Literature Survey

Pre-1800s

The "magic wheel", a wheel spinning on its axle powered by lodestones, appeared in 8th century

Bavaria. The wheel was supposed to rotate perpetually; in fact, it did rotate for a long time, but

friction inevitably eventually stopped it. Early designs of perpetual motion machines were done

by Indian mathematician–astronomer Bhaskara II, who described a wheel (Bhāskara's wheel)

that he claimed would run forever.

A drawing of a perpetual motion machine appeared in the sketchbook of Villard de Honnecourt,

a 13th century French master mason and architect. The sketchbook was concerned with

mechanics and architecture. Following the example of Villard, Peter of Maricourt designed a

magnetic globe which, if it were mounted without friction parallel to the celestial axis, would

rotate once a day. It was intended to serve as an automatic armillary sphere.

Leonardo da Vinci made a number of drawings of devices he hoped would make free energy.

Leonardo da Vinci was generally against such devices, but drew and examined numerous

overbalanced wheels

Mark Anthony Zimara, a 16th century Italian scholar, proposed a self-blowing windmill.

Various scholars in this period investigated the topic. Robert Boyle devised the "perpetual vase"

("perpetual goblet" or "hydrostatic paradox") which was discussed by Denis Papin in the

Philosophical Transactions for 1685.Johann Bernoulli proposed a fluid energy machine. In 1686,

Georg Andreas Böckler, designed a "self operating" self-powered water mill and several

perpetual motion machines using balls using variants of Archimedes screws. In 1712, Johann

Bessler (Orffyreus), investigated 300 different perpetual motion models and claimed he had the

secret of perpetual motion. Though allegation of fraud surfaced later (from a maid in his

employment), investigators at the time, such as the lawyer Willem Jacob s'Gravesande, reported

no such fraud.

In the 1760s, James Cox and John Joseph Merlin developed the Cox's timepiece. Cox claimed

the timepiece a true perpetual motion machine, but as the device is powered from changes in

atmospheric pressure via a mercury barometer, this is not the case.

In 1775, the Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris made the statement that the Academy "will no

longer accept or deal with proposals concerning perpetual motion. The reasoning was that

perpetual motion is impossible to achieve and that the search for it is time consuming and very

expensive. According to the members of the academy, those bright minds dedicating their time

and resources to this search, could be utilized much better in other, more reasonable endeavors.

Nevertheless, many individuals continued to propose and build various "perpetual" machines, in

a quest of attaining their end goal of free energy. An example is Doctor Conradus Schiviers

(1790). Schiviers made a belt-driven wheel in which several balls powered a water wheel bucket-

chain (again raising the balls). Others tried to adapt his designs unsuccessfully a century l.

Industrial Revolution

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.

In 1827, Sir William Congreve, 2nd Baronet devised a machine running on capillary action that

would disobey the law of liquids never rising above their own level] so to produce a continuous

ascent and overflow. The device had an inclined plane over pulleys. At the top and bottom, there

travelled an endless band of sponge, a bed and, over this, again an endless band of heavy weights

jointed together. The whole stood over the surface of still water. Congreve believed his system

would operate continuously

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.

In 1870, E.P. Willis of New Haven, Connecticut made money from a "proprietary" perpetual

motion machine. A story of the overly complicated device with a hidden source of energy

appears in Scientific American article "The Greatest Discovery Ever Yet Made." Investigation

into the device eventually found a source of power that drove it

John Ernst Worrell Keely claimed the invention of an induction resonance motion motor. He

explained that he used "etheric technology". In 1872, Keely announced that he had 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 boiling

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 U.S. President James A. Garfield]

1900 to 1950

In 1900, Nikola Tesla claimed to have discovered an abstract principle on which to base a

perpetual motion machine of the second kind. No prototype was produced. He wrote:

“ A departure from known methods – possibility of a "self-acting" engine or machine,

inanimate, yet capable, like a living being, of deriving energy from the medium – the

ideal way of obtaining motive power ”

By 1903, 600 English perpetual motion patents had been granted A design patented in the early

years of the 20th century involved a cable projecting 150 miles into the sky to induce electricity

(technology at the time would limit its usefulness, as it weighed 80 tons) and to be held.

In the 1910s and 1920s, Harry Perrigo of Kansas City, Missouri, a graduate of MIT, claimed

development of a free energy device. Perrigo claimed the energy source was "from thin air" or

from aether waves. Perrigo demonstrated the device before the Congress of the United States on

December 15, 1917. Perrigo had a pending application for the "Improvement in Method and

Apparatus for Accumulating and Transforming Ether Electric Energy". Investigators report that

his device contained a hidden motor battery.

