The only real example of perpetual motion is life itself. From a tiny spark, life perpetually flows into the future.This would seem to demonstrate the flaw in the law of entropy. Order does not always dissolve into disorder, as is evidenced by the formation of planets, plants, people,... What is mistakenly termed dis-entropy is more predominate than entropy. This universe is biased towards organization, which is why we may debate the possibility of perpetual motion.
i think if we used mechanical motion in a device for perpetual motion whenever the thing needs to start agian it uses power saved up from going earlier to restart itself. say its this thing, it will eventually stop, but if u put a small thing to collect the motion of it moving and change it into energy that said energy could go into a small device that will push it for a small amount of time to restart it. like if u agree.
Yes this is the concept but you have to understand, that "stored" energy you speak of doesn't come from nothing, By giving energy you are taking energy, if you were to attach a device to produce energy you would have whats known as generator back torque which is a force in the opposite direction so the same amount of energy you save will have been taken away from said device producing it, essentially it will run out of steam
It's too easy to condemn Finsrud for his claim if perpetual motion. Really, this machine is an attempt at conservation and recycling. Those are the real value of this device. However long, or short, it may run, it is a decent step in the right direction. Mechanical motion is inherently inefficient. Over the use span of the device, the power requirements are astronomical. Give the guy a break. At least he's trying.
Yes, today, the only things perpetual seem to be death, taxes, and the endless scams, as each is a source of power. The internet sustains itself by the third method. It's a jungle in here. How much would you charge for free energy?
The orbit of the moon is relatively perpetual when compared to human existence. Some machines harvest that energy from the movement of the tides. I think that's as close as we can get to large-scale perpetual energy for now.
Time is the principle of physics that were may not directly measure. We deduce time by measuring motion through space, such as the motion of a pendulum. Motion is distance per time. Time is the vast reservoir of energy exchange.This aspect seems to be the logical nexus of the work cycle. Motion can be as perpetual as time.
Regarding "Why not convert it to energy?" is exactly the question. We are awash in a sea of energy, in myriad forms. To claim an energy shortage is to deny our very existence. Energy abounds, but in a corporate atmosphere, the method is to reduce the source, and charge, charge, charge. Usually, the first one is free,...
It really depends on how you define perpetual. The universe is in motion for how long? If something can move for a million years, then it is , at least near perpetual. I prefer to think in terms of practical perpetual, i.e. long enough to work for us. Many things meet this criteria, such as the motion of the Earth, typical nuclear radiation, a photon traveling across the universe,... True perpetual motion, as in getting energy from no energy= who knows? I neither confirm, nor deny.
Wait, so perpetual motion exists? If so, why not convert it to energy or something? I am not as smart as the people writing long paragraphs so I don't really understand this.
An object that is stationary in space, yet moving through time, in the presence of a warp, such as self induced gravity, will begin to move through space, due to the energy transfer from time to space. This indicates that anything with mass will move, over time, due to the warp that it creates. Motion is inevitable. A body at spatial rest will not stay at spatial rest, unless it's temporal motion is arrested. This is not free energy, but it is practical enough to be of use.
The practical barrier to FTL seems to be the ever increasing mass as velocity rises. Infinite mass at c would require infinite energy to propel. Now it is known that the space time dilation of a near FTL particle can be shattered, due to it's amorphorous structure. When something shatters, a few big pieces travel a short distance, slowly, while a few small pieces travel further, and faster. Perhaps a tiny bit can uncertainly go back, relatively speaking.
This is not perpetual motion, this video doesn't show the pendulums at the bottom of the rig. The pendulums are providing the energy as our Earth, spinning at 1,000 MPH, causes all pendulums to sway. The entire top end of this machine is aesthetic, the part you can't see is the phenomena and its nothing new or useful.
A compass on the planetary pole will spin, thus becoming a practical perpetual magnetic motor. What material might spin from the space-time curvature of the local planetary environment?
Me gustaria saber si se detuvo, si este movimento es util y crea algun tipo de energia, ademas me encantaria saber , de donde puedo buscar info sobre el creador...
I wonder if he stopped, if this movement is useful and make some kind of energy, and I would love to know, where I can find info about the creator ...
.This machine is fine craftsmanship, but not perpetual. Conventional wisdom suggest that perpetual motion is impossible, but energy is neither created, nor destroyed. Energy itself is perpetual. Maybe there is a way.
@MichelJCardin And actually gearing held by springs of great ratio rising in distance begining at the springs being at the lowest gear. Having at the other end a distance of little in ratio and then constant low crank force.
@MichelJCardin And really; he went the long way where he would only need to have the same idea with the wheel, but with a plumb bob shaft that does the same shifting and have it being kept at bay from it's resting point by having a magnet at the centre that keeps driving it back and being stoped by the ball's advancement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
first - remember how a windmill works, something makes the propeller spin, which then makes energy.
second - if you take a 'windmill' and place it horizontally so the propeller is in the path of the ball, so the ball becomes 'wind', and which then makes energy
- isn't that perpetual motion/over-unity/free energy - without breaking any 'laws' of science? i think it is....
now you know how to get energy from this device, your welcome!
Real perpetuum motion does not exist. But this is really close. But the friction will stop it. But perhaps it will take decades. Really impressive though.
perpetual motion is all well and good. but i suggest a nearly perpetual motion with the aid of a little physical intervention. what would be wrong with a little free energy for a few hand cranks?
@Warren52nz how do you so-pose cells came about on there own if it's stated that all living cells come from previous cells? And You think it beyond possibility that there is a god,but yet life just you know happing is plausible? So did this life evolve into male or the female first,wait they both must have had to evolve into both male and female at the same time or we wouldn't be having this conversation, these singled celled organisms had a good plan.
@Warren52nz I think it's funny how your quick to dismiss the faith of Christians but quick to put it in a theory made by man.I believe that life evolves but it had to be created first.If nothing comes from nothing and at one point there was no life then there was your saying something came from nothing?
@yokon99 So what, Christianity (and all religion) offends me so we're even. 8^P
What I said about Christianity crippling minds is completely true. Children are taught that you don't need evidence to believe in something. Some fundies teach that if Science and the Bible are at odds the BIBLE must be right! What do you call that?
I have a University degree in Physics so I guess you could say that I've studied perpetual motion. But I agree, perpetual motion IS impossible.
I know what's happened. Science has proved that the Bible is wrong in many ways. Christians have responded by casting doubt on the Scientific Method into children's minds (especially in the USA). Now we have a whole generation of intellectually handicapped people who don't have the mental faculties to determine truth from fiction.
Half of Americans think that the Theory of Evolution is false. That's a very embarrassing statistic for a country that thinks it's Number 1.
even if it's not 100% perpetual, it's still pretty damn close, the only bad part is it's so slow it's energy creation is so small it'd take so many of them just to get any usable energy out of it
@bobwhiskey "it'd take so many of them just to get any usable energy out of it"
You can't get ANY energy out of something like this. It's not even a perpetual motion machine since such machines are impossible. The 1st LAW of Thermodynamics proves it.
