Funny comment but there is no batteries. And I don’t think that you even know what a perpetual motion machine is. The idea about it is that it gives it keeps it’s energy to make more energy to keep it moving (this is the idea behind it it’s not trying to me rude for no reason)
@@hebdabid6260 True, maybe someone will find a way to break the laws of physics but think about it: Landing on the moon, flying, using electricity, it seems impossible but remains in the confinement of the universe. Yes, many physics theories have been proven wrong time and time again but thermodynamics is something so fundamental, it’s probably near impossible to violate. It’s not too similar to a theory or a statement that can be proven wrong, it’s basically what we think the rules of the universe are, it’s how existence works. Think of it this way: Your examples are kinda like saying “there’s no way you can build remote teleportation in vanilla Minecraft”. It seems near impossible but we’ve seen things in the game do that and we know it’s possible, because we’ve seen it before. Eventually, someone manages to create such a thing. Great! The “impossible” became possible. Now, with the thermodynamics, it’s like trying to make vertical slabs in vanilla Minecraft. We never seen anything like that in Minecraft (because it doesn’t exist in the code). You can compromise and make something else or maybe scale your builds up and add more detail but you can never truly make vertical slabs in vanilla Minecraft, as the game engine doesn’t have any code for it. Of course, I’m not saying you shouldn’t try to break the laws of physics and I’m not saying our understanding of the laws of the universe is absolutely correct, things can change and maybe it will, but I’m just giving my opinion on this.
@@masondougherty7412 yeah, it just stretches out the use on the energy to keep it in motion until a combo of friction and gravity stops it. (Unless it doesn't stop because of a motor powering it)
some people out here thinking they’re real smart calling out this video for being fake, yet they dont have the 2nd grade reading level to notice that it was mentioned that these would not realistically work (as far as we know) they are just to demonstrate how they would look like if these PMM did what they were first intended for them to do
If anyone had the audacity to read his youtube description and/or channel information they would surely know it was just a demonstration of how it would operate functionally if the idea worked as intended to, but no one gives a shit about that. At the introduction of the video, it questions whether PPMs are impossible or not and talks about constructing these building designs to test if it is or not. This may inform the audience that this is a new video for experiments tested by someone who is interested in this subject and activity. At the end, it questions if you are impressed and whether you believe it or not. Again, this may inform the audience that the experiment for each test was successful and proven to be possible and informs them that the creator predicts there will be two sides of the project, real or fake, but he says not to say PPMs cannot be achieved because it cannot be functional. To not trick people into thinking this is a legitimate video, please inform the viewers that this is only a demonstration of the ideas if they would functional operate, in the forms of followed build designs, and that none of this can be realistically achieved in the video. Also "as far as we know" is incorrect, it's as we for sure know they're not fucking possible.
I appreciate very much the fact that people prefer to make wonderful videos about pseudo-science (or, in that case, pseudo-phisics) rather than making serious scientifical talking. If I can join, here's a mathematical proof that 2=1 (from Bertrand Russel): Suppose there are two equal numbers, a and b: a=b Multiply by a each member: a^2=ab Subtract b^2 from each member: a^2-b^2=ab-b^2 Factorize each member: (a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b) Divide each member for (a-b): a+b=b We supposed a=b, so substitute a with b: b+b=b 2b=b Divide by b: 2=1 P.s. Since the whole world is shouting at me that this demonstration is uncorrect, I write it here in upper case so I hope it will close the argument: YES, THIS DEMONSTRATION IS FALSE, IT IS, AND I WAS IRONICAL BY POSTING IT; IT IS FALSE SINCE, WHEN I DIVIDED BY (a-b), I WAS IN FACT DIVIDING BY 0, WHICH BREAKS RULES OF ARITHMETICS. THE POINT IS, I'M CLAIMING THAT THE PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINES SHOWN IN THIS VIDEO ARE NO MORE REAL PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINES THAN THIS DEMONSTRATION IS CORRECT. Got it?
veproject1 You are saying to show machines that have 100℅ efficiency, while most of the ones you showed have 80-90% efficiency maximum. A perpetual motion machine must continue to move forever, not only one hour or even three days after it was first moved, but forever. Or, alternatively, it must provide more energy that it drains from the system. The Boyle bottle, for example, works only if you use a liquid that reacts with himself to produce gas (beer, for example), but after the reaction has ended, so has the working of the machine. Make that machine work with water, you won't be able to do that. Also magnetic motors aren't perpetual motion machines, the magnets lose their force after a long while. In conclusion, it is very interesting to see some examples of well designed machines with high efficiency, but I'd like to see some scientific analysis added; furthermore, as long as you're not a magician, you can't break the first rule of thermodynamics and you should claim that.