Modern era

1951 to 1980

During the middle of the 20th century, Viktor Schauberger claimed to have discovered some

special vortex energy in water. Since his death in 1958, people are still studying his works.

In 1966, Josef Papp (sometimes referred to as Joseph Papp or Joseph Papf) supposedly

developed an alternative car engine that used inert gases. He gained a few investors but when the

engine was publicly demonstrated, an explosion killed one of the observers and injured two

others. Mr. Papp blamed the accident on interference by physicist Richard Feynman, who later

shared his observations in an article in LASER, Journal of the Southern Californian Skeptics.]

Papp continued to accept money but never demonstrated another engine.

On December 20 of 1977, Emil T. Hartman received U.S. Patent 4,215,330 titled "Permanent

magnet propulsion system". This device is related to the Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy

(SMOT).

Thesta-Distatica[ electrical circuit as explained in Potter's "Methernitha Back-Engineered"

article.

Paul Bauman, a German engineer, developed a machine referred to as the "Testatika and known

as the "Swiss M-L converter" or "Thesta-Distatica". The device's operation has been recorded as

far back as 1960s at a place called Methernitha (near Berne, Switzerland). The Testatika is an

electromagnetic generator based on the 1898 "Pidgeon electrostatic machine" which includes an

inductance circuit, a capacitance circuit, and a thermionic rectification valve. Allegedly a

perpetual motion machine, the Testatika resembles in some respects a Wimshurst machine]

Guido Franch reportedly had a process of transmuting water molecules into high-octane

gasoline compounds (named Mota fuel) that would reduce the price of gasoline to 8 cents per

gallon. This process involved a green powder (this claim may be related to the similar ones of

John Andrews (1917)). He was brought to court for fraud in 1954 and acquitted, but in 1973 was

convicted. Justice William Bauer and Justice Philip Romiti both observed a demonstration in the

1954 case.

In 1958, Otis T. Carr from Oklahoma formed a company to manufacture UFO-styled spaceships

and hovercraft. Carr sold stock for this commercial endeavor. He also promoted free energy

machines. He claimed inspiration from Nikola Tesla, among others.

In 1962, physicist Richard Feynman discussed a Brownian ratchet that would supposedly extract

meaningful work from Brownian motion, though he went on to demonstrate how such a device

would fail to work in practice.

In the 1970s David Hamel produced the Hamel generator, an "antigravity" device, supposedly

after an alien abduction. The device was tested on MythBusters where it failed to demonstrate

any lift-generating capability.

Howard R. Johnson's US Patent 4151431

2000s

Motionless electromagnetic generator circuit as explained in US Patent 6362718

The motionless electromagnetic generator (MEG), granted a U.S. patent in 2002, is most notable

for claims of over-unity operation, a feat which would violate the first law of thermodynamics.

Allegedly, the device can eventually sustain its operation in addition to powering a load without

application of external electrical power, by extraction of vacuum energy from the immediate

environment.

In 2002, the GWE (Genesis World Energy) group claimed to have 400 people developing a

device that supposedly separated water into H2 and O2 using less energy than conventionally

thought possible. No independent confirmation was ever made of their claims, and in 2006,

company founder Patrick Kelly was sentenced to five years in prison for stealing funds from

investors.

In 2006, Steorn Ltd. claimed to have built an over-unity device based on rotating magnets, and

took out an advertisement soliciting scientists to test their claims. The selection process for

twelve began in September 2006 and concluded in December 2006. The selected jury started

investigating Steorn's claims. A public demonstration scheduled for July 4, 2007 was canceled

due to "technical difficulties." In June 2009, the selected jury said the technology does not work.

1.What is perpentual motion?

Robert Fludd's 1618 "water screw" perpetual motion machine from a 1660 wood engraving. This

device is widely credited as the first recorded attempt to describe such a device in order to

produce useful work, that of driving millstones.[1]

Although the machine would not work, the

idea was that water from the top tank turns a water wheel (bottom-left), which drives a

complicated series of gears and shafts that ultimately rotate the Archimedes' screw (bottom-

center to top-right) to pump water to refill the tank. The rotary motion of the water wheel also

drives two grinding wheels (bottom-right) and is shown as providing sufficient excess water to

lubricate them.

Perpetual motion describes "Motion that continues indefinitely without any external source

of energy; impossible in practice because of friction."[2]

It can also be described as "the motion of

a hypothetical machine which, once activated, would run forever unless subject to an external

force or to wear".[3]

There is a scientific consensus that perpetual motion in an isolated

systemion would violate the first and/or second law of thermodynamics.

