A realistic goal could be set in two lengths, and as far as technicalities are concerned would be "perpetual".

1. Create a machine that requires no more input to function once it is built, that will last a life time.

2. Create a machine that requires no more input to function once it is built, that will last for as long as its energy source exists.


Both of these goals were met hundreds of years ago. Clocks have been designed that run on temperature changes. Earth's temperature always changes, the clocks continue to run hundreds of years later.

Now some energy has to be put in them to maintain their accuracy (setting the correct time), but this isn't the source of the power for the clock, and perhaps, already proof of concept in themselves, if you simply look at the device, not as a clock, but as a machine that moves parts powered by temperature, it has worked continuously for hundreds of years.

When you up the desired results, before the technology exists, sure you might need human input. Now maybe someone needs to make one of these clocks, but make it so the clock is also able to correct its own time (like storing excess energy in a battery, use a memory chip and have it readjust when it needs to, or something like that).

In the meantime, no one gives a shit about inventing a machine that needs no new energy, we just want machines that don't need human energy.

Solar Power, wind power, water power are all renewable and will outlast 1,000 human generations. I'd say that is sufficient to call it "perpetual".

Of course everything breaks down too. But I'm sure there can be ways to solve this when you have the energy continuously backing you up. It's hard to believe there's no perpetual motion, when you think no life could exist on this planet if water itself wasn't in a perpetual state of motion. Water turns to gas, becomes liquid again (or solid) comes back to earth. Water's motion gives resource of perpetual motion to feed plants, which in turn feed animals (who also need water). If water couldn't cycle in this atmosphere, the nature of our bodies could not function.

Anyway. So I was looking at one supposed non-functional example of Perpetual Motion called a "SMOT" where the T is for "toy" meaning it is useless.

Basically you can make a ball roll up an incline if you align magnets on either side. It is argued that this only works because the magnets help "convert" the potential energy of the ball into kinetic energy.

But electro-magnetism is its own force. It is energy. Thinking you can't convert it to kinetic energy is downright idiotic.

Now whether or not the SMOT can be made into a perpetual motion machine remains to be shown, as everyone seems to only make them straight.

But I was thinking, if the magnets can raise the ball on an incline, why not make an incline, have the ball roll up, but have a hole in the incline, the ball will drop, but have another SMOT placed right underneath, each SMOT would be set in a curve, each time the ball would move maybe a few inches up, then drop down, then a few inches up then drop down, SMOT to SMOT to SMOT until it comes full circle, and that would be perpetual motion. (people then argue that might work, but it would drain the magnets power, which doesn't count, but I disagree, I think the whole point of perpetual motion is finding ways of tapping into alternate energy sources).

SMOT



Perpetual Motion? lol. That is how an electric motor works though, converting electo-magnetic energy into kinetic energy through the motion of attracting and repelling magnets.



Absence of heat is absence of friction, thus "perfect" energy transfer.




The last video isn't about Perpetual Motion, but it does make me wonder, you see at the threshold, the rules change, and energy depleting liquid nitrogen actually becomes fuel for the levitation. If absence of energy, is a source of energy, if a system could drain energy completely, and then use it, it would be Perpetual Motion. And again, no one cares where the new energy comes from.

If you want to look at it in the big picture, if no energy can be created or destroyed, no source of energy is really an "outside" source. Call it Universal Perpetual Motion and you've jumped the technicality bridge.