Talk:Perpetual motion

Sources for Mr. Gravitational-Waves-Don't-Real
Just keeping it clean on the regular page. They aren't perfect as it took only a few minutes to find them, but they're something. Can some folks dig up some more reliable sources? Noir LeSable (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Space is Near-Frictionless: http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_ms.html#friction
 * Binary Neutron Stars and Collapsing orbits: http://iopscience.iop.org/2041-8205/757/2/L21
 * Calcs showing Earth orbital decay won't outlast Sun's expansion: http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~chirata/ph236/2011-12/lec15.pdf

Unlikely Theories

 * Originally inserted in the article, moved here by me.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

If there was ever confidence in perpetual motion, it has waned because of the number of fraudulent cases. Proving perpetual motion is now truly like winning the lottery. More than that, it is like winning all the lotteries that ever existed.

Nathan Coppedge is a hobbyist who theorizes that he does not need to discount Newtonian mechanics, but only thermodynamics.

He introduces an elaborate array of principles to defend the idea that simple perpetual motion is possible:

The Principle of Volitional Efficiency: combining an efficiency principle such as 0.5 with an advantageous principle such as 2 would result in a larger number. He calls this "volitional mathematics". The Principle of Momentum without Velocity: if an object can be tethered on a slope, there is such a thing as perpetually sustained tautness, which at least doesn't have to happen vertically, so perhaps it isn't a gravity force. The Principle of Equilibrization: two equal weights will move to equilibrize.

In addition, he provides "3 Proofs" of perpetual motion : 1. Friction does not prevent motion where motion is permitted. 2. Dominoes can chain-react in a circle, wheels can turn. 3. Dominoes can chain-react using higher and higher altitudes. Energy can be created.

Collectively, these types of simple, combinatorial principles show the ultimate boundary of physical interactions.

The principle of the proofs was to demonstrate that thermodynamics was wrong. However, they do not disprove the universal function of thermodynamics on non-mechanical systems. They merely pose the possibility that interaction is of greater importance than previously thought.

Even if it is an ultimately flawed principle, it certainly contributes to the philosophy of perpetual motion. As far as physics is concerned, it remains a highly unlikely story.


 * I don't know how exactly what is the relevance of this to the rest of the article.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm citing that the case similar to winning the lottery should be incorporated, for the sake of the scientific method. As long as proof depends on evidence, there remains a very small shadow of a doubt, which should be addressed. I'm not saying all things are possible, just that scientific theories are turned over now and then. For example, mathematics was considered very strong before Incoherence theory showed up. It's not that math is wrong, it's just that the new theory required a revision of the understanding. ---Veulm (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * How do I get this part of the article reinstated? Should I revise? Relocate? Start a new article?---Veulm (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Dont use tags in talk pages (include the ref inline with the comment. Your proposed addition appears to be along the lines of disallowing one or more of the "laws" of thermodynamics. Good luck with that! Scream!! (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is genuine contradictory evidence of any kind, this means that there could be an exception, possibly. Even if it is only a theoretical exception. For example, Maxwell's Demon is considered an

exception. Veulm (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "IF". Maxwell's demon isn't an exception; it's a thought experiment. Sorry! Scream!! (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this is interesting to anyone, but sorta related.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 06:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, if there are other universes, they could introduce energy without requiring Maxwell's Demon. And it is strange to think the energy in the sun is not in some way exponential. Veulm
 * Long on "if's" and so far zero proof. Science is always in flux but grounding for those changes require evidence.  Theories are not thought experiments, and it's not like the main character thinks for a few hours and overturns everything science knows once a week, even though they seem to get that presentation in TV shows.  Like CSI or superhero films...TV is not fully representative of reality.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I did a lot of editing, but now the old article has been reinstated. Should I keep the content as it appears now?Veulm (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't edit things that have already been responded to. Start afresh if you must. Scream!! (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally I can't quite see what is going on. I there some element of the article you disagree with Veulm? What is your objective? Cheers.  --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 21:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The point I'm making is that there are principles which are considered fringe science which actually work, only they haven't been used to build a perpetual motion machine yet. The theoretical importance seems significant, because science popularly is open to critical revisions. Veulm (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah. Then you are going to have a problem I'm afraid. We are only really interested in established tested science. If you have a "fringe" theory which you are trying to promote then I'm afraid this isn't the site for it.  And you will have the same response in wikipedia.  Sorry.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 21:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure that it's fringe science, because it involves commonly understood principles, like equilibrizing. This is not stuff that's impossible to prove. It's stuff that could be modeled on a computer, or demonstrated with common objects. Thinking of these as principles of over-unity is banal but also exceptional. I don't think it's deceptive, nor does it involve string theory or ambient energy. It's not something that's hard to think about.Veulm (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have a suggestion on my user Talk page: Veulm (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Citation needed?
"you could shake the device, forcing it to drop and encourage the flow to start, but that would be adding in energy to the system and defy the point of perpetual motion." has a citation needed tag in the article.

Does "shaking drips out of a nozzle is not perpetual motion" really need references? 2.223.91.135 (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess it probably works as sarcasm on second thought. I feel pretty dumb for raising this.2.223.91.135 (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether it’s snark or not, I also thought it was dumb, so Ima strip that tag off. Quantheory (talk) 06:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

What's the difference between an over unity device and a bomb?
I'm pretty sure this isn't an original thought but maybe it's worth shoehorning into the article. If for the sake of argument a machine could be built that outputs more energy than it consumes then feeding back the output to the input would logically lead to the machine rapidly having an infinite energy density which could not be constrained by any known force... Isn't that what we call a bomb?
 * The second law of thermodynamics gets in the way. Anna Livia (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Robert Boyle: what's the source?
Can anyone give a source for the claim that Robert Boyle proposed a perpetual motion machine based on capillary action? I have not found this mentioned in any of Boyle's own works, but I can't claim to have read all of them. The closest thing I can find to a reputable source is a book on Perpetual Motion by Arthur Ord-Hume, but this gives no quotes or citations to Boyle's works, only to a 19th-century magazine which purports to summarise Boyle's idea. I'm not saying that the attribution to Boyle is impossible, as Boyle was writing in the 17th century, long before the laws of thermodynamics were formulated, but Boyle's works on hydrostatics are generally soundly based on his own experiments, so it would be surprising if he went badly astray.109.150.6.223 (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)