Basic principles

There is a scientific consensus that perpetual motion in an isolated system violates either the first

law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics, or both. The first law of

thermodynamics is essentially a statement of conservation of energy. The second law can be

phrased in several different ways, the most intuitive of which is that heat flows spontaneously

from hotter to colder places; the most well known statement is that entropytends to increase

(see entropy production), or at the least stay the same; another statement is that no heat

engine (an engine which produces work while moving heat from a high temperature to a low

temperature) can be more efficient than a Carnot heat engine.

In other words:

1. In any isolated system, one cannot create new energy (first law of thermodynamics)

2. The output power of heat engines is always smaller than the input heating power. The rest

of the energy is removed as heat at ambient temperature. The efficiency (this is the

produced power divided by the input heating power) has a maximum, given by the

Carnot efficiency. It is always lower than one

3. The efficiency of real heat engines is even lower than the Carnot efficiency due

to irreversible processes.

The statements 2 and 3 only apply to heat engines. Other types of engines, which convert e.g.

mechanical into electromagnetic energy, can, in principle, operate with 100% efficiency.

Machines which comply with both laws of thermodynamics by accessing energy from

unconventional sources are sometimes referred to as perpetual motion machines, although they

do not meet the standard criteria for the name. By way of example, clocks and other low-power

machines, such as Cox's timepiece, have been designed to run on the differences in barometric

pressure or temperature between night and day. These machines have a source of energy, albeit

one which is not readily apparent so that they only seem to violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Machines which extract energy from seemingly perpetual sources - such as ocean currents - are

indeed capable of moving "perpetually" until that energy source runs down. They are not

considered to be perpetual motion machines because they are consuming energy from an external

source and are not isolated systems.

PATENTS

Proposals for such inoperable machines have become so common 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 Manual of Patent Examining

Practice states:

With the exception of cases involving perpetual motion, a model is not ordinarily required by the

Office to demonstrate the operability of a device. If operability of a device is questioned, the

applicant must establish it to the satisfaction of the examiner, but he or she may choose his or her

own way of so doing.[19]

And, further, that:

A rejection [of a patent application] on the ground of lack of utility includes the more specific

grounds of inoperativeness, involving perpetual motion. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lack

of utility should not be based on grounds that the invention is frivolous, fraudulent or against

public policy.[20]

The filing of a patent application is a clerical task, and the USPTO won't refuse filings for

perpetual motion machines; the application will be filed and then most probably rejected by the

patent examiner, after he has done a formal examination.[21]

Even if a patent is granted, it doesn't

mean that the invention actually works; it just means that the examiner thinks that it works, or

that he couldn't figure out why it wouldn't work.[21]

The USPTO maintains a collection of Perpetual Motion Gimmicks as Digest 9 in Class 74

In 1979, Joseph Newman filed a US Patent application for his "energy machine" which

unambiguously claimed over-unity operation, where power output exceeded power input; the

source of energy was claimed to be the atoms of the machine's copper conductor.[22]

The Patent

Office rejected the application after the National Bureau of Standards measured the electrical

input to be greater than the electrical output. Newman challenged the decision in court and

lost.[23]

Other patent offices around the world, such as the United Kingdom Patent Office, have similar

practices. Section 4.05 of the UKPO Manual of Patent Practice states:

Processes or articles alleged to operate in a manner which is clearly contrary to well-established

physical laws, such as perpetual motion machines, are regarded as not having industrial

application.[24]

The European Patent Classification (ECLA) has classes including patent applications on

perpetual motion systems: ECLA classes "F03B17/04: Alleged perpetua mobilia ..." and

"F03B17/00B: [... machines or engines] (with closed loop circulation or similar : ... Installations

wherein the liquid circulates in a closed loop; Alleged perpetua mobilia of this or similar kind

...".[28]

.The current formulation of the laws of physics (called "The Standard Model") is known

to be incomplete. Stating that physical things are absolutely impossible is often

considered un-scientific. However, the term "epistemic impossibility" is used to describe

those things which absolutely cannot occur within the context of our current formulation

of the physical laws. This interpretation of the word "impossible" is what is intended in

discussions of the impossibility of perpetual motion in a closed system.[8]

The conservation laws are particularly robust from a mathematical perspective. Noether's

theorem, which was proven mathematically in 1915, states that any conservation law can be

derived from a corresponding continuous symmetry of the action of a physical system.[9]

This

means that if the laws of physics (not necessarily the current understanding of them, but the

actual laws, which may still be undiscovered) and the various physical constants remain invariant

over time — if the laws of the universe are fixed — then the conservation laws must hold. On the

other hand, if the conservation laws are invalid, then much of modern physics would be incorrect

as well.[10]