@warren52nz i think we've learned through science that anything can be defied, and that machine is real so if it's not a perpetual motion machine then what is it?
@bobwhiskey Theories can be modified but fundamental laws of nature can't.
Think about it. It takes energy to move something. This machine has some energy in it because it's moving. All of the moving bits have energy stored as momentum = MV²/2
Some energy will be lost through friction which includes the noise it's making. So the system is losing energy all the time. With me so far?
OK, what's replacing that lost energy and where is it coming from?
Actually that's not true. Wiki "alpha" or the fine structure constant. There is mounting evidence that the physical laws may change over time. I hope I don't need to tell you how profound the consequences of that are.
Besides there is a world of difference between perpetual and near perpetual. Near perpetual could be radically useful.
@Innomen "There is mounting evidence that the physical laws may change over time." Well if you think the laws will change so that energy comes out of a closed system, you'll need to modify what constitues common sense too.
But I agree that near perpetual motion could be useful. Really just a reduction of frictional losses.
Common sense itself is based on intuitive processing of the physical constants and their effects. The fact that they may change in some ultimate sense invalidates all classical notions of sense in much the same way as quantum weirdness invalidates classical thinking at it's scale.
It's a bit more complicated than lube, but whatever.
@Innomen "Common sense itself is based on intuitive processing of the physical constants and their effects."
I guess I have to agree. The recent confirmation that anti-matter exists and that when it encounters matter you get a cancellation that yields nothing. Conversely, nothing should be able to yield equal quantities of matter and anti-matter so the age old argument about "all this" coming from nothing might have a rational explanation. Still, I doubt perpetual motion will ever be achieved.
@warren52nz When matter and antimatter contact, you get something. The energy is transmuted. Also, an object that begins as stationary in space, yet is moving through time, in the presence of a warp, will start to move through space, due to the energy transference from time to space, because of the warp. In the beginning, there was the ultimate warp. Time, space, the universe, and life unfold. How warped is that?
@cl3ify "When matter and antimatter contact, you get something."
After my posting about that I started to write another asking about that but changed my mind. I seem to remember that the collision involved a lot of energy being released. I'm not really up on the topic, they weren't in the agenda when I did my physics degree in the 70's. We DID have a tachyon experiment on top of the Physics department though. They were trying to find particles for the Sun arriving before they were created.
It boils down to a semantics game really, as to how you define motion, and how you define perpetual. I think we see eye to eye all told.
Did you ever get exposed to the idea that anti matter is just matter moving backward in time? So a particle and anti particle colliding is actually just one particle making a U turn in time. I always thought that was a neat idea. Like the notion of a one electron universe. :)
@Innomen "Did you ever get exposed to the idea that anti matter is just matter moving backward in time?"
No I haven't heard that before but it sounds interesting.
I recently read (in a discussion about the recent findings of tachyonic neutrinos) that Einstein's theory allows for faster than C particles but not particles travelling at exactly C so particles on either side of C can't get through that barrier. However I was always taught that super-C speeds were impossible.
Right, like in K-Pax. Things can't accelerate to faster than light. But presumably nor could they decelerate to speeds slower than light once at superluminal speeds. Also, velocity is a tricky business anyway. Who's to say that particles can't tunnel past the barrier like electrons do routinely through matter?
If C+ movement == backwards in time, wouldn't the object collide with itself if neither vanished or tunneled anyway? Perhaps this collision explains antimatter?
@Innomen "If C+ movement = backwards in time, wouldn't the object collide with itself"
My brain hurts just contemplating that but I don't think there's a logical brick wall. Each moment in the particle's position would have a unique time stamp even if it's going backward so I don't think collision with itself is possible. More intriguing is detecting something before it's created and the paradox that presents ie. stop its creation after detecting it WILL be created.
@bobwhiskey So either this machine has a hidden energy SOURCE (like a battery) or it's almost frictionless so the amount of energy lost over time is very low and it takes a long time to come to a stop.
It MUST be one or the other.
If a true perpetual motion machine existed it would make front page news because it would break the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. And THAT'S SERIOUS!!!! (and impossible). 8^)
@warren52nz lol it would seem you started a war, while i let you deal with that, here's another thought for you, a satellite orbiting a celestial body is in motion, therefore it has energy, correct? but wait.... there is friction due to gravitational pull... among other things... oh and one more thing... it doesn't stop now does it? is that not perpetual energy? granted we can't harness it, but what's to stop us from using it in some way? or creating some other form of it?
@bobwhiskey No there's no friction due to gravitational pull and yes it does stop eventually. Friction in a celestial body comes from impact with other particles rushing through space. That impact might add energy to the orbiting body or subtract but eventually it will all run down.
I should point out that while you can't create energy in a machine, it's theoretically possible to have a completely lossless system where no friction exists and perpetual motion is possible in that scenario. (cont)
@warren52nz Superconductivity is probably as close an example as we have to a lossless system.
HOWEVER, a lossless system with kinetic energy in it is essentially an energy storage system like a battery or a capacitor. There's no magical property that allows you to drive a car around for free. As soon as you extract any energy from it it will run down. So this "quest" is just an attempt to make a lossless system, there's no practical application. Hope that makes sense.
Yeah I wish I'd known he is only 14. I think I might have been a bit harsh on the lad. Oooops.
On a side note, maybe it will give him something to think about. I was about 14 when it suddenly occurred to me god was all bullshit designed to scare you into believing the unbelievable.... 8^)
You bickering morons are depressing. If there were a way to extract energy from nothing it would be discovered in a university or state sponsored lab not somebody's garage.
Tell me can you wring 1 from 0 or 0.000001 from 0?
This experiment has led me to a lot of design possibilities. I have an idea for this machine to be used as a generator. Whoever uploaded this video, contact me, we need to talk. Usaf56@gmail.com
There is no such thing as something infinite and no such thing as destruction.
You can not destroy neither create mater or energy.
You can only change and transfer matter and energy
The only thing that is infinite is matter.
So there could be infinite energy in a cretin sense
So when you burn oil the Co2 release can be then used to create energy by either changing it into something that can be used or moving it through something to make energy.
@ninjaboynaru You contradicted yourself just a bit. Also, a few points: 1) Matter is not infinite unless the universe is of infinite size which, while possible (because nobody has any definitive answers on the subject), seems highly unlikely according to current theories as to what the universe is and how it was created. 2) Assuming a finite universe, applying the second law of thermodynamics to the universe as a whole tells us that energy can, in fact, be lost forever.
@lughcious Care to explain exactly *why* "energy would have to be infinite," because I'm really not seeing where that postulate is coming from.
Also, while the brain operates using electrical impulses (to describe neuron function in the most basic way possible), this does not scientifically transfer over to consciousness. To assume that consciousness is energy is to bring religion/spirituality into the a scientific discussion, which is bad practice (because religion implies unreasoning belief).
@lughcious I certainly find it more likely than anything yet proposed, yes.
