I'll Pay 5 BTC to Anyone that can build the following.

[farlack]

Wasn't being sarcastic, displace what water? The water is already displaced, the balls would all be of equal size, and the same mass would be in the water at any given time. As half of 1 ball leaves the water, half of 1 is already entering.

Since one ball is leaving at the top and one ball is entering at the bottom, you need to convert a space at the top of the water (left by the leaving ball) to a space at the bottom of the water (needed by the entering ball). How can you do that without lifting the water up?

The energy you get from the air rising comes from the water lowering as the air rises. Since water is denser than water, it takes more energy to lift the water up to make space for the entering ball than you get from the rising of that ball.

Imagine a tube with a fixed amount of water in it. Now imagine that same tube with the same amount of water but an air bubble in the bottom. The water level must be higher in the second tube. Thus it takes energy to place an air bubble in the bottom of a tube of water without removing water from it, since the existing water must be raised. This applies regardless of what's going on at the top of the tube.

Is this taking into count that a thing like this would potentially be a few hundred pounds of rubber balls on the outside pulling down, as the balls in the water is lifting up?

[greyhawk]

5 BTC? I swear, people are fucking cheap...even if it's just trolling.

It's a better deal than Tesla got.

[JoelKatz]

For any such fixed-sized machine based solely on motion, gravity, magnetics, and electricity, and consuming no input fuel, you can assign a number to every state of the machine based on how much energy it would take to assemble the machine, charge its capacitors, place its magnets, accelerate any moving parts, and so on, starting with all the components at rest, neutrally charged, and infinitely far apart. (Or, alternatively, you can call the machine's initial state zero if you like and use the minimum energy needed to transition from the initial state to that state.) All known laws of physics only allow the machine to transition to states with an equal number, and any energy removed from the machine (including radiated and conducted heat) reduces that number. This is sufficient to show that any perpetual motion machine is provably impossible if it uses only the known properties of physics.

Really? What about this one:
<snipped image of big bang>

There are conflicting theories, but so far as I know, none of them seriously suggests a violation of this principle. Some of the more "out there" theories claim the big bang drew energy from existing source that is limitless for practical purposes and then claim that they can build machines that can tap into this source. Machines that claim to tap into the energy stored in permanent magnets and try to find a technical escape clause by arguing their machines will last for decades or centuries, rather than forever, try this. Others claim their machines tap into a nuclear source.

My sole point here is that you can't do this with the known laws of motion, gravity, magnetics, and electricity.

[dree12]

For any such fixed-sized machine based solely on motion, gravity, magnetics, and electricity, and consuming no input fuel, you can assign a number to every state of the machine based on how much energy it would take to assemble the machine, charge its capacitors, place its magnets, accelerate any moving parts, and so on, starting with all the components at rest, neutrally charged, and infinitely far apart. (Or, alternatively, you can call the machine's initial state zero if you like and use the minimum energy needed to transition from the initial state to that state.) All known laws of physics only allow the machine to transition to states with an equal number, and any energy removed from the machine (including radiated and conducted heat) reduces that number. This is sufficient to show that any perpetual motion machine is provably impossible if it uses only the known properties of physics.

Really? What about this one:
<snipped image of big bang>

There are conflicting theories, but so far as I know, none of them seriously suggests a violation of this principle. Some of the more "out there" theories claim the big bang drew energy from existing source that is limitless for practical purposes and then claim that they can build machines that can tap into this source. Machines that claim to tap into the energy stored in permanent magnets and try to find a technical escape clause by arguing their machines will last for decades or centuries, rather than forever, try this. Others claim their machines tap into a nuclear source.

My sole point here is that you can't do this with the known laws of motion, gravity, magnetics, and electricity.

Yeah, the picture was rather irrelevant. Sorry for the confusion.

[JoelKatz]

Is this taking into count that a thing like this would potentially be a few hundred pounds of rubber balls on the outside pulling down, as the balls in the water is lifting up?

It makes no difference what else is going on. All that matters is that the energy that comes out is from the water pushing up on the air and the energy that needs to go in for the ball to enter the water is an amount sufficient to raise any equal volume of water an equal distance. Since water is much denser than air, the energy that comes out of the machine must always be much less than the energy that goes into it unless the machine is slowing down, in which case it will soon stop.

Yeah, the picture was rather irrelevant. Sorry for the confusion.

Don't sell yourself short, I thought it was a brilliant retort.

[farlack]

Is this taking into count that a thing like this would potentially be a few hundred pounds of rubber balls on the outside pulling down, as the balls in the water is lifting up?

It makes no difference what else is going on. All that matters is that the energy that comes out is from the water pushing up on the air and the energy that needs to go in is an amount sufficient to raise any equal volume of water an equal distance. Since water is much denser than air, the energy that comes out of the machine must always be much less than the energy that goes into it unless the machine is slowing down, in which case it will soon stop.