Very well said. However, if i may share my opinion on a general misconception of the modern day term of "perpetual motion". Yes, as far as we are aware, currently there are no machines and or devices that qualifies as a perpetual motion device. The big push for perpetuity has to do with all the advertised grants that are currently still unclaimed. If the consortium of modern and applied sciences eliminated the "must run forever" clause and say must be self running and generate power for x years without human or outside intervention. Could you imagine the world of innovations that would surface that have been otherwise affraid of even mentioning the words perpetual and motion in the same week ? ;)
@@tony-pc4kd just like other starts it will end up collapsing on its own mass, or just go extinct because it doesnt have any more hydrogen to keep making fusion
There's a book called "Physics for entertainment" by Y.E Perelman. In this book Perelman extensively talks about perpetual motion machines. He gives mathematical and scientific proof to debunk these machines that you've just shown. And none of the machines you've shown will work. You're using motors to run these contraptions. Anyway, I suggest everyone who hasn't read it to get the digital copy, it's really an amazing book.
+Kevin Arnold I have red all books of Mr. Perelman. And I even published one video based on his article. I'd like to correct you. Laws of Thermodynamics are not proven mathematically. They are result of observation. In other words, they are considered to be true because nobody has invented PMM for 300 years. Y. Perelman just talking about the friction and the amount of weights on left and right sides of the wheel
+veproject1 And I'd like to correct you. If you managed to sit through a lecture of thermodynamics you'll get the mathematical proof. It's not that hard actually. And even if these machines in your video would really go on and on for ever they aren't perpetuum mobiles. A perpetuum mobile would produce energy. If you could manage to lift a weight with the wheels you'll have a real perpetuum mobile. But these machines just use the little energy you put in to it's best. And to be honest. I'm pretty sure after some years they would stop.
+veproject1 i did a 20 second search and managed to find 3 different mathematical statements and one addressing infinitesimal processes in closed, homogeneuos systems must be magic then
Funny how many doubters there are. Sure we might be smart as humans but we have not gotten to the point where we understand 100% of all physics in the universe. Just because its someones "theory" that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, does not mean its 100% correct. There could be an infinite amount of energy that we have not discovered. Yeah I'm sure cavemen thought they were smart too, because they could outsmart an animal and turn it into his next meal, but he would have never understood the world we live in today. Just as we will not understand the world of technology 500 years from now. What if we could harness the energy of a black hole? What if we can harness the energy of dark matter? Ideas that seem crazy now could be a part of everyday life thousands of years from now. All you doubtful minded people are just limiting the capability of innovative ideas. We will never know if perpetual motion exists until we have tried every possible way of attempting it...
Machine 1: If you look closely you can see clear water being pumped in before the dye. Machine 2: Watch the center of the cone relative to the green line. It constantly moves downward. It will have to lift it back up to restore its potential energy All of the others will stop eventually due to friction. If you really have a design that violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics go ahead. Make it. You'll be filthily rich. According to this video it should be easy.
Yeah I think I saw clear water injected into the thin tube before the green water reached it but wasn't so sure, but obviously without pumping in water to give the fluids some initial thrust, the green water in the thin tube can only stay at the same height as the portion of it in the flask when it reaches equilibrium. This video is seriously cancer.
No that's the actual water. The trick is that there are actually two sections of tube that connect at the wooden piece. Where it covers the tubes there is an impeller that forces the water to move, creating suction on the bottom and pressure on the top, cycling the fluid. That's why it bubbles so violently when liquid first hits the impeller. That's also why the parts holding up the tube are made of wood, to hide the wires that power the impeller.
umm, technically in the overbalanced wheel examples more than the friction the real catch is that there is actually one balance point that the wheel will eventually reach again. It is just really efficient but that is about it. For example in the one at 4:50, it is true that the weigths on the right are further from the center, so they apply more torque. However, ue to the angle and desing the weights at 12 and 1(as in clock positions) are "pulling" to the other side. Either way, all these examples have been overly discussed, explained etc.....still pretty interesting imo.
James Alderman No. There's no impeller at the connection you're referring to. And, no, the wood sections are not to hide wires. The wood sections are to hide the tubing to the electric pump in the base.