It may be of interest to you that basic components of life can be created in an experiment set up to mirror what we believe to be the most accurate representation of early Earth possible. These experiments can spontaneously generate primitive cell walls and amino acids without the intervention of any intelligent force after the initial setup.
@realityChemist "the most accurate representation of early Earth possible."
False. The 1953 experiment you knew better than name, Miller-Urey, did not demonstrate matter could turn itself into life/consciousness. They had to use a 'cold trap' to isolate the amino acids from being destroyed by the atmosphere they were formed in. They did not mirror Earth's atmosphere. They had to use methane and ammonia.
Never dealt with an anonymous Atheist who wouldn't lie for their faith.
@lughcious They used the cold trap to isolate the amino acids *after the experiment was complete.* And that's not the experiment I was thinking of, but I don't know the publishers of the one that I had in mind. I have references, but YouTube doesn't allow the posting of links... :/
The atmosphere would have destroyed the amino acids. The experiment proved that amino acids could not have formed on their own. You're a common lying Atheist.
@lughcious This has become so irrelevant to the original video... I'm done.
Also, I don't appreciate the callous and unjustified insults. Please, if you want to have a debate of at least some merit, refrain from insulting your opponent. It's not conducive to scholarly thinking.
Although why I would look for anything like a scholarly debate on YouTube is beyond me...
@funkysteveve You're an optimist. Optimism creates possibilities. The question is, can stationary magnets return more energy than it takes to charge them. I don't know, but combined with inertia, it seems so, once the device is in motion.
It is not my intention to be right or wrong, or to argue. I want to think practically. We as humans convert food into calories (energy). We are sources of power. However, we waste it by sitting in front of desks all day and watching youtube. What if it were possible to get more energy out of our own unused kinetic energy? Riding a bike to charge a battery seems like too much work to power what we consume. How can we turn the caloric cost of kinetic energy into electric energy most efficiently?
Wasn't my point. My point was more energy per less effort. Example: Riding a bike rigged up to a battery for 30 minutes to get a charge is not nearly as efficient as bumping a ball every 30 minutes to produce a charge. Infinite energy may not be possible without human effort or exertion. However, if we could design a machine that could multiply human kinetic energy using momentum it would be possible to produce energy more efficiently by using a multiplying factor.
@Grueskinner The machine runs on an external energy source. Wind turbines do not have an external energy source other than the wind which is used to power the turbine itself. In fact the wind turbines already have almost unlimited power as wind is generally conceived as free energy.
There is no such thing as a machine that can generate unlimited power in a closed system.
This is all well and good but it is pointless. If gou make a perpetual motion machine then as soon as you stick a generator on there they dont work and thats the main point how can we make infinate power maybe we can but not in this life time.
Disbelief = Paradigm Paralysis. When experimental evidence disproves theory then we must re-examine the theory. Who cares if it isn't perpetual anyway? If having limitless energy only requires us to bump a little ball into motion the output of energy would be higher than that of the input. How about do-it-yourself energy. That seems like a plausible way towards energy independence.
@danielhall67 The output of energy will not be higher than the input. Let's say you use the example in the video. Since the ball needs a bump to go another cycle, the provides the ball with all the energy to go for another cycle. Ergo the ball doesn't gain any energy from the machine. It only gains energy from the bump itself. This means that the energy supplied for the bump is greater than or equal to the energy given off by the ball.
This guys is on the right track to creating energy from perpetual motion. Magnetic forces are the key, I think ferrofluid could be the missing ingredient to creating a perpetual motion machine that creates energy.
@Assume22 This idea is flawed. Old "perpetual" machines work on the basis of gravity providing an external force to provide motion. The idea of gravitational potential energy shows the idea to be false. Magnetic potential energy also exists, proving your notion of magnetic forces being the key to be false.
I also do not see where your idea of ferrofluids come from. My guess is that you are just randomly inserting terms you have heard of.
IF I was going to design something perpetual >> I would try to *copycat* how the SUN or a STAR was designed, or how the UNIVERSE itself was designed, something that will last 13.7+ billion years?
ANY perpetual machine or design should be an intuitive match for how the UNIVERSE was put together, yes of course?
Theoretically physics has absolutely no issue with perpetual motion! The problem lies when people try to extract energy from the system and still have it stay in motion. Obviously this machine will eventually slow down, but it will take a very long time; I would happily call this perpetual motion.
Because of the magnets and the fact that the track is also moving so the ball is always rolling downward. However, I don't know if it's a real perpetual motion machine. It could easily be a fake, but there's no way to know.
Good reply. Yeah, anyone could try and build this for themselves and see if it's possible. Though it's not going to generate any power if you found a way to harness it.
The Finsrud Wheel is a moving sculpture built by Norwegian artist Reidar Finsrud. It appears to use a combination of gravity, magnets, and pendulum effects, which modern physics would say is impossible, to generate nearly continuous motion since 1996* when it was assembled. It is presently housed in a vault in a Norwegian gallery featuring Finsrud's works.
* 14-days in a row is the longest it has run without stopping. -- Rita Børtveit, on behalf of Reidar Finsrud (April 2, 2008)
Look, there is no question about it. Perpetual Motion Machines do not exist. The ball in the video will lose energy to friction, no matter how little it is. There is also air resistance for the ball and for the pendulums. No matter how small the amount of energy lost is each time around, eventually it will stop, unless they somehow manage to put it into a perfect vacuum. Even then, there are some other kinks to work out.
Thermodynamics was a law that was established because scientists were content with being wrong, as they all too often are! It sort of seems to be the way it will always be, scientists daily disprove everything they have evr held to be truth, and they always will, PM is Easy - PM with Overunity - Now thats my passion!
@Qroyd I AGRE WITH YOU THESE ROBOTS AND EVIL CONTRAPTIONS ARE DESTROYING AMERICA AND THEY STOLED MY JOB AT JIFFY LOOB. DOWN WITH THESE FUCKING TYRANT ROBOTS FUCK ALL THESE NIGGAS!!! YO I ALREADYTHREW A FUCKIN BRICK AT MY NEYBOR WHEN HE BOUGHT A GPS FOR HIS CAR I WAS LIKE YOU DUMB MOTHERFUCKER!!!!!!!!!! DO YOU WANT THEM TO WIN!!!!!!!!!!!! AND I WAS ARRESTED FOR WHAT I DID NEXT.
@Qroyd So you are going to make a device that breaks the laws of thermodynamics using 19th century technology and EVERYBODY is going to know it. You are not only the smartest person who ever lived, but you go beyong that into a realm where you can bend the very fabric of possibility. We call that MAGIC. You are the smartest person ever, you have God-like powers and you are about to be the most powerful person who ever lived...Why are you wasting time posting comments on a lame website, then?
technically, there is an outside force, and as a word of advice Newton says "An object at rest stays at rest, unless acted upon by an outside force..." I.E. MAGNETIC FEILDS...
It's not just the magnets. What's happening is that the entire track is moving (if you watch, you can see it; it's very slight) because of the pendulums swaying back and forth as the steel ball rolls over those wires. Basically, the track is moving down slightly ahead of the steel ball, which causes it to roll continuously. Of course, since it is still technically rolling DOWN, (due to gravity) it will eventually meet the bottom of the track and stop.