Scientific investigations as to whether the laws of physics are invariant over time use telescopes

to examine the universe in the distant past to discover, to the limits of our measurements,

whether ancient stars were identical to stars today. Combining different measurements such

as spectroscopy, direct measurement of the speed of light in the past and similar measurements

demonstrates that physics has remained substantially the same, if not identical, for all of

observable history spanning billions of years.[11]

The principles of thermodynamics are so well established, both theoretically and experimentally,

that proposals for perpetual motion machines are universally met with disbelief on the part of

physicists. Any proposed perpetual motion design offers a potentially instructive challenge to

physicists: one is almost completely certain that it can't work, so one must explain how it fails to

work. The difficulty (and the value) of such an exercise depends on the subtlety of the proposal;

the best ones tend to arise from physicists' own thought experiments and often shed light upon

certain aspects of physics. So, for example, the thought experiment of a Brownian ratchet as a

perpetual motion machine was first discussed by Gabriel Lippmann in 1900 but it was not until

1912 that Marian Smoluchowski gave an adequate explanation for why it cannot

work.[12]

However, during that twelve year period scientists did not believe that the machine was

possible. They were merely unaware of the exact mechanism by which it would inevitably fail.

The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of

Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with

Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be

contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if

your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope;

there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.

"There is something lamentable, degrading, and almost insane in pursuing the visionary schemes

of past ages with dogged determination, in paths of learning which have been investigated by

superior minds, and with which such adventurous persons are totally unacquainted.

Conclusions

Machines which extract energy from seemingly perpetual sources—such as ocean

currents—are capable of moving "perpetually" (for as long as that energy source itself

endures), but they are not considered to be perpetual motion machines because they

are consuming energy from an external source and are not isolated systems. (In

reality, no system can ever be a fully isolated system.) Similarly, machines which

comply with both laws of thermodynamics but access energy from obscure sources

are sometimes referred to as perpetual motion machines, although they also do not

meet the standard criteria for the name.

Despite the fact that successful isolated system perpetual motion devices are

physically impossible in terms of the current understanding of the laws of physics, the

pursuit of perpetual motion remains popular.

Techniques

Some common ideas reoccur repeatedly in perpetual motion machine designs. Many ideas that

continue to appear today were stated as early as 1670 by John Wilkins, Bishop of Chester and an

official of the Royal Society. He outlined three potential sources of power for a perpetual motion

machine, "Chymical Extractions", "Magnetical Virtues" and "the Natural Affection of

Gravity".[1]

The seemingly mysterious ability of magnets to influence motion at a distance without any

apparent energy source has long appealed to inventors. One of the earliest examples of a system

using magnets was proposed by Wilkins and has been widely copied since: it consists of a ramp

with a magnet at the top, which pulled a metal ball up the ramp. Near the magnet was a small

hole that was supposed to allow the ball to drop under the ramp and return to the bottom, where a

flap allowed it to return to the top again. The device simply could not work: any magnet strong

enough to pull the ball up the ramp would necessarily be too powerful to allow it to drop through

the hole. Faced with this problem, more modern versions typically use a series of ramps and

magnets, positioned so the ball is to be handed off from one magnet to another as it moves. The

problem remains the same.

Gravity also acts at a distance, without an apparent energy source. But to get energy out of a

gravitational field (for instance, by dropping a heavy object, producing kinetic energy as it falls)

one has to put energy in (for instance, by lifting the object up), and some energy is always

dissipated in the process. A typical application of gravity in a perpetual motion machine

is Bhaskara's wheel in the 12th century, whose key idea is itself a recurring theme, often called

the overbalanced wheel: Moving weights are attached to a wheel in such a way that they fall to a

position further from the wheel's center for one half of the wheel's rotation, and closer to the

center for the other half. Since weights further from the center apply a greater torque, the result is

(or would be, if such a device worked) that the wheel rotates forever. The moving weights may

be hammers on pivoted arms, or rolling balls, or mercury in tubes; the principle is the same.

Yet another theoretical machine involves a frictionless environment for motion. This involves

the use of diamagnetic or electromagnet levitation to float an object. This is done in a vacuum to

eliminate air friction and friction from an axle. The levitated object is then free to rotate around

its center of gravity without interference. However, this machine has no practical purpose

because the rotated object cannot do any work as work requires the levitated object to cause

motion in other objects, bringing friction into the problem. Furthermore, a perfect vacuum is an

unattainable goal since both the container and the object itself would slowly vaporize, thereby

degrading the vacuum.

