Has the challenge of creating Perpetual Motion been overcome yet ?


Curious Phink

Hi Phinky,

First few comments on comments:

RE: pinkfreud-ga on 11 Jun 2005 20:26 PDT 
  Last time I checked, the U.S. Patent Office didn't think so.

Last time I checked - there was no evidence that U.S. Patent Office
thinks at all.  No thinking 'means' whatsoever. 

You,  phinky-ga,  may want to clarify if you mean 

 perpetual motion
or
perpetual-motion machine 
see
http://www.answers.com/perpetual+motion&r=67
which has some interesting definition (in addition to definitions)

RE: pugwashjw-ga said:
 "..earth keeps on going
around...and has been for quite some time .."
But that does not qualify at at all. It is simply a low friction device
which is very slowly slowing down (by effect of tides) - few ms per century.
http://www.astronomynotes.com/gravappl/s10.htm


Universe comes closer, evolving (they say) from uniformly hot, gas-like
state to state with hot spots (stars) shining on cold spots (planets)
maintaining all kinds irreversible (negentropy wasting) processes 
(like life).

Even closer  - a special case of the above -- would be certain intellectual
metastability which can be demonstrated on Google Answer by posting a
low cost question on semi-defined topic (what is life, is there a
meaning to all this, 42 ?)
and generating incredibly long series of comments - most of them with
high entropy content -but demanding expenditure of energy far beyond
$2 trigger.

On larger scale:
Universe, some say, was 'creating energy or negentropy' during inflation phase
as mentioned here
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=530665
 giving this reference
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_home.html
and the objection that 'laws of physics do not no allow that' is met
with clever solution:

'at that time, the laws (as we know them) did not apply.

I personally think it is cheating, since the challenge is to explain
OBSERVATIONS by current laws, or amend those laws, not to sink into
law-lessness.

And so, to summarize: Not shared by all scientist perhaps, 
most physicist are  likely to agree with this:

If a machine or an object would be found,
 which is spewing out an energy, without any apparent limit,
 we would simply postulate that the energy was always there,
 but we just did not know that kind.
 We would estimate the amount, and just add to the ever growing list
 of energy types.

IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED RECENTLY: Before 1900 physicists (e.g. Lord
Kelvin) wondered about the Sun.
This unlimited radiation was hard to explain. Today we know: 
There is enormous (but finite) store of energy in all stars. 
It is call 'nuclear energy'.
We can repeat that trick if necessary - and it is not really cheating.
It is theory. Energy started as an empirical concept. 
Impossibility of the Perpetum Mobile was an empirical concept.
 Todays the conservation laws are the very basis of all known
 (and I would dare to say) all conceivable theories.

For this reason, I am skeptical of 'inflation' theories, 
and 'theories of continuous matter creation'
and consider the issue closed. 

There are, nevertheless, still some die-hards left. 
Let's ignore them. There is now point in destroying 
beutiful dome of todays physics, just because some 
some lawyers od US PTO are unable to appreciate it.

Hedgie

Hedgie

---

Clarification of Answer by hedgie-ga on 12 Jun 2005 22:12 PDT

Thanks Phinky for the rating and comment.

In parallel, I have made a short addendum, 
comment on last few comments,
which is hearby offered to all participants:



RE: From: myoarin-ga on 12 Jun 2005 18:25 PDT 
Maybe the gov'ment should pass a law declaring that PM is impossible
and allow the patent office to reject all applications for such
machines.
Actually:
 According to reference given in the answer Patent Office is not
granting patents on devices which claim to be PM:


This sort of "invention" has become common enough that the United
States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has made an official policy
of refusing to grant patents for perpetual motion machines without a
working model. One reason for this concern is that a few "inventors"
have waved a patent in front of potential investors, who may believe
that said patent proves the machine works. The USPTO has granted a few
patents for motors that are claimed to run without net energy input.
These patents were issued because it was not obvious from the patent
that a perpetual motion machine was being claimed. Some of these are:
...
Proponents of perpetual motion machines use a number of other terms to
describe their inventions, including "free energy" and "over unity"
machines.
http://www.answers.com/perpetual+motion&r=67

If we accept the definition that PM is a device which violates one of
two basic laws (conservation of energy or 2nd law of thermodynamics -
PM of 1st or 2nd kind) then it certainly is not up to the gov'ment to
pass judgment.

 So, question, as well put by qed100-ga is:
  " It's sufficient to say at this point that thermodynamics is on firm ground"  

resting on the three (or four) basics laws. Is that likely to be revised, ever?

The most serious challenge to the 2nd law is also mentioned in the above reference:

Maxwell's demon: a thought experiment which led to physicists
considering the interaction between entropy and information

http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~xerver/seminar2/node3.html
 This has been examined by number of qualified people, some listed here:
http://bookmarkphysics.iop.org/bookpge.htm?book=390h
e.g. in this book by L.  Brioullien 
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0486439186/ref=pd_sxp_f/102-1914899-4442519?v=glance&s=books

This issue, which has bearing on foundation of thermodynamics, is not
yet fuly resolved: A demon who has knowledge of
microscopic state of a system, and unlimited computing power, may be
able to extract some work from the system which is (in narrow sense)
at equilibrium (violating the classical 2nd law). Brioullien suggested
extension of the
2nd law (to cover the sum of information and negentropy). Thus PM of
the 2nd kind can still be considered to be a challenge.