@techiecreations It actually is. If you have a look at a lot of the original designs for perpetual motion engines, a lot of them relied on gravity as well; the problem was that they eventually came to rest, because of some kind of equilibrium in force (i.e. the force propelling it forward eventually equaled the force pushing it back).
Anyone who truely believes this is perpetual put your hand ib the air (i just hope your sitting under a live cable) forget classing this as fundimental physics and think more basic common sense, gravity pulling the ball onto the tracks = friction. All the parts you see moving = air resistance. All require energy to be overcome, where do you suppose that comes from when you cant put any energy into the system??
This was proven to be a hoax a while back, but as a rule of thumb, if you can hear it and see it move at a constant speed, it's losing far too much energy to even consider perpetual motion.
I think they should put a web cam on this 24/7 with battery back up in case of power outage.
locouk 2 hours ago
The only real example of perpetual motion is life itself. From a tiny spark, life perpetually flows into the future.This would seem to demonstrate the flaw in the law of entropy. Order does not always dissolve into disorder, as is evidenced by the formation of planets, plants, people,... What is mistakenly termed dis-entropy is more predominate than entropy. This universe is biased towards organization, which is why we may debate the possibility of perpetual motion.
cl3ify 1 day ago
i think if we used mechanical motion in a device for perpetual motion whenever the thing needs to start agian it uses power saved up from going earlier to restart itself. say its this thing, it will eventually stop, but if u put a small thing to collect the motion of it moving and change it into energy that said energy could go into a small device that will push it for a small amount of time to restart it. like if u agree.
MultiNobodyishere 4 days ago
@MultiNobodyishere
Yes this is the concept but you have to understand, that "stored" energy you speak of doesn't come from nothing, By giving energy you are taking energy, if you were to attach a device to produce energy you would have whats known as generator back torque which is a force in the opposite direction so the same amount of energy you save will have been taken away from said device producing it, essentially it will run out of steam
MRPINKBALLS12 3 days ago
Also, you need your neutrons. Please, keep them on. The life you save might be the person standing next to you.
cl3ify 1 week ago
It's too easy to condemn Finsrud for his claim if perpetual motion. Really, this machine is an attempt at conservation and recycling. Those are the real value of this device. However long, or short, it may run, it is a decent step in the right direction. Mechanical motion is inherently inefficient. Over the use span of the device, the power requirements are astronomical. Give the guy a break. At least he's trying.
cl3ify 1 week ago
Mindfuck, actually watched the whole thing.
Peekvid2009 1 week ago
Take off your neutrons and you will make ultra power!!!! We are power!!!
92jacko 1 week ago
Your vid is a favorite on Reykjavik
kirbymelton23 1 week ago
Yes, today, the only things perpetual seem to be death, taxes, and the endless scams, as each is a source of power. The internet sustains itself by the third method. It's a jungle in here. How much would you charge for free energy?
cl3ify 1 week ago
this site says 14 days is the max its ever ran, just sayin....
peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Finsrud's_Perpetuum_Mobile
slurp812 1 week ago
The orbit of the moon is relatively perpetual when compared to human existence. Some machines harvest that energy from the movement of the tides. I think that's as close as we can get to large-scale perpetual energy for now.
DesktopSportsFan 1 week ago
Comment removed
gorospakabum 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DesktopSportsFan The sun light would also be perpetual energy by this means
gorospakabum 1 week ago
Time is the principle of physics that were may not directly measure. We deduce time by measuring motion through space, such as the motion of a pendulum. Motion is distance per time. Time is the vast reservoir of energy exchange.This aspect seems to be the logical nexus of the work cycle. Motion can be as perpetual as time.
cl3ify 1 week ago
Regarding "Why not convert it to energy?" is exactly the question. We are awash in a sea of energy, in myriad forms. To claim an energy shortage is to deny our very existence. Energy abounds, but in a corporate atmosphere, the method is to reduce the source, and charge, charge, charge. Usually, the first one is free,...
cl3ify 1 week ago
It really depends on how you define perpetual. The universe is in motion for how long? If something can move for a million years, then it is , at least near perpetual. I prefer to think in terms of practical perpetual, i.e. long enough to work for us. Many things meet this criteria, such as the motion of the Earth, typical nuclear radiation, a photon traveling across the universe,... True perpetual motion, as in getting energy from no energy= who knows? I neither confirm, nor deny.
cl3ify 1 week ago
Wait, so perpetual motion exists? If so, why not convert it to energy or something? I am not as smart as the people writing long paragraphs so I don't really understand this.
WhiteFang2468 1 week ago
An object that is stationary in space, yet moving through time, in the presence of a warp, such as self induced gravity, will begin to move through space, due to the energy transfer from time to space. This indicates that anything with mass will move, over time, due to the warp that it creates. Motion is inevitable. A body at spatial rest will not stay at spatial rest, unless it's temporal motion is arrested. This is not free energy, but it is practical enough to be of use.
cl3ify 2 weeks ago
When a particle reverses itself in space, it doesn't reverse itself in time. If a particle reverses itself in time, would it reverse itself in space?
cl3ify 2 weeks ago
The practical barrier to FTL seems to be the ever increasing mass as velocity rises. Infinite mass at c would require infinite energy to propel. Now it is known that the space time dilation of a near FTL particle can be shattered, due to it's amorphorous structure. When something shatters, a few big pieces travel a short distance, slowly, while a few small pieces travel further, and faster. Perhaps a tiny bit can uncertainly go back, relatively speaking.
cl3ify 2 weeks ago
This is not perpetual motion, this video doesn't show the pendulums at the bottom of the rig. The pendulums are providing the energy as our Earth, spinning at 1,000 MPH, causes all pendulums to sway. The entire top end of this machine is aesthetic, the part you can't see is the phenomena and its nothing new or useful.
BrandonFound 2 weeks ago
A compass on the planetary pole will spin, thus becoming a practical perpetual magnetic motor. What material might spin from the space-time curvature of the local planetary environment?
cl3ify 2 weeks ago
Me gustaria saber si se detuvo, si este movimento es util y crea algun tipo de energia, ademas me encantaria saber , de donde puedo buscar info sobre el creador...
I wonder if he stopped, if this movement is useful and make some kind of energy, and I would love to know, where I can find info about the creator ...
CristianPowerPoint 2 weeks ago
@CristianPowerPoint "where I can find info about the creator"
Try the Bible or the Quran. 8^D
Just kidding.
warren52nz 2 weeks ago
Would not a true mechanical perpetual motion machine start its cycle automatically the moment that it's assembly is completed?
cl3ify 3 weeks ago
that thing will stop... in like a million years or something xD
GlowyKangaroo 3 weeks ago
Thermodynamics hate you right now....
DrBernard989 3 weeks ago
Friction. Heat. Sound. Robbers, all.
cl3ify 3 weeks ago
I think some of you have; but others no idea what to expect of me, but I will soon explain a lot more.
