Jump to content

History of perpetual motion machines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.121.68.97 (talk) at 11:11, 17 February 2006 (added another De Palma N Machine link and included spelling without hyphen for search engine to find it). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The history of perpetual motion machines (also known as the history of free energy and history of over unity machines) dates as far back as the 8th century, and probably further. Perpetual motion machines are a class of hypothetical machines which produce useful energy "from nowhere" - that is, without requiring additional energy input. For millennia it was not clear whether such devices were possible, but the development of modern thermodynamics has led virtually all engineers and scientists to agree that they are impossible. Many have attempted to construct the holy grail of energy production in spite of this. Proponents of perpetual motion machines often use other terms to describe their inventions including free energy devices, mechanisms, or formulas and over unity machines.

The history of perpetual motion encompasses not only energy-creating machines but also methods of exploiting nonobvious power sources, methods, and techniques and devices with no energy loss (or output). Some are developed with elaborate machines in the style of Rube Goldberg or Heath Robinson. Some designs may appear to work on paper at first glance, but have various flaws or obfuscated external power sources that render them useless in practice; others remain untested.

Types

There are two types of perpetuum mobile:

  • Perpetuum mobile of the first kind are those devices that violate the first law of thermodynamics, the principle of conservation of energy, creating energy out of nothing. Most attempts fall into this category.
  • Perpetuum mobile of the second kind are devices that violate the second law of thermodynamics. Even though they obey the principle of conservation of energy, they attempt extraction of work from a single heat reservoir, violating the principle of no entropy decrease in an isolated macroscopic thermodynamic system. Basically the device would harvest the kinetic energy and Brownian motion of molecules in a heat reservoir, thereby cooling the reservoir, all the way to possibly absolute zero. Such an attempt of entropy decreasing is the theoretical Maxwell's demon thought experiment that attacks the macroscopic system at the microscopic level, which is not yet technologically feasible, and its theoretical possibility is still undecided. Such devices would also surpass the theoretical efficiency limits of the Carnot Cycle.

Timeline

Pre-1800s

1800s

  • In 1812, Charles Redheffer, in Philadelphia, claimed to have developed a "generator" that could power other machines. Upon investigation, it was deduced that the power was being routed from the other connected machine. Robert Fulton exposed Redheffer's schemes during an exposition of the device in New York City (1813). Removing some concealing wooden strips, Fulton found a cat-gut belt drive went through a wall to an attic. In the attic, a man was turning a crank to power the device.[10] [11] [12]
  • In 1827, Sir William Congreve, an English inventor and rocket pioneer, tried a machine running on capillary action that would disobey the law of never rising above their own level, so to produce a continual ascent and overflow. The device had an inclined plane over pulleys. At the top and bottom, there travels an endless band of sponge, a bed and, over this, again an endless band of heavy weights jointed together. The whole stands over the surface of still water. Congreve believed his system would go on continually. [13] [14] [15]
  • In 1866, Henry Prince of Britain described the first partially submerged perpetual motion machine.
  • In 1868, an Austrian, Alois Drasch, received a US patent for a machine that possessed a "thrust key-type gearing" of a rotary engine. The vehicle driver could tilt a trough depending upon need. A heavy ball rolled in a cylindrical trough downward, and, with continuous adjustment of the device's levers and power output, Drasch believed that it would be possible to power a vehicle. [16]
  • In 1870, E. P. Willis of New Haven, Connecticut made money off a "proprietary" perpetual motion machine. A story of the overly complicated device with a hidden source of energy appears in Scientific America article "The Greatest Discovery Ever Yet Made". Investigation into the device eventually found a source of power that drove it. [17]
  • John Ernst Worrell Keely invented, reportedly, an induction resonance motion motor. He is supposedly to have used etheric 'technology'. In 1872, Keely announced that he discovered a principle for power production based on the vibrations of tuning forks. Scientists investigated his machine which appeared to run on water, though Keely endeavored to avoid this. Shortly after 1872, venture capitalists accused Keely of fraud (they lost nearly five million dollars). Keely's machine, it was discovered after his death, was based on hidden air pressure tubes.
  • In 1881, John Gamgee developed a liquid ammonia machine which could operate at the freezing point from vaporation by radiant heat. The resultant expansion would drive a piston. The vapor does not condense to liquid to start the cycle over again, however, thus making the system inoperable. The Navy approved of the device and showed it to President James Garfield.
  • In 1899, J. M. Aldrich was arrested for getting investors for his free energy machine. Aldrich was never convicted. Reportedly, he continued to run his scheme. Ultimately, an interested investor, upon inspection of the device, found a hidden spring.
  • Mark Anthony Zimara of Italy had a huge air-powered machine (basically another attempt at a self blowing windmill). [18] His device is described in Tallmadge G. Kasten's "The Perpetual Motion Machine of Mark Antony Zimara".
  • The American, Horace Wickmam, received a patent regarding a machine with many rotating balls.
  • A Scottish shoemaker, known as Spence, designed a magnetic based machine which later was discredited.