Thanks Hedgie, your wit and erudition were very refreshing...and
thanks to the rest of you for your diverse contributions. Fascinating
discussion.

Satisfied Phink

No, perpetual motion is a physical impossibility.

Last time I checked, the U.S. Patent Office didn't think so.

Au contraire.  Perpetual motion is the natural state of all things. 
Nothing is ever truly still!

dops...it's also a physical impossibility for Bumble Bees to fly.


pink...The rest of the world does not report to the U.S. Patent Office  :P

I don't think human invention can inprove on nature: the oceans and
the atmosphere are constantly, perpetually moving.

Factor in entropy and everything eventually stops.

Interesting question, with many pertinent comments. It is true that
things are constantly in motion. Classically, anything with a
temperature above absolute zero is in motion. Increasing entropy does
not change this. Energy is conserved, it just gets spread thinly
across the universe, but things are still moving. Quantum
mechanically, things get even more interesting. Even a system at
absolute zero, in its lowest energy state still has motion, but motion
of a different sort. This so called zero-point energy is hard to
explain in a few words, but it is real. So, for example, in a hydrogen
atom, if we measure the momentum of the electron, we find that it is
not zero, the electron is moving. Every time we measure it, we get a
different answer, sometimes one direction, sometimes another,
sometimes very close to zero, other times bigger. This is perpetual
motion and it is what keeps the atom from collapsing. Similarly, in a
superconductor or superfluid, one can have a form of perpetual motion
that lasts as long as you keep the conductor or fluid cold enough.

However, usually when people say perpetual motion, they are talking
about something you can build in your garage that has visible parts
moving perpetually. The dream has always been to harness this to
provide limitless energy at little or no cost. This is impossible. It
violates conservation of energy, which is the most cherished principle
of physics. As the commenter alludes, the patent office long ago,
wisely, stopped accepting applications for perpetual motion machines
of this sort.

"Has the challenge of creating Perpetual Motion been overcome yet ?"

   It depends on what you mean by perpetual motion. If you mean free,
unlimited, useful energy, then no, this cannot be achieved. It's a
gross violation of thermodynamics.

"Last time I checked, the U.S. Patent Office didn't think so."

   It matters little if the Patent Office has issued patents on
so-called perpetual motion machines. All the Patent Office does is
secure a temporary monopoly on a new idea. The machines in question
nevertheless don't make free energy.

"dops...it's also a physical impossibility for Bumble Bees to fly."

   This is an age-old quote intended to reassure that experts don't
know a damn thing. It's incomplete. What's impossible is for a
bumblebee to sustain flight without beating its wings to generate
upward thrust against downward acceleration due to gravity. It cannot
fly in the simple fashion of a fixed-wing aircraft, but it can fly in
the more sophisticated fashion of an insect. There's no big
inconsistency between currently understood physics and insect
aviation.

Yes. By God...Haven't you noticed that the earth keeps on going
around...and has been for quite some time. Perpetual motion exists,
but it is beyond us.

"Yes. By God...Haven't you noticed that the earth keeps on going
around...and has been for quite some time. Perpetual motion exists,
but it is beyond us."

   This isn't the same as free & unlimited useful energy. Earth has an
amount of orbital energy, the potential energy due to its radius from
the Earth/Sun mass-center, and kinetic energy of its motion. If you
change the energy, you change the orbit and its period.

   Earth is, in fact, exchanging energy all the time with various
objects. Meteors, dust, radiation and other planets all interact with
Earth, altering its orbital energy. Even such changes to the Moon can
alter Earth's orbital conditions, since Earth/Moon is a
gravitationally bound system. General relativity even asserts that
Earth loses orbital energy constantly in the form of gravitational
waves. If this is true then the very act of orbiting with the Sun
causes both bodies to slowly change their orbits.

   And of course, as for repetitive orbital motion being beyond us, it
hasn't been beyond us since the late '50s, when people started
launching satellites. A satellite on a solar orbit does so in the
exact same way as does a planet, and can remain on orbit every bit as
long.

Phinky asks:
"Has the challenge of creating Perpetual Motion been overcome yet ?"

The subject is "the challenge of...", not PM itself.

As long as you all can discuss the subject, it would seem that the
"challenge" is still there  - hasn't been overcome yet.
Maybe the gov'ment should pass a law declaring that PM is impossible
and allow the patent office to reject all applications for such
machines.
Oh, but then that could be outlawing the existance of an omnipotent
being, which could obviously act in perpetuity and even create such a
machine,... if it wanted to let mere humans have one.