MichelJCardin 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yes, perpetual motion can be in real....
If you want to get the plans for perpetual motion Magnetic Generator?
Just goto Google, search for "Top Magnetic Generator" ...
Click the First Result (Skip the Advertisements)
DanielBrown89 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
DanielBrown89 3 weeks ago
.This machine is fine craftsmanship, but not perpetual. Conventional wisdom suggest that perpetual motion is impossible, but energy is neither created, nor destroyed. Energy itself is perpetual. Maybe there is a way.
cl3ify 3 weeks ago
@cl3ify Actually as I chcked it ou; found it very simple and I can make it need brakes in a few diferent ways. It needs levee and weights.
MichelJCardin 3 weeks ago
@MichelJCardin And actually gearing held by springs of great ratio rising in distance begining at the springs being at the lowest gear. Having at the other end a distance of little in ratio and then constant low crank force.
MichelJCardin 3 weeks ago
@MichelJCardin And really; he went the long way where he would only need to have the same idea with the wheel, but with a plumb bob shaft that does the same shifting and have it being kept at bay from it's resting point by having a magnet at the centre that keeps driving it back and being stoped by the ball's advancement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MichelJCardin 3 weeks ago
**crashes the device** In this house, we obey the laws of Thermodynamics!
MikeMA31 3 weeks ago
but it powers nothing wtf is this?!!!
jon420bass 3 weeks ago
does seem like theres a loop as the ball rolls over the pendulums at excactly the place as the ball is powering the pendulums nice toy though
scottydoguk2005 3 weeks ago
Dear Santa...
TheTwizzlee 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics.!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lynnch1 3 weeks ago
You didn't have to make it ten minutes long. We believe you.
BaconFrisbee 4 weeks ago
I am from Russia. I'm telling you - it's animation. (repeat)
VladMorgan 1 month ago
Я из россии. Я вам говорю - это анимация. (повтор)
VladMorgan 1 month ago
magnetic power
MrRoboo1 1 month ago
It might take thousands of years but the friction will eventually cause the ball to stop rolling.
bhstone1 1 month ago
@bhstone1 no it wont. shut up.
Xtrainious 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Perpetual motion is impossible" So, I'm wrong in thinking that the ocean's waves are an example of perpetual motion?
IZ77ZI 1 month ago
Comment removed
IZ77ZI 1 month ago
where can i get higher res
rablholic 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
first - remember how a windmill works, something makes the propeller spin, which then makes energy.
second - if you take a 'windmill' and place it horizontally so the propeller is in the path of the ball, so the ball becomes 'wind', and which then makes energy
- isn't that perpetual motion/over-unity/free energy - without breaking any 'laws' of science? i think it is....
now you know how to get energy from this device, your welcome!
Qroyd 1 month ago
Real perpetuum motion does not exist. But this is really close. But the friction will stop it. But perhaps it will take decades. Really impressive though.
roelantsk8 1 month ago
Comment removed
chiz130 1 month ago
this is genius
BlackBlade374 1 month ago
perpetual motion is all well and good. but i suggest a nearly perpetual motion with the aid of a little physical intervention. what would be wrong with a little free energy for a few hand cranks?
peacemonger78 1 month ago
This is my contribution to the perpetual motion concept....
Produce "Free" electricity for your home with the only
free energy device in the world with 3 US patents. Power
the electronics and appliances in your home and greatly
reduce your electric bills.
landon671 1 month ago
@Warren52nz how do you so-pose cells came about on there own if it's stated that all living cells come from previous cells? And You think it beyond possibility that there is a god,but yet life just you know happing is plausible? So did this life evolve into male or the female first,wait they both must have had to evolve into both male and female at the same time or we wouldn't be having this conversation, these singled celled organisms had a good plan.
purplepothead1 1 month ago
@Warren52nz I think it's funny how your quick to dismiss the faith of Christians but quick to put it in a theory made by man.I believe that life evolves but it had to be created first.If nothing comes from nothing and at one point there was no life then there was your saying something came from nothing?
purplepothead1 1 month ago
@purplepothead1 That's exactly what he's saying because when his logic hits a roadblock he blames Christians and Jews for him being a moron.
66752063686172 1 month ago
It's funny because there are EARTHQUAKES.
eldrinirdle 1 month ago
This machine is not perpetual, it uses magnets,magnets wear out in 14 billion years, this is incorrect!!!
thecomedycreators 1 month ago
where is yout god now!
G0th4ki 1 month ago
eventually time will destoy it, if you change the enviroment then you add energy.
SuperMrBentley 1 month ago
@yokon99 So what, Christianity (and all religion) offends me so we're even. 8^P
What I said about Christianity crippling minds is completely true. Children are taught that you don't need evidence to believe in something. Some fundies teach that if Science and the Bible are at odds the BIBLE must be right! What do you call that?
I have a University degree in Physics so I guess you could say that I've studied perpetual motion. But I agree, perpetual motion IS impossible.
warren52nz 1 month ago
I know what's happened. Science has proved that the Bible is wrong in many ways. Christians have responded by casting doubt on the Scientific Method into children's minds (especially in the USA). Now we have a whole generation of intellectually handicapped people who don't have the mental faculties to determine truth from fiction.
Half of Americans think that the Theory of Evolution is false. That's a very embarrassing statistic for a country that thinks it's Number 1.
21st in Science actually!
warren52nz 1 month ago
Impossible but a good try, this video is looped listen to the sound it's exactly the same every time the ball makes a round.
BiasFree 1 month ago
Now upload a 10 hour version!
Slayerphoneburnia 1 month ago 2
even if it's not 100% perpetual, it's still pretty damn close, the only bad part is it's so slow it's energy creation is so small it'd take so many of them just to get any usable energy out of it
bobwhiskey 1 month ago
@bobwhiskey "it'd take so many of them just to get any usable energy out of it"
You can't get ANY energy out of something like this. It's not even a perpetual motion machine since such machines are impossible. The 1st LAW of Thermodynamics proves it.
warren52nz 1 month ago
@warren52nz i think we've learned through science that anything can be defied, and that machine is real so if it's not a perpetual motion machine then what is it?
bobwhiskey 1 month ago
@bobwhiskey Theories can be modified but fundamental laws of nature can't.
Think about it. It takes energy to move something. This machine has some energy in it because it's moving. All of the moving bits have energy stored as momentum = MV²/2
Some energy will be lost through friction which includes the noise it's making. So the system is losing energy all the time. With me so far?
OK, what's replacing that lost energy and where is it coming from?
See the problem yet?
warren52nz 1 month ago
@warren52nz
Actually that's not true. Wiki "alpha" or the fine structure constant. There is mounting evidence that the physical laws may change over time. I hope I don't need to tell you how profound the consequences of that are.
Besides there is a world of difference between perpetual and near perpetual. Near perpetual could be radically useful.
Also, wiki "The perfect solution fallacy."