In the first example, the green liquid in the tube would NEVER go up farther than the level of the liquid in the vessel, except for momentarily from the pressure of pouring.
PlanetRockJesus it will if the pressure from the weight of the water is great enough how do you think a siphon works and it is an accepted part of science, the experiment has been seen and is true.
thebogangamer PlanetRockJesus is correct. This is not a siphon. Clearly, you do not know how a siphon works. Look it up. (At least you spelled 'accepted' right this time.)
PlanetRockJesus minor correction, it's not from the pressure of pouring, it's from the momentum of the water. There is no net force felt at the equilibrium point and so the water (which has mass and velocity and therefore momentum) continue traveling up where it feels the downward force of gravity and will eventually accelerate down into equilibrium.
Smithy0013 This cannot work, and it does not work. It's a trick. There is a pump built into the machine, or, water is being added from another hidden tube. Build one yourself. It does not work.
PlanetRockJesus No yeah I realize it doesn't work. I was just correcting you when you said "except for momentarily from the pressure of pouring" It goes up momentarily because of momentum, not the pressure of pouring.
What caught my attention is when the flask was first filled. Instead of having the tube bellow filled instantly along with the flask (as one would expect), it took a second or two longer at which point the fluid suddenly comes out the bottom. There is clearly a pump like mechanism positioned just bellow the flask that has to be primed before it starts to function; thus the brief delay in the flow down to the tube below.
@@prepare8286 "you have to realize" is a requirement, not a disclaimer in the beggining of the video, many know perpetual movement is impossible but others will get confuse and think this video is possible.
44sharpshooter ha! And sacrifice their own profits for efficiency? Unlikely. Unfortunately with the way the world works there are many great inventions that would rock at us forward technologically up to 50 years but the unfortunate part with that is sometimes it's just not profitable and nobody wants to make it
travis williams Really, at least in the world of astronomy, they are always looking for new energy sources as we know what we have will soon run out. These things just do not work. Build some of them and try them out. Anyone can do it and word gets out it has been done and the inventor makes billions. They are not out there trying to hush hush these things up. if a factory got their hands on a perpetual motion energy they would use it for sure and make HUGE profits.
+44sharpshooter There is no money in perpetual motion energy generators because once a design is out the supplier of raw materials (who no doubt has shares in the energy companies and a senator on a puppet string) will have no business.
I HAVE to agree with you. They give no true explanation of their own experiments and that leaves us to simply wonder. But, personally, I want to believe its real. I think it is real, but believing isn't enough. We NEED proof. But I still feel strongly about perpetual motion, so fuck YOU, and any other fucker nut who thinks its fake. (I love you.)
LETTUCE PLAY If you need explanation, then clearly you don't understand what they're trying to do here how they're trying to imply the way it's done, and why it's impossible. It fools simpletons. But if you can see the grand picture of each machine, you don't even need a professor to tell you why it's impossible. You clearly can't see the grand picture, or else you wouldn't need detail explanations on these machines. Make yourself understand why they think these machines would work and then understand why it can't. Also, all of these were done by motor. You can see the inconsistency in their RPM, because the weak electric motors don't have the firm torque to maintain a smooth roll. FAKE
+LETTUCE PLAY water doesn't flow up hill does it? Spacecraft can orbit freely for a really long time, but eventually slow down due to minute friction from air molecules. There is no scenario that you get "free energy" from.
+Be Your BOSS those are pretty vlever inventions that (some of em at least) seem to run forever, but they loose a small amount of energy from time to time. The machines may run for a day, even a week maybe.. but then they stop.
The cone going "up" the slope is real, but it doesn't have any perpetual motion in it. It is a matter of the center of gravity going down (potential into kinetic energy)
I'm not. Physics major but every example shown has friction. Not just the air around objects but also any other objects that touch or interact. That's why a bike on flat ground eventually loses energy when you stop pedaling.
+Max B youl noticed their design so the weight is farther out when coming down therefore having more leverage on the structure then the weights closer in on the other side going up.
#1 Self flowing flask. In reality, the liquid both in the flask and the tube would come to the exact same height and stay there. The bottom of the flask and wood holder obviously have a hidden pump. You can see that the fluid as it poured in does not flow into the tube immediately as it should if it was only an open tube.
It's like the pipe in your toilets or sink, the one that bends upwards before it goes to the floor, you know what I mean. After water is done being pushed through it, the last bit of water levels out on both sides of the pipe.