As the bumblebee proved, the laws of physics (or attempts at applying
them) can be inadequate.  They are man-made, subject to revision if
new evidence proves them wrong.  So, who knows?  Personally, I go
along with present day physics and believe PM is impossible.

But the challenge is still there, as long as "There are, nevertheless,
still some die-hards left."  (Hedgie)
Myoarin

"As the bumblebee proved, the laws of physics (or attempts at applying
them) can be inadequate.  They are man-made, subject to revision if
new evidence proves them wrong.  So, who knows?  Personally, I go
along with present day physics and believe PM is impossible."

   Yes, theories of nature are provisional. They can be and often are
changed to accomodate unexpected discoveries. This is the story of the
last several centuries.

   No, the aerodynamics of bumblebees is not such an example. This is only a myth. 

   There is also the question of making wise investment decisions
about one's limited time. Is it categorically unimaginable that free
usable energy is possible? No, it's not unthinkable. But there's more
than just trivial reason why the 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics are
expected to hold. It's not merely a matter of "We've never seen these
laws contradicted, and we're too lazy and naive to speculate beyond
our experience." That's not at all how scientists come to such
propositions.

   It's sufficient to say at this point that thermodynamics is on firm
ground. If I were looking for some area of knowledge that's in need of
some expanding, I wouldn't waste my life looking for free energy. It's
a bad investment risk for my time, i.e., there's too little promise of
return on my investment. It's much like whether or not Earth is the
literal geographical center of the Universe. One can spend their life
trying to prove that it is, but the question is sufficiently settled
that we needn't bother with it. We can now afford to go onto some
other frontier of knowledge. Thermodynamics is the same. Don't worry
over it. Go on and find questions we don't have good answers for.

I did say it was beyond our abilities.

...satellites do orbit. 'We' put them there. But 'we' dont keep them
moving. The laws of motion, put in place, may I say, by God. Genesis
1; 15-17.

Bumblebees can't theoretically fly, huh?  As an aerospace engineer,
that's the silliest thing I have ever heard.

The notion that bumblebees can't theoretically fly came about in the
1930s, the infancy of our theories and studies on flight.  The basic
idea came out when a biologist and aerodynamicist were having dinner
one evening.  The biologist asked the other about insect flight.  The
aerodynamicist did a few calculations and discovered that bees (and
most insects in general) cannot generate enough lift to fly based on
their wing size, speed, etc, according to the accepted theory of that
day.

After he probably sobered up, we surely realized that his problem was
that we was treating the bee as a fixed wing aircraft, while most
insects behave more like helicopters.  This moving airfoil does
generate enough lift for them to fly.

There are two other problems, though.  First is the problem of
stability.  While the insect can fly, it is highly unstable.  That's
OK, because all it needs is a control system to overcome this small
problem.  Luckily, its brain, though infintesimally small, is enough
to control its motion appropriately.

Secondly is the issue of how the insect can flap its wings so freakin
fast!  Bumblebees flap at about 200 Hz, which is why you hear that low
buzzing sound when they are near.  However, nerve firing impulses are
only 1/10 to 1/20 of that.  So, what's going on?  Well, the beauty of
a bee is that its thorax muscles do not expand and contract like our
bicep, for instance.  Rather, they vibrate like a rubber band in the
wind.  A nerve impulse comes in and "twangs" the muscle much like you
would do to a guitar string.  And b-ooo-iii-ng, the muscle vibrates,
the wings flap, lift is generated, pollen gets circulated, flowers
bloom, plants grow, life on earth continues.  All from a twang of the
bee thorax.

"...satellites do orbit. 'We' put them there. But 'we' dont keep them
moving. The laws of motion, put in place, may I say, by God. Genesis
1; 15-17."

   Fine. Whether God is the author of physical laws is really beside
the point. The orderliness of the world is still a fact we have to
deal with, and what we know of it precludes free, unlimited useful
energy. An omnipotent God could change this. But empirically we find
that this doesn't happen, and by rigorous theory we understand why it
makes no sense for it to.

The universe is in perpetual motion.  That answers it for me.  For
anyone to state the perpetual motion is an impossiblity - or that
anything is an "impossibility" implies an absolutism that cannot be
justified.

Surely in an infinite universe anything is possible ?

"Surely in an infinite universe anything is possible ?"

   Well, in an infinite universe anything that's possible is
guaranteed- somewhere, statistically speaking. But it's not
necessarily true that, even in an infinite iniverse, all things
imaginable are also possible. In fact, the known Universe is nowadays
characterised as much by what Nature tends to forbid as much as by
what is allowed. What is forbidden comprises the rigid framework upon
which all else must rest.

   This is not a pessimistic statement. On the contrary, it means that
Nature is highly ordered, thus allowing conditions conducive to the
existence of living organisms, such as ourselves.

this takes some imagination!! perpetule motion can be achived if two
mirrors are placed excactly parralel to and facing each other and an
object ism 'moved' in the gap between the two mirrors this motion
becomes infanite due to the reflection of the mirrors. appoligise for
the spelling and grammer im not writing in my first languege!