To extract work from heat, thus producing a perpetual motion machine of the second kind, the

most common approach (dating back at least to Maxwell's demon) is unidirectionality. Only

molecules moving fast enough and in the right direction are allowed through the demon's trap

door. In a Brownian ratchet, forces tending to turn the ratchet one way are able to do so while

forces in the other direction aren't. A diode in a heat bath allows through currents in one

direction and not the other. These schemes typically fail in two ways: either maintaining the

unidirectionality costs energy (Maxwell's demon needs light to look at all those particles and see

what they're doing)[dubious – discuss]

, or the unidirectionality is an illusion and occasional big

violations make up for the frequent small non-violations (the Brownian ratchet will be subject to

internal Brownian forces and therefore will sometimes turn the wrong way).

Buoyancy is another frequently-misunderstood phenomenon. Some proposed perpetual-motion

machines miss the fact that to push a volume of air down in a fluid takes the same work as to

raise a corresponding volume of fluid up against gravity. These types of machines may involve

two chambers with pistons, and a mechanism to squeeze the air out of the top chamber into the

bottom one, which then becomes buoyant and floats to the top. The squeezing mechanism in

these designs would not be able to do enough work to move the air down, or would leave no

excess work available to be extracted.

Term Paper Report

A term paper report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement of

Bachelor of Technology in

Mechanical And Automation Engineering

Submitted By

ROOPAK GOYAL

Enrollment No.:A50105411050

Submitted to

Mr. …………

Department of MECHANICAL AND AUTOMATION

Amity School of Engineering and Technology

Amity University Haryana

August 2012

ABSTRACT

Ever since the first century A.D. there have been relative descriptions of known devices as well

as manufactures for the creation of perpetual motion machines. Although physics has led, with

two thermodynamic laws, to the opinion that a perpetual motion machine is impossible to be

manufactured, inventors of every age and educational level appear to claim that they have

invented something «entirely new» or they have improved somebody else’s invention, which

«will function henceforth perpetually. However the fact of the failure in manufacturing a

perpetual motion machine till now, it does not mean that countless historical elements for these

fictional machines become indifferent. The discussion on every version of a perpetual motion

machine on the one hand gives the chance to comprehend the inventor’s of each period level of

knowledge and his way of thinking, and on the other hand, to locate the points where this

perpetual motion machine» clashes with the laws of nature and that’s why it is impossible to

have been manufactured or have functioned. The presentation of a new «perpetual motion

machine» has excited our interest to locate its weak points. According to the designer of it the

machine functions with the work produced by the buoyant force.

Introduction

Perpetual motion machine: A machine which, since set in function, continues to function

perpetually without supplying any energy.

The question about the perpetual motion machine is one of the issues, which attracts

people who tend to believe strange things and occultism. That’s why such ideas are adopted from

various non-recognized religious circles which often describe in their books or in their speeches

perpetual motion machines, which however have neither been Manufactured nor have

functioned. Usually the members of these organizations ignore the fundamental laws of physics

and surely they are not the researchers who possess the knowledge to improve or generalize the

laws. On the other side it must be stated that it is not always easy to be proved theoretically that

it is impossible for a manufacture to function because in each more complicated system a great

number of secondary or inconspicuous activities are involved, which in energy issues should be

taken into consideration.

There is also a great number of ideas about perpetual motion machines, which (don’t)

function with magnets, chemical substances or flame. The eternal light without the addition of

fuel seems to have been cultivated through the centuries mainly in religious circles. Since the

first century A.D. there have been relative descriptions of the Roman military officer, politician,

natural philosopher and website of Hans-Peter Gramatke there is a detailed presentation of the

most known devices for the designing of a perpetual motion machine with pictures, assimilated

movements e.t.c.

As an example historian Gaius Plinius Secundus (23 – 79 A.D.). In the here is a plumbing –

mechanic system with communicating tubes of different length as Fig.1,which contains two

liquids with an important difference in density e.g. water and mercury. The globules that will be

moving perpetually in the two tubes, float in both liquids. Each globule that goes upwards

because of the buoyant force in the left tube falls onto the wheel, which rotates because of each

globule’s momentum, while afterwards drops into the right tube. There the increased total weight

of the globules pushes the formed column and in this way another globule reaches the bottom

and then it rises to the surface of the liquid in the left tube, and so on. Even if this device is not

possible to function as a perpetual motion machine, the factual cause seems not easy to be

located .

2. Historical elements

The idea of the perpetual motion machine appears for the first time in the East and to be exact in

the 12th century A.D. in India. In ancient Greece and in Rome, but also during the later

Antiquity it hasn’t been reported a perpetual motion machine not even as a theoretical version.