Innomen 3 weeks ago
@Innomen "There is mounting evidence that the physical laws may change over time." Well if you think the laws will change so that energy comes out of a closed system, you'll need to modify what constitues common sense too.
But I agree that near perpetual motion could be useful. Really just a reduction of frictional losses.
warren52nz 3 weeks ago
@warren52nz
Common sense itself is based on intuitive processing of the physical constants and their effects. The fact that they may change in some ultimate sense invalidates all classical notions of sense in much the same way as quantum weirdness invalidates classical thinking at it's scale.
It's a bit more complicated than lube, but whatever.
Innomen 2 weeks ago
@Innomen "Common sense itself is based on intuitive processing of the physical constants and their effects."
I guess I have to agree. The recent confirmation that anti-matter exists and that when it encounters matter you get a cancellation that yields nothing. Conversely, nothing should be able to yield equal quantities of matter and anti-matter so the age old argument about "all this" coming from nothing might have a rational explanation. Still, I doubt perpetual motion will ever be achieved.
warren52nz 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
cl3ify 2 weeks ago
@warren52nz When matter and antimatter contact, you get something. The energy is transmuted. Also, an object that begins as stationary in space, yet is moving through time, in the presence of a warp, will start to move through space, due to the energy transference from time to space, because of the warp. In the beginning, there was the ultimate warp. Time, space, the universe, and life unfold. How warped is that?
cl3ify 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cl3ify "When matter and antimatter contact, you get something."
After my posting about that I started to write another asking about that but changed my mind. I seem to remember that the collision involved a lot of energy being released. I'm not really up on the topic, they weren't in the agenda when I did my physics degree in the 70's. We DID have a tachyon experiment on top of the Physics department though. They were trying to find particles for the Sun arriving before they were created.
warren52nz 2 weeks ago
@warren52nz
It boils down to a semantics game really, as to how you define motion, and how you define perpetual. I think we see eye to eye all told.
Did you ever get exposed to the idea that anti matter is just matter moving backward in time? So a particle and anti particle colliding is actually just one particle making a U turn in time. I always thought that was a neat idea. Like the notion of a one electron universe. :)
Innomen 2 weeks ago
@Innomen "Did you ever get exposed to the idea that anti matter is just matter moving backward in time?"
No I haven't heard that before but it sounds interesting.
I recently read (in a discussion about the recent findings of tachyonic neutrinos) that Einstein's theory allows for faster than C particles but not particles travelling at exactly C so particles on either side of C can't get through that barrier. However I was always taught that super-C speeds were impossible.
warren52nz 2 weeks ago
@warren52nz
Right, like in K-Pax. Things can't accelerate to faster than light. But presumably nor could they decelerate to speeds slower than light once at superluminal speeds. Also, velocity is a tricky business anyway. Who's to say that particles can't tunnel past the barrier like electrons do routinely through matter?
If C+ movement == backwards in time, wouldn't the object collide with itself if neither vanished or tunneled anyway? Perhaps this collision explains antimatter?
Innomen 2 weeks ago
@Innomen "If C+ movement = backwards in time, wouldn't the object collide with itself"
My brain hurts just contemplating that but I don't think there's a logical brick wall. Each moment in the particle's position would have a unique time stamp even if it's going backward so I don't think collision with itself is possible. More intriguing is detecting something before it's created and the paradox that presents ie. stop its creation after detecting it WILL be created.
warren52nz 2 weeks ago
@bobwhiskey So either this machine has a hidden energy SOURCE (like a battery) or it's almost frictionless so the amount of energy lost over time is very low and it takes a long time to come to a stop.
It MUST be one or the other.
If a true perpetual motion machine existed it would make front page news because it would break the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. And THAT'S SERIOUS!!!! (and impossible). 8^)
warren52nz 1 month ago
@warren52nz lol it would seem you started a war, while i let you deal with that, here's another thought for you, a satellite orbiting a celestial body is in motion, therefore it has energy, correct? but wait.... there is friction due to gravitational pull... among other things... oh and one more thing... it doesn't stop now does it? is that not perpetual energy? granted we can't harness it, but what's to stop us from using it in some way? or creating some other form of it?
bobwhiskey 1 month ago
@bobwhiskey No there's no friction due to gravitational pull and yes it does stop eventually. Friction in a celestial body comes from impact with other particles rushing through space. That impact might add energy to the orbiting body or subtract but eventually it will all run down.
I should point out that while you can't create energy in a machine, it's theoretically possible to have a completely lossless system where no friction exists and perpetual motion is possible in that scenario. (cont)
warren52nz 1 month ago
@warren52nz Superconductivity is probably as close an example as we have to a lossless system.
HOWEVER, a lossless system with kinetic energy in it is essentially an energy storage system like a battery or a capacitor. There's no magical property that allows you to drive a car around for free. As soon as you extract any energy from it it will run down. So this "quest" is just an attempt to make a lossless system, there's no practical application. Hope that makes sense.
warren52nz 1 month ago
@bobwhiskey " it would seem you started a war"
Yeah I wish I'd known he is only 14. I think I might have been a bit harsh on the lad. Oooops.
On a side note, maybe it will give him something to think about. I was about 14 when it suddenly occurred to me god was all bullshit designed to scare you into believing the unbelievable.... 8^)
warren52nz 1 month ago
Friction will stop it sooner or later
HesseJamez 1 month ago
Very beautiful work of art.
You bickering morons are depressing. If there were a way to extract energy from nothing it would be discovered in a university or state sponsored lab not somebody's garage.
Tell me can you wring 1 from 0 or 0.000001 from 0?
bearjewlp 1 month ago
@bearjewlp "would be discovered in a university or state sponsored lab" says you, science can happen anywhere.
AVanover5 1 month ago
around and round and round and round and round and round O wait, nope! around and round and round we go!!!
huslermatt 1 month ago
I wish that ball was Obama.
kawsihen 1 month ago
This experiment has led me to a lot of design possibilities. I have an idea for this machine to be used as a generator. Whoever uploaded this video, contact me, we need to talk. Usaf56@gmail.com
FiftyS1X 1 month ago
Bullshit
2129261184 1 month ago
This would eventually stop. But one good idea would be to put a giant thing around the earth that uses the earths motion to generate energy.
ninjaboynaru 2 months ago
There is no such thing as something infinite and no such thing as destruction.
You can not destroy neither create mater or energy.
You can only change and transfer matter and energy
The only thing that is infinite is matter.
So there could be infinite energy in a cretin sense
So when you burn oil the Co2 release can be then used to create energy by either changing it into something that can be used or moving it through something to make energy.
Nothing but matter is infinite.
ninjaboynaru 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ninjaboynaru
Matter can be vaporized into its atoms with energy that has no beginning or end - Infinite.
onefodderunit 2 months ago
@ninjaboynaru You contradicted yourself just a bit. Also, a few points: 1) Matter is not infinite unless the universe is of infinite size which, while possible (because nobody has any definitive answers on the subject), seems highly unlikely according to current theories as to what the universe is and how it was created. 2) Assuming a finite universe, applying the second law of thermodynamics to the universe as a whole tells us that energy can, in fact, be lost forever.
realityChemist 2 months ago
@realityChemist Energy would have to be infinite. What could create it besides consciousness, which is energy.
lughcious 1 month ago
@lughcious Care to explain exactly *why* "energy would have to be infinite," because I'm really not seeing where that postulate is coming from.