Yeah, the picture was rather irrelevant. Sorry for the confusion.

Don't sell yourself short, I thought it was a brilliant retort.

Cool, thanks for crushing my dreams, and saving me tons of money, to produce this, because I was actually going to try.

[paraipan]

...

For any such fixed-sized machine based solely on motion, gravity, magnetics, and electricity, and consuming no input fuel, you can assign a number to every state of the machine based on how much energy it would take to assemble the machine, charge its capacitors, place its magnets, accelerate any moving parts, and so on, starting with all the components at rest, neutrally charged, and infinitely far apart. (Or, alternatively, you can call the machine's initial state zero if you like and use the minimum energy needed to transition from the initial state to that state.) All known laws of physics only allow the machine to transition to states with an equal number, and any energy removed from the machine (including radiated and conducted heat) reduces that number. This is sufficient to show that any perpetual motion machine is provably impossible if it uses only the known properties of physics.

That is quite false conclusion, and coming from you I don't know what to think because I started to respect the things you say on the forum lately. The answer is that perpetual moving machines are simple oscillators that get their impulse energy at resonance. The part you didn't get right is a known property of physics called inertia which is responsible for making them work. They are very real and simple to build, but tricky and require the builder attention at all details.

[Red Emerald]

5 BTC? I swear, people are fucking cheap...even if it's just trolling.

Yeah. Seems like perpetual motion would be worth more than 5 BTC...

[Aseras]

You could make a dry pile, that's the closest you can get to "free" energy by using the humidity in the air to power a battery. A big enough one could power 12V devices or even your home if you could make it big enough and keep the efficiency up. They have working dry piles keep voltage for over 100 years.

[JoelKatz]

That is quite false conclusion, and coming from you I don't know what to think because I started to respect the things you say on the forum lately. The answer to these perpetual moving machines is simple oscillators that get their impulse energy at resonance. The part you didn't get right is a known property of physics called inertia which is responsible for making them work. They are very real and simple to build, but tricky and require the builder attention at all details.

The argument I made explains precisely why these machines can't work. Whatever state they're in, whether resonant or not, can be assigned a number based on the minimum energy required to assemble the machine into that state. And no known law of motion, energy, inertia, or resonance allows a transition to a higher-numbered state or to a state with an equal number while withdrawing energy. It really is that simple.

[wtfvanity]

The big bang isn't perpetual motion it's just 100% efficient.

More nonsense or do you want to prove that?

[Akka]

That is quite false conclusion, and coming from you I don't know what to think because I started to respect the things you say on the forum lately. The answer to these perpetual moving machines is simple oscillators that get their impulse energy at resonance. The part you didn't get right is a known property of physics called inertia which is responsible for making them work. They are very real and simple to build, but tricky and require the builder attention at all details.

The argument I made explains precisely why these machines can't work. Whatever state they're in, whether resonant or not, can be assigned a number based on the minimum energy required to assemble the machine into that state. And no known law of motion, energy, inertia, or resonance allows a transition to a higher-numbered state or to a state with an equal number while withdrawing energy. It really is that simple.

As stated before in an environment that causes no frictions (Vacuum, no gravity, perfect mechanics - which don't exist) it should theoretically be possible to construct such a machine that once set in motion keeps spinning at a constant rate for eternity. But as soon as you start to remove energy from the system (generator) it would start to slow down and eventually stop.

[dree12]

That is quite false conclusion, and coming from you I don't know what to think because I started to respect the things you say on the forum lately. The answer to these perpetual moving machines is simple oscillators that get their impulse energy at resonance. The part you didn't get right is a known property of physics called inertia which is responsible for making them work. They are very real and simple to build, but tricky and require the builder attention at all details.

The argument I made explains precisely why these machines can't work. Whatever state they're in, whether resonant or not, can be assigned a number based on the minimum energy required to assemble the machine into that state. And no known law of motion, energy, inertia, or resonance allows a transition to a higher-numbered state or to a state with an equal number while withdrawing energy. It really is that simple.

As stated before in an environment that causes no frictions (Vacuum, no gravity, perfect mechanics - which don't exist) it should theoretically be possible to construct such a machine that once set in motion keeps spinning at a constant rate for eternity. But as soon as you start to remove energy from the system (generator) it would start to slow down and eventually stop.

The problem is that friction isn't the only cause of energy loss. Radiation occurs in anything with heat, and anything without heat is by definition devoid of energy.

[JoelKatz]

The big bang isn't perpetual motion it's just 100% efficient.

More nonsense or do you want to prove that?

