Perpetual Motion runs the universe

Jerry W. Decker ( (no email) )
Sat, 10 Oct 1998 22:51:20 -0500

Hi Folks!

Here is an example of the ceaseless arguing about the impossibility and
non-existence of perpetual motion and/or free energy.

I'll only point out the obvious;

1) What moves the planets?
2) What moves electrons?

Can we not learn to tap into these forces to do work? I think so.

Here is the post;
Author: Empath
Date: 1998/09/30
Forums: (Joseph G. Mitzen) wrote:

>In article <>, Empath says...
>> After reading BT's account, I find it in violation of the laws of
>> thermodynamics.
>There are no laws of physics, Empath. Only mathematical descriptions of
>current observations. You are also assuming that this device does not >draw on energy from an exotic source - zero point vacuum energy
>fluctuations, etc.

I didn't assume nor denounce the contraption. All I have to go on was
the description from BT. It sounds like countless other devices built
by those that mistake magnetism and gravity as energy sources rather
than forces. I was using the term "law", because the physics properties
involved is called the law of thermodynamics. Of course there are no
laws. The principle is based on deduction.

There are four basic laws of thermodynamics, zero to three. The second
law is the one involved.

If you take a pot of water and place it in the refrigerator, you make
use of the first law, and the water gets cold. If you take it out of
the refrigerator and let it stand until it warms, it will reach room
temperature, but no warmer.

If you add heat from an energy source it will get warmer, but it's heat
energy will not be greater than the energy used to heat it. The second
law of thermodynamics deals with entropy, and would indicate an expected

So far it's simple. You can make it more complex as a device, but the
second law of thermodynamics is still the principle and mathematics used
by engineers in determining input requirements and output expectations.

Gravity or magnetism can be used as an energy reservoir, but they are
not energy.

If you expend energy to lift a weight to a height, the energy is stored
as potential energy through the force of gravity. If the weight is
released it will produce energy when it falls, but no more than was
expended in lifting it. In fact, due to energy loss in the system, the
energy is less.

The sculpture in question (I think this is referring to Finsrud..JWD),
if it works, undoubtedly uses an additional source of energy, since
gravity and magnetism is not energy. The term zero point energy means
nothing to me. I can't form opinions on it.

If engineers were to evaluate the sculpture to determine the source of
the energy required to keep it from losing momentum they would have to
tear the thing up to find why. The artists isn't going to let that
happen, so what we have is a puzzle.

Is the artists deceptive? Does he have a battery hidden in it? Has he
inadvertently tapped into an alternate source of energy that is being
overlooked? I have no way of knowing.
>> Thus far, there has never been a satisfactory
>> demonstration capable of convincing the scientific community of any
>> exception to the law.
>Of course not. Any claim to do so is dismissed out of hand without
>examination. When Edison announced the lightbulb and lit the street his
>lab was on with it, he was denounced by scientists as a fraud and a
>conman. No one accepted the invitation to come SEE the lightbulb. One
>scientist who lived BLOCKS from the lab would not bother to come, but
>wrote a damning article denouncing Edison and his imaginary bulb anyway.

That's a nice story, but it's going to take more than a strawman to
convince engineers they should discard there differential equations in
favor of an "I don't know" attitude.
>> A perpetual motion machine as defined by the US Patent office would
>> not be concerned with such "drag", and it wouldn't be a violation of
>> "all" physics laws. Only one physics law would be sufficient. The
>> law of thermodynamics that dictates that in a closed system
>But where's the closed system?


(as long as there is gravity and zpe/aether,

>And the PROOF of this assertion?

Where's the assertion?

>And all the evidence that has accumulated in the last 20-30 years
>regarding self-organizing systems?

The self-organizing systems I'm aware of occur as a result of applied
energy, but I have no idea how you're applying it to this topic.

There are lots of perpetual motion machines, Joe, if you're simply
speaking of a machine that produces motion or work once activated,
without the manual application of energy, such as windmills,
waterwheels, solar devices. But, while over-unity devices effectively
demonstrated to me, would certainly get my attention, a simple claim
from someone claiming they have produced one isn't sufficient to draw
a real interest.

(Amen, and something many of us are trying to do, make a proof of
principle table top model that ANYONE can build and prove to their own
satisfaction....>>> JWD)

Whether the sculpture BT described does all it claims, I'm not taking
a stand one way or the other. I can find arguments against it, but
the arguments for it would be harder for me to support.

>> the output of energy cannot be greater or equal to the input energy.
>You can't use this belief to disprove the workability of the sculpture,
>but you can use the workability of the sculpture to disprove this belief.

It's not stated as a belief. It's stated as a means of paraphrasing a
physics principle. I've done nothing to disprove the sculpture, and
the workability of the sculpture has done nothing to disprove the
principle. I have only reports of it's workability.
>> You can successfully argue against perpetual motion,
>I'd like to see you try. :-) You can be my new Rollin..

You just saw my try. Now, I'm climbing up on the fence with Ken and
Lady Ni.


--            Jerry Wayne Decker  /   /  "From an Art to a Science"      Voice : (214) 324-8741   /   FAX :  (214) 324-3501   KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187