Also, while the brain operates using electrical impulses (to describe neuron function in the most basic way possible), this does not scientifically transfer over to consciousness. To assume that consciousness is energy is to bring religion/spirituality into the a scientific discussion, which is bad practice (because religion implies unreasoning belief).
realityChemist 1 month ago
@realityChemist EDIT: ...into a*
realityChemist 1 month ago
@realityChemist
You seem to be of the belief that thought is particulate, and the rejection of intelligence in creation is scientific.
There is no functional system that is known to have been created by means other than intelligence.
Matter is not creative, intelligence is. Do you have faith that matter turned itself into intelligence?
lughcious 1 month ago
@lughcious I certainly find it more likely than anything yet proposed, yes.
It may be of interest to you that basic components of life can be created in an experiment set up to mirror what we believe to be the most accurate representation of early Earth possible. These experiments can spontaneously generate primitive cell walls and amino acids without the intervention of any intelligent force after the initial setup.
realityChemist 1 month ago
@realityChemist "the most accurate representation of early Earth possible."
False. The 1953 experiment you knew better than name, Miller-Urey, did not demonstrate matter could turn itself into life/consciousness. They had to use a 'cold trap' to isolate the amino acids from being destroyed by the atmosphere they were formed in. They did not mirror Earth's atmosphere. They had to use methane and ammonia.
Never dealt with an anonymous Atheist who wouldn't lie for their faith.
lughcious 1 month ago
@lughcious They used the cold trap to isolate the amino acids *after the experiment was complete.* And that's not the experiment I was thinking of, but I don't know the publishers of the one that I had in mind. I have references, but YouTube doesn't allow the posting of links... :/
realityChemist 1 month ago
Comment removed
lughcious 1 month ago
@realityChemist
The atmosphere would have destroyed the amino acids. The experiment proved that amino acids could not have formed on their own. You're a common lying Atheist.
lughcious 1 month ago
@lughcious This has become so irrelevant to the original video... I'm done.
Also, I don't appreciate the callous and unjustified insults. Please, if you want to have a debate of at least some merit, refrain from insulting your opponent. It's not conducive to scholarly thinking.
Although why I would look for anything like a scholarly debate on YouTube is beyond me...
realityChemist 1 month ago
@realityChemist
Lying isn't conducive to scholarly thinking, Atheist. You insulted yourself.
lughcious 1 month ago
would it not solve world power?!?!
funkysteveve 2 months ago
@funkysteveve You're an optimist. Optimism creates possibilities. The question is, can stationary magnets return more energy than it takes to charge them. I don't know, but combined with inertia, it seems so, once the device is in motion.
lughcious 1 month ago
It is not my intention to be right or wrong, or to argue. I want to think practically. We as humans convert food into calories (energy). We are sources of power. However, we waste it by sitting in front of desks all day and watching youtube. What if it were possible to get more energy out of our own unused kinetic energy? Riding a bike to charge a battery seems like too much work to power what we consume. How can we turn the caloric cost of kinetic energy into electric energy most efficiently?
danielhall67 2 months ago
Wasn't my point. My point was more energy per less effort. Example: Riding a bike rigged up to a battery for 30 minutes to get a charge is not nearly as efficient as bumping a ball every 30 minutes to produce a charge. Infinite energy may not be possible without human effort or exertion. However, if we could design a machine that could multiply human kinetic energy using momentum it would be possible to produce energy more efficiently by using a multiplying factor.
danielhall67 2 months ago
Why don't they just make wind turbines work like this and get unlimited power? My idea is probably flawed but whatev.
Grueskinner 2 months ago
@Grueskinner The machine runs on an external energy source. Wind turbines do not have an external energy source other than the wind which is used to power the turbine itself. In fact the wind turbines already have almost unlimited power as wind is generally conceived as free energy.
There is no such thing as a machine that can generate unlimited power in a closed system.
Aviatorsmith 2 months ago
cool screensaver this would be
Lottolearnstrings 2 months ago
This is all well and good but it is pointless. If gou make a perpetual motion machine then as soon as you stick a generator on there they dont work and thats the main point how can we make infinate power maybe we can but not in this life time.
1pure0water0my0ass1 2 months ago
Disbelief = Paradigm Paralysis. When experimental evidence disproves theory then we must re-examine the theory. Who cares if it isn't perpetual anyway? If having limitless energy only requires us to bump a little ball into motion the output of energy would be higher than that of the input. How about do-it-yourself energy. That seems like a plausible way towards energy independence.
danielhall67 2 months ago
@danielhall67 The output of energy will not be higher than the input. Let's say you use the example in the video. Since the ball needs a bump to go another cycle, the provides the ball with all the energy to go for another cycle. Ergo the ball doesn't gain any energy from the machine. It only gains energy from the bump itself. This means that the energy supplied for the bump is greater than or equal to the energy given off by the ball.
Simplified, it means no limitless energy.
Aviatorsmith 2 months ago
This guys is on the right track to creating energy from perpetual motion. Magnetic forces are the key, I think ferrofluid could be the missing ingredient to creating a perpetual motion machine that creates energy.
Assume22 2 months ago
@Assume22 This idea is flawed. Old "perpetual" machines work on the basis of gravity providing an external force to provide motion. The idea of gravitational potential energy shows the idea to be false. Magnetic potential energy also exists, proving your notion of magnetic forces being the key to be false.
I also do not see where your idea of ferrofluids come from. My guess is that you are just randomly inserting terms you have heard of.
Aviatorsmith 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IF I was going to design something perpetual >> I would try to *copycat* how the SUN or a STAR was designed, or how the UNIVERSE itself was designed, something that will last 13.7+ billion years?
ANY perpetual machine or design should be an intuitive match for how the UNIVERSE was put together, yes of course?
islandbuoy4 2 months ago
Do you wanna cyber?
tampabayismyhome 2 months ago
CLICK clickclick swoosh
Dalisto1 2 months ago 2
free energy? plug a car into it?
swimsurfer1 2 months ago
impossible
SuperLiam24 2 months ago
Nice energy accumulator...
Energy stored in 3 pendulums, plus use of magnets to lift the ball and reduce the friction losses.
marcelo55869 2 months ago 13
Getting this contraption to boil water takes a fuck of a long time...
piginasack 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I love this thing.
rblackwell2771 2 months ago
THE BALL STOPPED!!! oh wait its my slow internet buffering...
DaHalo2AzN 2 months ago 37
is this video really just that marble spinning for 10 minutes???
Shmollo 2 months ago
Theoretically physics has absolutely no issue with perpetual motion! The problem lies when people try to extract energy from the system and still have it stay in motion. Obviously this machine will eventually slow down, but it will take a very long time; I would happily call this perpetual motion.
toolworks 2 months ago
Wat da FUCK?
snowcone513 2 months ago
How is it not slowing down?
