Laws of physics broken as a perpetual motion machine was invented

[mikespoff]

If its not repeatable, its not science.

While I agree with your scepticism, your argument is questionable. By that logic, paleontology, astronomy and evolutionary biology are all classed as "non-science".

that statement is true in the context of testing hypotheses, not in of the fields themselves.

Yeah, I'm just pointing out that hypothesis testing does not necessarily involve repeatable experiments. In this specific case it's appropriate to look at replication as a useful benchmark, but as a broad statement it goes too far.

What non-repeatable experiments have been used to validate hypotheses? I don't know any. I was under the impression that sometimes its acceptable not to rely on experiments because performing one is impossible(or close to it). But when you do create an experiment, you must be able to create another identical experiment which has exceedingly similar results, otherwise you can't make the claim that your theory is scientific. In short, I thought it was either none or many. also, that one is not actual evidence.

That's correct for experimental scientific disciplines. I'm just highlighting that "science" goes beyond experimental disciples. The fields that I mentioned earlier do not use experimentation to test hypotheses - they must employ other methods.

Again, for the particular machine in the post, it absolutely falls into the field of experimental testing, and thus repeatability is very much required.

 

[SnipErlite]

Shenanigans. Gotta be proven on TV and by scientists (yes scientists) before I'll believe it


If this is supposed to be powered purely by gravity? No way. While it might be able to raise one of the arms to its highest point from the momentum gained by another falling, air resistance would still result in it slowing down pretty quickly. Plus in the video it made some noise, and it's bound to release some heat. Energy out, but not in? Nah.

 

[The Candyman]

Something similar to this was created too. It used the Earth's spin to generate electricity. Problem being that it also slowed down the spin of the Earth itself.
Sorry, but you just can't get something from nothing. That includes energy.

 

[mikespoff]

Eh, bull. If it was serious, it would be up in a few more mainstream publictions, lol. Also, what is the article on about here?

The inventor will not be able to fully patent the Alpha Omega Galaxy Freefall Generator. He will only be able to patent certain parts of the machine. This is because the device claims to be a perpetual motion machine that generates more power than it uses.

You can't patent a perpetual motion machine? Why not?!

You can't patent it because it's using bike parts. He didn't make those bike parts, nor the plans for them.

I'd be very interested to see if this is real or not. I'd love to see some more proof of it and what kind of output of energy it gives.

*sigh* you said it, it uses gravity to produce more electricity then it consumes. It's utilizing acceleration due to gravity and converting the kinetic energy into electricity. I'm sure that very clever but it's not perpetual motion.......this is simple stuff people.

It looks like more of a generator, but it looks like a very clean and safe one.

There isn't a single patenting board in the world that will accept to patent PMM unless they see visual and scientific proof by government officials.

There are patents for flying nuclear-fusion powered cars... You can patent anything, evidently.

That patent is for the invention of a flying vehicle powered by nuclear fusion, not for a nuclear fusion reactor. It protects the design from infringement by any other flying vehicle powered by a nuclear fusion reactor.

The patent in question here would be for a perpetual motion machine, which can't be filed since none have been invented yet.

k, cool, I can dig that - it actually makes sense. Though it is still bizarre that there are patents for applications of technology that doesn't even exist yet... anyone had a stab at patenting a space elevator yet, lol?

Actually, the same thing happened with automobiles in the USA. The idea of a car was patented independently in 1877, 25 years before the first mass-produced cars came out. Because US patents only offer protection for 17 years, the actual issuing of the patent was delayed until 1895, when the Model T was on the horizon.

 

[ninjajoeman]

doesn't the force of gravity kinda negate the whole OH its creating its own energy thing?

 

[lacktheknack]

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TRULY PERPETUAL ENERGY.
GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS HUMANITY AND STOP BELIEVING THESE GUYS WHO SAY THEY'VE MADE THESE.
JEEZE.

Just out of interest: how do you account for gravity?

Gravity is based on mass and all mass is decaying, eventually all mass will cease to exist and with it gravity. A really long timscale but not eternal/perpetual.

Fine, but the device would suffice to power Earth for as long as we'd care for it to do so.

 

[lacktheknack]

Please note the batteries adjacent to each of the wheels. Case closed

You didn't read it.

If this is supposed to be powered purely by gravity? No way. While it might be able to raise one of the arms to its highest point from the momentum gained by another falling, air resistance would still result in it slowing down pretty quickly. Plus in the video it made some noise, and it's bound to release some heat. Energy out, but not in? Nah.

Neither did you. They admit that it uses some energy to keep up the momentum, but their claim is that it releases more than it uses. As in, recharging the batteries faster than it uses them. It doesn't look particularly implausible from what we're shown.