The Indian Mathematician and astronomer baskaracharya (1114 – 1185) describes a perpetual

motion mechanism as Fig.2, in one of his literary works with the following words: «The machine

rotates at full speed because the mercury is at the one side of the wheel nearer the axis and

farther from the other side». at full speed because the mercury is at the one side of the wheel nearer

the axis and farther from the other side». The apparatus which Bhaskaracharya describes was

manufactured by a lot of subsequent researchers in the same form or in different versions and of

course it didn’t constitute a perpetual motion machine. The simplest of these manufactures

consists of a wheel in the perimeter of which less or more complicated arms are attached and

which change the center of mass, during the rotation. While an impression of a perpetual

motion machine may be given visually, in fact the system balances at some moment. On the

other hand nowadays, we know that the rotating wheel heats the axis due to friction and it must

also overcome the drag with the result after some rotations the energy caused by the initial

external propulsion will be consumed and thus rotation stops.

A notebook of Villard de Honecourt aged back to the 13th

century has been rescued.in this

notebook he presents several magnificants buildings and a series of machines .among them a

perpentualmotion machine with masses(hammers), which change the center of mass during its

rotation. It is not known whether these designs of Honecourt were ever accomplished or not, but

for sure the perpetual motion machine didn’t work because it is a version of Bhaskaracharya’s

conception. During the Renaissance De Georgio, Leonardo da Vinci and Vittorio Zonca

designed or tried to manufacture a perpetual motion machine. Of the three above-mentioned

Leonardo is of the opinion that the function of a perpetual motion machine belongs to the field of

the impossible and he identifies the researchers of perpetual motion machine with the

Alchemists: «You researchers of the perpetual motion, how many conceited, fictional works

haven’t you created carrying out your researches…. You had better make company with the creators of gold».

In the centuries rearchers for the perpetual motion machine were added till johann bessler, who

around 1715 presented to his In the petual motion machines are referred as: perpetuum mobile

naturae and perpetuum mobile physicae. The first category concerned systems of the nature

(sun, stars, seasons of the year and so on), which were considered as perpetually moving mainly

because they functioned with God’s will. In the second category belonged the systems which

man would make following as example the divine creations. These aspirations of the researchers

were considered then, sometimes, to be a recognition of the divine deed and an effort of its

imitation and sometimes they are insulting. Those occupied with such subjects would be

presented before the Inquisition and be sentenced to death. Anyway, in 1775 the French

Academy of ided not to accept suggestions about perpetual motion machines any more.

3. Definitions

First kind of perpetual motion machine:

Every machine which functions perpetually and produces work, without an input of

external energy in any form and without being subjected to any decay as time passes as far as its

components and materials are concerned.

Second kind of perpetual motion chine in periodical function, which converts totally

heat energy into other type (mechanic, electric e.t.c.).

Third kind of perpetual motion machine: The first kind, without producing work.

Perpetual motion machine of first motor – generator where the generator supplies electric

energy in return for its motion without any loss. Perpetual motion machine of second kind cou

tem, which would use for its function the heat of the environment e.g. a vehicle which would

move exploiting the heat of the air. Finally, per sidered a system sun – planets or every nucleus

of an atom with its electrons, which seem to function without exchange of energy with their

environment, thing which is not right.

4. Thermodynamic Laws

With the statement of the 19th century the creation of a perpetual motion machine was

theoretically excluded.

The equation

QU= ΔW …………………………………………………. (1)

consists the first law of thermodynamics

The quantity o f energy supplied to any isolated system in C the form of heat Q is equal to

the work W done by the system plus the change in internal energy ΔU of the system.

The first law of thermodynamics is the application of the principle of the conservation of

energy, which is valid for every isolated system.

The thermal efficiency, e, of the heat engine is defined as

E=work done during one cycle =w/Qh……………..(2)

Heat added during another cycle

The net amount of heat Q, which is absorbed by the substance, is the amount of heat it receives

from the high temperature heat source Qh minus that one which it exhausts to the low

temperature heat sink Qc. The work produced by the gas equals with the net amount of heat it

absorbs that is

W = Qh - |Qc|……………………. (3)

Replacing Eq 3 in the Eq 2 we have:

It is interesting to note that the efficiency of steamengines has increased from 0.17% for the first

steam engines of the seventeenth century to over 40% for the turbines used

in modern power plants.