1900 to 1950

Wardenclyffe Tower located in Shoreham, Long Island, New York. The 94 ft. by 94 ft. brick building was designed by architect Stanford White. The tower structure was completed in 1904. The transceiver was never fully built due to economic problems.

1951 to 1980

Electrical circuit as explained in Potter's "Methernitha Back-Engineered" article.

1981 to 1999

  • In 1984, Joseph Newman claims development of a free energy device based, reportedly, on alternative physics. Newman sued the US patent office to recognize his device. Previous analysis of the device incorrectly measured the true power output of the machine. Calculation for power did not account for the non-sinusoidal current consumption. Newman, initially open to testing, now (reportedly) refuses to ship a unit for testing. In the 1970s, Newman presented a week-long demonstration in the Louisiana Superdome in New Orleans (attended by 9,000 people from across the country). Newman is suing some former investors, who, he claims, are trying to steal the design.
  • In 1985, Greg Watson of Australia claims the development of the Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy (SMOT). In the SMOT, a steel ball is pulled up a ramp by magnetism and then falls, so the magnetic energy is converted into kinetic energy. Watson claims that an effect called "regauging" then happens, allowing the process to be repeated without the application of outside energy. In 1997, he sells kits for the device. Skeptics state that attempts at replication have failed. Reportedly, investors were not able to regain their investments.
  • John Bedini claimed development of several free energy devices. Bedini has, reportedly, refused to allow independent investigation. [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95]
  • In 1986, Bruce De Palma claimed development of an overunity machine (referred to as the "N-Machine" or "N Machine") that was described as a closed path Homopolar generator with output four times more power than consumed. It used a one-piece rotor rather than today's conventional two piece rotor and stator electric generators. It was basically a magnetized gyroscope. De Palma has been unwilling to help independent investigators, like PSITRON, analyze his device. One Electrical Engineering professor analysed this device, but skeptics claim the investigation contained a measurement error. De Palma was an associate of Richard C. Hoagland. De Palma died in 1997. [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103]

2000s

Motionless Electrical Generator circuit as explained in US6362718

Patents

This sort of invention has become common enough that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has made an official policy of refusing to grant patents for perpetual motion machines without a working model. The USPTO has in the past granted a few patents for motors that are claimed to run without net energy input. These patents were issued because it was not obvious from the patent that a perpetual motion machine was being claimed. These are:

References

Further reading

  • Ord-Hume, Arthur W. J. G., "Perpetual Motion: The History of an Obsession". New York, St. Martin's Press. 1977. ISBN 0-312-60131-X
  • Angrist, Stanley W., "Perpetual Motion Machines". Scientific American. January, 1968.
  • "Directions for constructing a Perpetual Motion Machine without the Use of Water or a Weight".
  • Childress H, David, The Free-Energy Device Handbook (Magic Wheel and others)