At first I thought the later green liquid is motor oil instead of water (due to water stickiness feature to the walls of the funnel) so the first glassy liquid would be water the cameraman tries to show it is not working. BUT even in a large funnel (to have a lot of pressure by the weight of stored liquid upon eachother) the whole gravity pressure of the stored liquid would be restrained by the pipe walls and I don't assume even the motor oil to be able pass the high level of the stored water
Incorrect. The “engine” would work for a while. On the merit of higher pressure in the wider reservoir versus the pressure in the tubing. But you are right, it’s by no means perpetual as the rate of flow into the flask is below the rate of the outflow, so, eventually, the system would balance out and the motion would seize.
I love these ideas and even though they're impossible the models are things of real beauty. Also thanks for the sciency comments explaining what would really happen- also beautiful 😍
I guess this is just a repetition of truism, but Perpetum Mobile is impossible. Simply because of Einstein's E=MC2 formula, the law of relativity: Energy can't be created nor destroyed, it only changes form and location. To build a machine with perpetual motion would basically mean building a perfectly sterile box not just trapping energy inside without a leak, but also to channel that energy in the same stream without a leakage. And that is impossible, because there's no such lubricant that will reduce friction by exactly 100%, because there are no magnets that hold their magnetic powers for ever without recharge, because there are no cog wheels nor parts that won't break or wither out through use.
***** I was kind and assumed that white plastic we see was the orifice mentioned in the video, that I believe the water would flow continuously. Of course non of these where in motion when the camera first turned on them
dans lesible des millier d inventeur ont deja tous essayees et un dicton dit rien ne se cree tous se transforme regarder la roue qui tourne les billes se resserre d un coter mais de l autre une bille descent pendant que 4 monte de l autre coter ne perdez pas votre temps le perpetuel n existe pas
I'm confused, are you saying these machines are fake and don't actually work and that perpetual motion is impossible..cos I was convinced as they look so feasible.
To make extraordinary claims one must supply extraordinary evidence. A wheel spinning for thirty seconds is far from perpetual. I challenge anyone to create one of these devices and let it run with a live camera on it. I guarantee if it never stops (at least for a time longer than one would expect the energy to dissipate) you will be granted a Nobel Prize, and prize money, so it is surely worth the try if you believe it can be done.
+Gabe Merritt There are possible perpetual motion machines out there, but they either - use temperature flow to stay in motion (I never said it was a closed system) - are the objects in space or other frictionless medium (though only when there is no gravity source present other than the object itself, since you would otherwise get tidal locking between the gravity sources and relativistic procession of orbits) I don't know for sure if you could consider our universe to be a pepetual motion machine. I do know that unless sufficient input energy is supplied, increasing motion machines are impossible. An example of an increasing motion machine is an electro motor. It gets enough energy to keep spinning. DO NOTE THAT YOUR DEFINITION OF A PEPETUAL MOTION MACHINE MIGHT BE DIFFERENT THEN MINE. Perpetual: forever lasting Motion: moving Machine: thingimajig So a perpetual motion machine is a forever lasting moving thingimajig.
Perpetual motion is not possible. Water will always seek to be level and the friction of the moving parts on the wheels will eventually stop them. The closest we will ever get to perpetual motion is 99% efficiency.
it is possible to create a frictionless pivot point with a magnetic field. And water also seeks an equilibrium of vapor pressure - there could be a version of that water machine that incorporates that principle. But anyone who grew up with a filterless aquarium and had to change the water himself will tell you that, as is, the water one wouldn't work...
***** Why then not use it to create a self sustaining energy and then use a tiny fraction of the energy it creates to continue it's movement? The rest can be sent out to where ever.
***** not necessarily a problem - one step in the process of a perpetual motion machine might involve a type of chemical reaction that can go through endless cycles, that would help to overcome any resistance from air. Also you could build a vacuum tight room at 0g's.
#4 Rolling balls; if you do the math, at any given point the number of balls in their position and torque generated would be equal on both sides. This contraption would stop immediately when it loses momentum, and come to a final balanced rest.