From the Eq 4 we see that the thermal efficiency of an operating heat engine must

always be less than 100%. It would be 100% if the engine transformed the whole amount of heat

to work. So far nobody managed to manufacture such they exhaust a notable amount of heat to

the environment. The repeated failures of the researchers to manufacture «perfect» heat engine

which would transform completely the heat to available work convinced us that this incapability

is due to restriction set by the nature itself. This finding out led to the formulation of the second

thermodynamic law by Kelvin and Plank:

It is impossible to extract an amount of heat from a hot reservoir and use it

all to do work. Some amount of heat must be exhausted to a cold reservoir. Speaking about heat, it flows spontaneously from a high temperature object to a lower

temperature object. The reverse course demands consumption of energy. A heat pump is a device

which applies external work to extract an amount of heat from a cold reservoir and delivers heat

to a hot reservoir. A refrigerator is a heat engine in which work is done on a refrigerant substance

in order to collect energy from a cold region and exhaust it to a higher temperature region

thereby further cooling the cold region. The statements about refrigerators apply to air

conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles. However for the function of

these machines we spend energy. It is impossible to manufacture a refrigerator, which can

function without consuming energy. This finding out led to the "second form" or Clausius

statement of the second law.

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any

work having been done to accomplish this flow. The two forms of the second thermodynamic law, which apparently are entirely unlinked, are

equal in value. If one of them is true the other one will be true, too. The first law is the

application of conservation of energy to the system, and the second sets limits on the possible

efficiency of the machine and determines the direction of energy flow. According to the second

law though, nature sets restrictions in the transformation of one kind of energy to another one.

Heat cannot be transformed 100% to mechanic energy. Also the second thermodynamic law

defining that the heat is always transmitted from the warmer to the colder body, defines the

direction towards which the phenomena happen spontaneously in nature.

In 1824 the French engineer Sadi Carnot described a reversible cyclic process which, was called

Carnot Cycle. The Carnot cycle can be thought of as the most efficient heat

engine cycle allowed by physical laws. The Carnot efficiency sets the limiting value on the

fraction of the heat, which can be so used. Such a supposed idealized machine is called Carnot

engine and its output constitutes the superior limit for the output of all the other machines. This

deduction is known as Carnot theorem:

The efficiency of a Carnot engine or Carnot efficiency is the maximum efficiency

possible for a heat engine working between two given temperatures.

It is proved that the Carnot efficiency.

The ratio between the work done and the amount of heat introduced into a system going

through a Carnot cycle, the Carnot efficiency, is equal to the difference between the two

temperatures of the isothermal steps of the cycle divided by the higher of the two temperatures

. The result states that the Carnot efficiency depends only on the temperatures of the two

heat tanks. It is big when the temperature difference is great and it is very small when the

temperatures differ a little. Since most of the practical applications have as cold tank the

environment, that is the temperature of about 300º K, the higher is the temperature of the body

which «emits» heat, the more profitable may be its exploitation. Also the result confirms the

second thermodynamic law. In order to have Carnot efficiency 100% we must have Tc = 0,

which is impossible

.

5. Criterion of success for a perpetual motion machine

Although physics has led with the two thermodynamic laws to the opinion that it is impossible to

manufacture a perpetual motion machine, researchers of every age and educational level appear,

claiming that they have found something «entirely new» or that they have improved the

invention of somebody else’s, which will function for ever henceforth» Executives in research

centers and educational institutions very often face persistent visitors with ideas of perpetual

motion machines.

Firstly the rules of physics, which we call axioms, are simply principles that are deductions,

which are confirmed in every measurement and every calculation. Because, therefore the

universality and the general acceptance of theseprinciples, we consider that they hold a place of

axiom that is they constitute fundamental affairs, which don’t need to be proved. Contrary to the

unsolved problems of Euclid’s Geometry (trisection of the acute angle, squaring the cycle e.t.c.)

which evidently are not solved with the predetermined rules, the axioms of physics are empirical

principles, which perhaps some time will be proved to be of limited validity in space or in time.

On the one side, therefore, we have with absolute certainty the repetition of the same results in an

enormous number of measurements and calculations. And on the other side in science there is the

possibility of subversion or as it is usually happens the extensions and generalization of some

deductions, which are considered obvious today. Of course, criterion of success for a machine

is not whether it obeys the 1st or the 2nd law of physics or not, but whether it functions.

That is if it does what its manufacturer claims. With this criterion we are in position to declare in

advance that till today a perpetual motion machine hasn’t been materialized despite the countless

efforts, theoretical and constructional ones.

Thus, every claim that a «new scientific theory proves» the possibility of function of perpetual

motion machines e.g. with the introduction of new concepts, which are unknown in physics, such

as the discussed free energy and so on, is false-scientific. From the other side, the fact that up to

(and with all certainty in the predictable future) failure in manufacturing a perpetual motion

machine doesn’t mean that the countless historical elements for these fictional machines are vain.

The discussion on any version of perpetual motion machine gives the opportunity on the one

hand to comprehend the level of knowledge and the way of thinking of the researchers of each

period and on the other hand, to locate the points in which this «perpetually moving machine»

clashes with the natural laws and that’s why it has been impossible to be manufactured or be in

function.

