I would like your opinion on the following.

1) do you think that (if a perpetual motion machine that produces electricity were possible) was to be made availiable to the public , would there be any serious downfalls as a result from its use?

2) would there be any good results from the use of such a machine?

3) do you think it would be a good idea to use such a machine if it was possible?
if yes why.
if no why.

4) could you personally benifit from it , if it were possible?..ie would you have more money to spend on more needed things?
suppose you did not have to pay a natural gas bill.
a electric bill.
suppose you did not need to put any type of fuel in your car.

would you run your air conditioner longer.
would you be concerned about blackouts.
would you spend less time worrying about how to pay your bills and more time worrying about how to spend your extra cash.
would this mean that you might buy a new bigger SUV and a bigger HOUSE.
would you just buy more stuff.

would this extra spending create more jobs.
would these extra jobs create more taxes for the government?
would the government actually make more money than they do now from taxes due to the sale of gas?

Since perpetual motion machines violate the laws of thermodynamics, how can anyone answer these questions in a scientific manner?

the questions I asked were not scientific.

they were just questions.

your replies so far are not scientific they are nothing but programmed responces.

things you have seen before in forums.

since the machine in question would not involve (HEAT) in any form to opperate then could you tell me which law of thermodynamics it would violate.

hint: it is not a closed sysyem.

it opperates on the same force that holds you in your chair.

((( gravity )))
is gravity now restricted by thermodynamics?

1) perpetual motion devices have no input and no output. if it has a power sourse (gravity) then its not perpetual motion. trying to sell something claiming it is would be considered fruad.

2) If its not scientific, why are you discussing it in a scientific forum.

dehammer .... did you read what you wrote?

I said it opperates on gravity.

then I should be taken to court.

Why limit your ideas to the possible, the future has yet to be determined. If humanity got to an evolutionary stage that perpetual energy was an actuality - most likely humanity would also have evolved beyond today's insecurities. Personally, I think we will obliterate ourselves before that happens.

Hi Paul:

Regarding "perpetual motion" I think you are dooming inventive ideas to perpetual failure.

How about a mechanisim using conventional sources of stored power that while in use recover about 80% to 85% of the power that was expended in the first instance. Start with 50% if you do not yet achve adaquate inspiration.

I have been thinking and dreaming about such mechanism for quite a while in my spare time. When one gets the efficiencie higher it will be very useful.
jjw

you claim its perpetual motion, then you claim it has a energy source. that is a contradition in terms.

by the definition you are using a solar panel could be termed a perpetual motion. same with a gas powered engine. neither is perpetual motion, because once the sun is taken away the solar cell stops producing current. once a car is out of gas its engine stops.

take away gravity from a gravity powered device and it stops working. that means its not perpetual motion. If the divice youve tried to sell as perpetual motion uses gravity, then that is why you cant sell it.

ive got an idea for a invention that uses gravity on water, but when i discuss it with people, they can get past the idea that im trying to build a perpetual motion. your appearantly doing the same thing, but claiming its perpetual motion.

I think another question, which might raise precisely the same questions, an is scientifically accepted, is what would / will you do when fusion reactors are functional

How about accepting a broader view of the laws of thermodynamics? ( http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/BioBookEner1.html )

How can anyone consider the positives and negatives of your scenario if you have an open system, but can't mention where the energy is coming from, and where the wastes go?

Also, gravity is NOT energy.

Dehammer; you surprise me again!

Are you suggesting that it is not permissable to use a natural enegy source in a machine to achieve continuos motion within the machine?

jjw

i never said anything about what is "permissable", i just said its not perpetual motion.

simple put a perpetual motion device does not have a energy source. If you use a "natural enegy source in a machine to achieve continuos motion within the machine", then its not perpetual motion. I forget who built a clock with a small amount of nuclear material inside which runs it, but they claim it will keep time for thousands of years (problem is its shielding is so heavy). does the fact that it will run for thousands of years mean its perpetual motions? no, it means it has a very long lasting "natual energy" source. If you use gravity as an energy source (actually converting potential energy to kentic energy) then its not perpetual motion.

If it were perpetual motion, then the energy it got from moving one way would move it the other way. In otherwords, it would work just fine if it were upside down.

I tried to explain an invention that i would like to build to a friend. He claimed it was a perpetual motion device. his reasoning? it would work inside of a vault. The problem with his reasoning, is that it would depend on where that vault was at, not if the vault was sealed or not.

lets look at what was said about this.

that means it has to be working on a gravity plane. if it is taken into space, it will fail to work. If it were perpetual motion it would work just as well in space as it does on the earth.

"since the machine in question would not involve (HEAT) in any form to opperate then could you tell me which law of thermodynamics it would violate."

In case you haven't known, paul, the laws of thermodynamics do not involve only HEAT.

The term "perpetual system" means, VERY simply put, "a system that is self-sustainable in its operation and that creates no interaction with other systems" - thus meaning no input and no output.

That means that even if it were to operate in perpetual way, you couldn't get the energy OUT of it.

If it is based on gravity, it means it has an input. Without that, does it still work? If not, it is not a perpetual source of energy.

Such "perpetual" sources of energy that use gravity as its main law have been around for ages (well, maybe not ages, but for quite a while). They're called "tidal generators". Though they're not very fancy, wothout many colored leds and without a polished alluminium case to catch the eye of the naive.

I was browsing through the post I have made trying to find
the ones about the CFL lightbulbs because I finally had to replace another one today !!!

and I wanted to share my experience with those of you
who are still using 100 watts vs 26 watts to light a room.

that makes 2 bulbs in apx 3 years i think.

anyway...to reply to what Rigor O'Mortis posted

Gravity is not considered a energy input.

and of course any of the devices that use gravity to operate could be used in zero gravity provided you
supply rotation for artificial gravity.

I sometimes wonder why some people cant see beyond the boundaries they are told they live in , and find that there really not boundaries after all.

We can imagine a perpetum mobile like device, changing matter into energy. Such device doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics, because every nuclear reaction does the very same thing. Nevertheless, such device would consume only quite subtle amount of mass of Earth to make a hot glowing sphere from it.

or we can observe one that has been running for over a decade

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=553061720631716456



or one that just uses gravity like the finsrud.