Here is the catch: perpetual motion machines never require more energy. Self flowing flask: could it run forever without needing more water? Perpetual train: can you keep widening the tracks indefinitely? wheels: friction The problem with this is you cannot test it forever, so you don't know. the machines probably are losing some amount of energy the will eventually stop it
it's definitely fake as perpetual motion machines can't exist as they violate second law of thermodynamics, plus energy will definitely be lost to the surroundings through WDagainst frictional forces etc
+David R1978 gravity does not cause the system to lose energy. in an anti gravity chamber , if you cause it to spin, the trajectory willl be uncertain and it will start to float and move sound, due to momentum. in a perfect vacuum (perfect vacuum does not exist in the universe ), if a object is rotating, it will continue to rotate indefinitely.
+De Day actually, in a perfect vacuum, it may come to a stop eventually. in an isolated system, no energy is created or destroyed. but the kinetic energy might be converted to e.g. heat and sound energy, and it may stop ,eventually.
+Non Ofyourbuisness I respect your comment a lot. You and I think quite alike. But not everyone does. They think that just because we can prove its true now, that means it will be true forever. I think theories will always continue to advance, and everything as we know it will be different, yet still make sense some how, just as it does today.
Perpetual motion is motion of bodies that continues indefinitely. This is impossible because of friction and other energy-dissipating processes. A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work indefinitely without an energy source. This kind of machine is impossible, as it would violate the first or second law of thermodynamics.
True, all of this machines (more like apparatus) use the force of gravity and, without it, they might dont work (or maybe they would, i havent go to space). But they kinda "are" perpetual motion machines because they work, in our terrestial conditions, " forever" with only a starter force, until another force stops them. So this are "technically" perpetual motion machines but they arent. Maybe we should redefine the concept of perpetual motion machine, or maybe im way to wrong, who am i to judje.
+Angie Lynn Well, no, "perpetual motion" refers specifically to a device or system that produces more energy than it consumes (which is impossible) and generally does not include things in simple inertial motion, like planets in orbit. And the human body is certainly not such a device ... it is taking in energy all the time. If it doesn't, it dies. So, 'god' has it all figured out, eh? Does that mean we should not bother to try to understand how the world works? ... just say "God did it..." ?? Is that what you are teaching your kids? "That's OK son, your don't have to pay attention to math or science. God takes care of all that." What kind of a future will that give your children in a technology-based world? I'll tell you what kind ... the kind where someone else is making all their decisions for them.
cats always land on their feet and buttered toast always lands butter side up. Strap buttered toast to cats back and then attach the two to a generator. the only real perpetual motion device that could power the world.
Two issues. First, these two phenomena only occur before landing. They likely use some of their potential energy to right themselves in the air, which is of course, not perpetual. Second, only living cats land on their feet, so you need to provide some sustenance to the cat, meaning it's not perpetual. It's probably just better to stick to the machines in the video.
@@viktorramstrom3744 that it's not how it works, if energy can't be transformed that means that the universe would basically be a sea of energy that basically can't be converted into matter no matter how hot or how much pressure is being applied to it
that universe would explode instantly because of the feedback loop, like for example when you hold a mic too close to the speaker it makes that terrible ringing sound, the ringing is the universe exploding forever
wait sorry i change my view, lanay is right since if there arent laws of thermodynamics that have the universe tend to disorder, or have things that want to be at a lower potential energy level, then explosions cant happen in the first place so it will just be a big universe packed with energy with no way to get rid of it, an explosion waiting to happen but never will basically
These presumably have hidden motors, although the water one is impressive, I can only think there's a small impeller pump somewhere in one of the non-transparent bits. As a simple test, you can build the liquid one at home with a funnel and some tube. Notice that it doesn't do what the one in the video does! By this day and age I'd hope we're more advanced than Da Vinci's time, enough to know there's no such thing as perpetual motion. But they're nice fakes.
"These presumably have hidden motors, although the water one is impressive, I can only think there's a small impeller pump somewhere in one of the non-transparent bits." === The pump is in the base. The tubes are in the wooden structure, beginning at the thick wooden support bottom of the flask. "I'd hope we're more advanced than Da Vinci's time, enough to know there's no such thing as perpetual motion." == There's no shortage of believers in nonsense. But, FYI, Da Vinci didn't think his would work. He built them to show people that they do NOT work. So, you correct, but it's especially sad that people still haven't learned Da Vinci's lesson after all of these centuries.
greenaum you are wrong, have a closer look, the water one actually works when you use the right kind of water, aka soda water, it's the bubbles in the water that push it up the tube similar to how an aquarium air pump causes water flow... and it will only work for a few minutes before all the bubbles has been released... give it a try at home with a funnel and pipe and some fizzy drink, it's kinda fun
I'd like to explain. Right after you turn the time machine on trying to travel to the past, the machine will stop just because she was off in the past. Comments?
veproject1 No, a time machine would not work like that. The vehicle would be surrounded by a temporal discontinuity field, which allows the vehicle and its contents to travel backward in time relative to the external reference frame, but time aboard the vehicle is not affected. So, you as a passenger do not grow younger and disappear. Neither does the vehicle experience reverse aging. IMHO :) BUT, if you stick your hand out the window there's gonna be trouble!