6. A perpetual motion machine which functions with buoyant force

There have been a lot of efforts to manufacture a perpetual motion machine concerning the

production of work with the use of the buoyant force. Motive for the following analysis

was a new effort of manufacturing a perpetual motion machine, which we prove theoretically,

that can’t function.

6.1. Theoretical introduction Supposing we have a container filled with a liquid of density d, the free surface of which is at a

height h from the bottom. On the bottom of the container there is a parallelepiped of

negligible length as in fig. 3. We are going to calculate the work produced during the shift to

length L, of a side with area S of the elementary parallelepiped of null initial volume, which is in

the container at a depth h, until parallelepiped acquires volume V.

The force F that we will apply should be so much that would be able to overcome the force

caused by the pressure at the depth h, that is

F = PS………………………………….. (6)

And the consumed work will be:

W1 = FL or W1 = PSL at last W1 = dghV …………….. (7)

If we let the parallelepiped to rise to the surface of the liquid a work will be produced due to the

buoyant force:

W2 = Ah or W2 = dgVh ………………………..(8)

From the Eq 7 and 8 the result is that

W1 = W2 ………………………………………………. (9)

6.2 Description of the machine

The perpetual motion machine that we are examining is composed of a circular disc to which we

have adapted weightless n parallelepipeds, as fig. 4. During the rotation of the disc the

parallelepipeds can pass from the lower part of a container which is filled with a liquid via a

suitable mechanism so that the liquid cannot slop away. According to the designer the buoyant

force is exerted on the parallelepipeds when they are in the liquid and so the buoyant force will

be the moving force for the production of energy.

Fig. 4. A circular disc, to which we have adapted n weightless parallelepipeds, is rotating while a

part of it is submerged in a container filled with a liquid.

In fact for each rotation of the disk the buoyant force A produces a work equal with nW1. For

each rotation, however, is consumed also work for the submersion of the parallelepipeds in the

container equal with nW2 in order to overcome force the F because hydrostatic pressure.

But because of Eq 9 we have

nW1 = nW2…………………………………………….. (10)

Therefore the kinetic energy of the disc is not altered,

since as much work is produced so much is consumed. That is to say that the machine does not

produce any energy.

The error of the designer of the particular machine is that he did not take into

consideration the force F because of the hydrostatic pressure and the work that will be consumed

for the submersion of the parallelepipeds in the container. In the whole analysis we made we did

not include, by no means, frictions. However frictions exist and they will consume any initial

kinetic energy we give to the disc with result after a little time it stops.

7. Our perpetual motion machine

The study we have done for the perpetual motion machines gave us the opportunity to see some

designs and conceptions of them. Some of these machines, although don’t function, impressed us

for the imagination of their designers. We were also occupied with the educational use of such a

machine. We thought then to materialize some design of such a machine, not with purpose to

research whether this machine works or not, but to help the students, who based on its not

functioning, consolidate the conservation of energy and validity of the two thermodynamic laws.

So we manufactured a perpetual motion machine based on the design of fig.5, which describes

the Arabian perpetual motion machine (Arabian Perpetuum Mobile) which is a version of

Bhaskaracharya’s machine. Our manufacture is shown in the fig.6

Fig. 5. Arabian Perpetuum Mobile.

The stems of the Arabian Perpetuum Mobile which fold only towards the one direction were

replaced by parts of a bicycle chain, which were adapted on a disc made of Plexiglas. At the

nodes we have tied up nylon joints so that the chain can fold only towards one side as it shown in

fig 7.

Fig. 7. Details concerning fig. 6.

The result was astonishing. The students are influenced and express the view that the machine

will rotate, although they have been taught the conservation of energy. After discussion they

understand their error, and so they consolidate their knowledge on the law of conservation of

energy. So we manufactured a perpetual motion machine based on the design of fig.5, which

describes the Arabian perpetual motion machine (Arabian Perpetuum Mobile) which is a version

of Bhaskaracharya’s machine. Our manufacture is shown in the fig. 6.

Fig. 6. Picture of our perpetual motion machine

which is a version of Arabian Perpetuum Mobile

REFERENCES

1. Marketou Pilarinou Maria, Lessons of General Physics, Issue I,

Thermodynamics, Thessaloniki (1967).

2. Ikomomou N., Introduction in Physics, Issue II, Οικονόμου Ν.,

Thssaloniki (1968).

3. Aleksopo 4. Ioannou A., Ntanos I .,Pittas A., Raptis S, Physics, Form B of the

Senior High School, Athens, (2000).

5. http://sfrang.com/historia/parart089.htm

6. http://www.richardclegg.org/htdocs/perpetual/torus.html