 

[PrototypeC]

Millions of upstart scientists have created machines like this, certain that they'd be the one to do it. Not that I'm saying you shouldn't have faith because it's never been done, but... I just don't see this living room piece of junk fulfilling science's secret dream to defeat its own physics.

 

[Warped_Ghost]

If true this is awesome. if not eh.

 

[Super Toast]

I call bullshit.

 

[Merkavar]

so how much electricity can on of these produce?

 

[Rabid Toilet]

I like how all the disbelievers are using circular logic against the machine.

"I've invented a device that defies the laws of thermodynamics!"
"It can't possibly defy the laws of thermodynamics because that would defy the laws of thermodynamics!"

Um...?

Just because something in science is a "law" doesn't mean that it is and always will be how everything in the universe behaves forever. A scientific law is simply something we have observed to be true in a great variety of situations, has held up against countless tests, and we haven't yet found a scenario in which it is not true. Laws of science can be revised. Recently, we realized that Newton's laws of gravity don't hold up on the macro scale of the universe. When we discover why exactly they don't (and I don't buy the "dark matter" bit), they will most likely be revised to account for this.

That said, this device in particular is almost certainly a fake. The video showing it in action shows nothing about how it works, and is basically just a short clip of a spinning wheel. As well, if the device did what the creator claims, it would basically be the most important invention anyone has ever created in the history of mankind. If someone had made such a device, they would have gotten a lot more interest than this has.

 

[BENZOOKA]

I don't believe that actually works. No way.

 

[Sporky111]

I'm thinking it's a hoax. There looks to be too many joints and sources of friction to be truly perpetual.

I don't totally reject the idea that perpetual motion could exist. I think it could. But I think that something like that would have to be more sophisticated than a collection of bicycle parts on some guy's back porch. I think it would have to be, say, in a vacuum environment where air resistance isn't a factor. It would probably have to be a very simple mechanism to minimize or eliminate energy losses to friction.

 

[Flac00]

BS. It is a fact that perpetual motion machines don't work. Energy is lost everywhere. Not to mention, if this actually worked, it wouldn't mean squat. "Generating" energy is really just transferring it, so this machine wouldn't do that job at all. To say this again. BS. Perpetual motion machines are impossible, no matter how hard you might try you will always have to follow the laws of physics.

my rebuttal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws

My re-rebuttal. This is a quote from that wikipedia entry that proves my point. "Clarke postulates advanced technologies without resorting to flawed engineering concepts....or explanations grounded in incorrect science or engineering". Look, I am not saying other advanced technologies are possible, just not this one. Perpetual motion has been, and will constantly be, proven impossible to do as "Energy cannot be created or destroyed". For perpetual motion to work, energy has to be created because perpetual motion machines do not stop despite their transferring of energy into any sources (ie: friction etc.) A perpetual motion machine IS IMPOSSIBLE. Any physicist, or kid who has passed 8th grade science will tell you that. Do not dispute fact, for it will only make a fool out of you and not of that fact.

 

[Flac00]

I'm thinking it's a hoax. There looks to be too many joints and sources of friction to be truly perpetual.

I don't totally reject the idea that perpetual motion could exist. I think it could. But I think that something like that would have to be more sophisticated than a collection of bicycle parts on some guy's back porch. I think it would have to be, say, in a vacuum environment where air resistance isn't a factor. It would probably have to be a very simple mechanism to minimize or eliminate energy losses to friction.

Na, it still wouldn't work. The closest we have to a "perpetual motion machine" is our Earth, which will continuously travel at a very high speed. But then again, it won't. Physics tells us that given enough time, even our Earth will collide with the sun...

 

[TheLefty]

I'm no physicist, but I think this is technically consuming kinetic energy. This consumes more electricity than it produces, not energy in general. Even if I'm getting that wrong, I have a strong feeling there is some amount of energy going into this that wasn't considered, detected, or explained correctly.

If it were just a theory of thermodynamics, I might believe in an invention that disproves it, but I doubt an established scientific law is going to be disproved by something like this. I'll believe it if various credible physicists start to accept this claim after careful observation and calculation.

Still, looks pretty damn cool, as well as useful.

Ah, you beat me to ruining the fun.

But in your comment you said it CONSUMES more energy then it produces, shouldn't it be the other way around? It uses Kinetic energy from gravity to produce electricity, so it produces more electricity than it consumes. Then again I'm a sophomore in High School, I'm good at science, but I don't know if I'm that good, I might be missing stuff.

 

[Flac00]

so how much electricity can on of these produce?

It makes so much sense!

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't get where people say that it's breaking the laws of thermodynamics.

This isn't creating energy, just converting it from one form to another.

It would be like saying that water flowing over a wheel creating hydroelectric power was breaking the laws as well.

 

[Poofs]

if this is real im going to laugh so hard