ShadowDueler97 2 months ago
@ShadowDueler97
Because of the magnets and the fact that the track is also moving so the ball is always rolling downward. However, I don't know if it's a real perpetual motion machine. It could easily be a fake, but there's no way to know.
Soulsphere001 2 months ago
@Soulsphere001 what do ya mean theres no way to know... replicate it.. duplicate it think go out of the box .. find out !
or are you content the way the present things are runing?
frank0067 2 months ago
@frank0067
Good reply. Yeah, anyone could try and build this for themselves and see if it's possible. Though it's not going to generate any power if you found a way to harness it.
Soulsphere001 2 months ago
and that noiseeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!
robzzo 2 months ago
imagine having to watch that from start to finish without blinking
robzzo 2 months ago
The Finsrud Wheel is a moving sculpture built by Norwegian artist Reidar Finsrud. It appears to use a combination of gravity, magnets, and pendulum effects, which modern physics would say is impossible, to generate nearly continuous motion since 1996* when it was assembled. It is presently housed in a vault in a Norwegian gallery featuring Finsrud's works.
* 14-days in a row is the longest it has run without stopping. -- Rita Børtveit, on behalf of Reidar Finsrud (April 2, 2008)
ravekid23 2 months ago
Look, there is no question about it. Perpetual Motion Machines do not exist. The ball in the video will lose energy to friction, no matter how little it is. There is also air resistance for the ball and for the pendulums. No matter how small the amount of energy lost is each time around, eventually it will stop, unless they somehow manage to put it into a perfect vacuum. Even then, there are some other kinks to work out.
TheHiguy1234 2 months ago
Does this really go on for ten minutes? :D
GeorgeStokes98 2 months ago
Thermodynamics was a law that was established because scientists were content with being wrong, as they all too often are! It sort of seems to be the way it will always be, scientists daily disprove everything they have evr held to be truth, and they always will, PM is Easy - PM with Overunity - Now thats my passion!
MrTakeBackAmerica 2 months ago
I dont think I have ever found repittion to be so interesting. I didnt realize I was in a trance till 9 minutes later when the guys head poped out.
MisterLEM0NS 2 months ago
I imagine it slows down over time.
Furral 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE !!!
fuckmania07 2 months ago
perpetual motion is PHYSICALLY impossible
gibsondanny 2 months ago
@gibsondanny - you are wrong - i can make a PM device with 19th century technology even....
Qroyd 2 months ago
@Qroyd I hope you are joking, but if not, I'd love to hear it and tell you why you are wrong.
8earthchild8 2 months ago
@8earthchild8 <---- i'm not joking, and you can never prove me wrong, there are exceptions to everything, even thermodynamics...
Qroyd 2 months ago
@Qroyd I AGRE WITH YOU THESE ROBOTS AND EVIL CONTRAPTIONS ARE DESTROYING AMERICA AND THEY STOLED MY JOB AT JIFFY LOOB. DOWN WITH THESE FUCKING TYRANT ROBOTS FUCK ALL THESE NIGGAS!!! YO I ALREADYTHREW A FUCKIN BRICK AT MY NEYBOR WHEN HE BOUGHT A GPS FOR HIS CAR I WAS LIKE YOU DUMB MOTHERFUCKER!!!!!!!!!! DO YOU WANT THEM TO WIN!!!!!!!!!!!! AND I WAS ARRESTED FOR WHAT I DID NEXT.
cityofwhat 2 months ago
@cityofwhat Turn the caps off moron.
realisticHomeboy 2 months ago
@Qroyd You have to prove yourself right in science. It's obviously either got an external power source or is just a faked video.
MrWastedfate 2 months ago
@Qroyd You also cannot prove that Santa Clause does not exist.
realisticHomeboy 2 months ago
@Qroyd Erm... I am right,,, It is a impossible concept
gibsondanny 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gibsondanny you are wrong, i am right - and everyone will know it soon enough...
Qroyd 2 months ago
@Qroyd So you are going to make a device that breaks the laws of thermodynamics using 19th century technology and EVERYBODY is going to know it. You are not only the smartest person who ever lived, but you go beyong that into a realm where you can bend the very fabric of possibility. We call that MAGIC. You are the smartest person ever, you have God-like powers and you are about to be the most powerful person who ever lived...Why are you wasting time posting comments on a lame website, then?
8earthchild8 2 months ago
technically, there is an outside force, and as a word of advice Newton says "An object at rest stays at rest, unless acted upon by an outside force..." I.E. MAGNETIC FEILDS...
031000ron1 2 months ago
It's not just the magnets. What's happening is that the entire track is moving (if you watch, you can see it; it's very slight) because of the pendulums swaying back and forth as the steel ball rolls over those wires. Basically, the track is moving down slightly ahead of the steel ball, which causes it to roll continuously. Of course, since it is still technically rolling DOWN, (due to gravity) it will eventually meet the bottom of the track and stop.
Altimadark 2 months ago
What the hell ???????? how long can that thing go on for
lahman13 2 months ago
@BigMarioFan100 because you can't create energy from nothing. See the law of conservation of energy also know as first law of thermodynamics.
Tamizushi 2 months ago
This is retarded. Perpetual motion can only be achieved in outer space, not on earth.
Thescientist1999 2 months ago
@Thescientist1999 Dude, gravity is universal; it applies EVERYWHERE!
031000ron1 2 months ago
@Thescientist1999 So tell us, how being in outer space causes a violation of the first law of thermodynamics?
cpovey1 2 months ago
wow that's interesting...
deimos2k6 2 months ago
its not perpetual because it uses Gravity.
techiecreations 2 months ago
@techiecreations It actually is. If you have a look at a lot of the original designs for perpetual motion engines, a lot of them relied on gravity as well; the problem was that they eventually came to rest, because of some kind of equilibrium in force (i.e. the force propelling it forward eventually equaled the force pushing it back).
lewayprevis 2 months ago
@BigMarioFan100..... i have posted how to get energy from this device.....
Qroyd 2 months ago
Whoever watched the entire 10 minutes of that video is an idiot
bluben89 2 months ago
Anyone who truely believes this is perpetual put your hand ib the air (i just hope your sitting under a live cable) forget classing this as fundimental physics and think more basic common sense, gravity pulling the ball onto the tracks = friction. All the parts you see moving = air resistance. All require energy to be overcome, where do you suppose that comes from when you cant put any energy into the system??
Angus513 2 months ago
This was proven to be a hoax a while back, but as a rule of thumb, if you can hear it and see it move at a constant speed, it's losing far too much energy to even consider perpetual motion.
manbehindthewires 2 months ago
cut copy paste one revolution several times , and there you have it , perpetual motion.
peterparkareuro 2 months ago
read the comments and your mind will hurt...
321HOKAGE 2 months ago
Its an animated gif! :P
seinoxygen 2 months ago
The reason perpetual motion is impossible, is because the force exerted from one object to an