By "perpetual motion machine", we mean an object of fixed size that can output more energy across its boundary that comes in across that boundary, and can continue to do so indefinitely. If you draw a box around the present location of everything that was present at the big bang, nothing would be leaving that box, and the box would eventually grow beyond all bounds. If the big bang is a perpetual motion, then everything is, even a single photon.

[JoelKatz]

As stated before in an environment that causes no frictions (Vacuum, no gravity, perfect mechanics - which don't exist) it should theoretically be possible to construct such a machine that once set in motion keeps spinning at a constant rate for eternity. But as soon as you start to remove energy from the system (generator) it would start to slow down and eventually stop.

Correct. While we know of no practical way to build such a device, it doesn't really violate any known laws.

The problem is that friction isn't the only cause of energy loss. Radiation occurs in anything with heat, and anything without heat is by definition devoid of energy.

We permit the machine to operate at a fixed temperature, exchanging equal amounts of radiation (or any other kind of energy for that matter) with the environment provided it doesn't require or exploit any special organization of that energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer
That's cheating.

[paraipan]

That is quite false conclusion, and coming from you I don't know what to think because I started to respect the things you say on the forum lately. The answer to these perpetual moving machines is simple oscillators that get their impulse energy at resonance. The part you didn't get right is a known property of physics called inertia which is responsible for making them work. They are very real and simple to build, but tricky and require the builder attention at all details.

The argument I made explains precisely why these machines can't work. Whatever state they're in, whether resonant or not, can be assigned a number based on the minimum energy required to assemble the machine into that state. And no known law of motion, energy, inertia, or resonance allows a transition to a higher-numbered state or to a state with an equal number while withdrawing energy. It really is that simple.

You build you argument quite well but fail based on preconceived assumptions. I don't get very well your number and state terms but I can tell you the energy required to keep a resonant machine going is a few orders of magnitude smaller than the one present in the system and available for conversion at any time. Note the energy produced is not available for work right away, but to be transformed or converted to another state. I would love to involve in a debate on this issue but from my experience is only a loss of time and resources for something that will finally come out like a second nature for any individual, and then be accepted by the mainstream "science" people.

[JoelKatz]

That is quite false conclusion, and coming from you I don't know what to think because I started to respect the things you say on the forum lately. The answer to these perpetual moving machines is simple oscillators that get their impulse energy at resonance. The part you didn't get right is a known property of physics called inertia which is responsible for making them work. They are very real and simple to build, but tricky and require the builder attention at all details.

The argument I made explains precisely why these machines can't work. Whatever state they're in, whether resonant or not, can be assigned a number based on the minimum energy required to assemble the machine into that state. And no known law of motion, energy, inertia, or resonance allows a transition to a higher-numbered state or to a state with an equal number while withdrawing energy. It really is that simple.

You build you argument quite well but fail based on preconceived assumptions. I don't get very well your number and state terms

Let me try to explain it one more time. Imagine the machine is in some particular state. Its components are in particular places, some are moving, and so on. Now imagine the machine with all its parts not moving and in a pile at the bottom. For each state of the machine, there's some minimum amount of energy it would take to assemble the machine from the pile of parts to that state -- you have to move the parts, accelerate moving parts, and so on. So you can assign every possible physical condition of the machine a number. No known laws of physics allow the machine to move from a state with a lower number to a state with a higher number unless energy is fed in from the outside. And outputting energy from the machine always lowers the state number.

but I can tell you the energy required to keep a resonant machine going is a few orders of magnitude smaller than the one present in the system and available for conversion at any time.

Absolutely. The same is true of a book on a shelf. Almost no energy is required to keep the book on the shelf. But if you knock it off the shelf, you can extract that energy at any time. However, this lowers the book, changing the machine to a state with a lower energy.

Note the energy produced is not available for work right away, but to be transformed or converted to another state. I would love to involve in a debate on this issue but from my experience is only a loss of time and resources for something that will finally come out like a second nature for any individual, and then be accepted by the mainstream "science" people.

Nobody said machines can't store a fixed amount of energy that you can then withdraw.

[wtfvanity]

The big bang isn't perpetual motion it's just 100% efficient.

More nonsense or do you want to prove that?

Proving it would be kind of tricky because we don't exactly know much about what's out there but the generally accepted view is that the expansion of the universe is slowing and at some stage will contract and eventually the cycle will begin again. The universe is (we think) all there is, therefore nothing can get out because there is no "out", energy cannot be created or destroyed so all the energy stays in the universe.

I'm not saying it's perpetual motion. I'm also not saying it's 100% efficient. I'm saying that if you say it's 100% efficient, that's a bold statement and I would love to know how you came to that conclusion. My point being, words are cheap. Saying it doesn't make it a fact.

[paraipan]

....

Interesting way of seeing it, think I will stick around and listen without trolling too much.

[johnniewalker]

I think there's a train that works this way. In Switzerland.