I can remember not too many years ago when everyone including scientists said that it would be impossible to cross the Atalntic Ocean in less than 7 days. Thinking out of the box might surprise you some day.
YOU SAID: "I can remember not too many years ago when everyone including scientists said that it would be impossible to cross the Atalntic Ocean in less than 7 days." == Pfftttt. What are you? A 900 year old vampire? Ships have crossed the Atlantic in under 7 days for more than a century. == And, c'mon, name one scientist who ever said that crossing the Atlantic in under 7 days was IMPOSSIBLE?? What ARE you babbling? YOU SAID: "Thinking out of the box might surprise you some day." == And, that's relevant to the famous physics failures in this video, how?? I mean, this isn't new science here. This stuff was disproven almost 400 years ago. Even Da Vinci never expected his machines to work, and he essentially built them to show people that they DO NOT work. But, here you are in a video showing motorized novelty toys, encouraging people to "think outside the box"?? What box?
#1 - pump in the device (look at how long I takes the water to get from the bottom of the glass into the tube) #2 - The hole table is titled as I the camera #3 - Simply a motor in the back of the device #4 - Again a motor in the back #5 - Motor in the base of the device or the back #6 - That's my favorite. Of course there is a motor again somewhere in the device, but the funny part is you see that so clearly, because as the weights are falling, and stopped hard you would expect the wheel to get a boost. The reason for that is a gearbox, because the standard electrical motors are spinning way to fast, that it would not look real at all, he needed to slow it down, with the help of a gearbox. On the side where the motor is connected you can easily spin it, but on the other side, where the wheel is connected it is extremely hard to move it, because the gear ratio is so high.
Confusing energy and forces leads to non-sensical ideas such as free energy (perpetual motion) machines. Such machines always fail precisely because forces are not energy, and you can't extract one single bit of energy from a force itself. For instance, a "free energy" machine could consist of a ball that rolls down a hill and hits a paddle, which turns a wheel. The problem with this machine is that the ball has to be returned to the top of the hill for the process to continue, and the amount of energy you have to put into your machine to put the ball back at the top of the hill equals the energy you get out of your machine from the spinning wheel. Actually, the amount of energy you get out of your machines is always less than the energy you put into it because some of the inputted energy is wasted to heat energy through friction. Free energy proponents devise ever cleverer ways to get the ball back to the top of the hill (or the magnets separated again, or the rubber band stretched again, etc.), hoping that just one more extra gear or wheel will somehow magically create energy out of nothing. But they can never get around the fact that forces are not energy and you can never get more energy out of a system than you put in. What about hydroelectric plants that extract energy from the falling water in rivers? Don't they extract energy from gravity for free? No. The water in the river is no different from the ball that you have to haul up the hill. The water got its energy not from gravity but from some external agent that placed it high up in the mountains against gravity, so it could fall down the river bed. The external agent in this case is sunlight. Sunlight warms the ocean, causing the water to evaporate and float into the sky. The energy contained in the photons of sunlight is converted to the potential energy of the water molecules that are lifted high in the sky. These water molecules then rain down to the ground, form rivers, and flow back down to the ocean, converting their potential energy to kinetic energy, heat, and (in a hydroeletric plant) electricity. Ultimately, therefore, hydroelectric plants extract solar energy from water.
Just checked, sunlight is free, therefore no cost to supply water to the river, a tidal lagoon also is free to fill via moon power. Just cos you can give a very long explanation of a basic process doesn't mean that you are right.
Well, yes Robin, but that's not what Calc-99 is talking about. Solar power, tidal power, etc. are not generally considered to be "perpetual motion" (PM). He does, however, equate "free energy" with PM, which is a bit confusing. Sure, sunlight is free, but in the same sense so are coal and oil ... they're just laying there, waiting to be dug up (the purely human-invented concept of mineral rights notwithstanding). But that's not what PM is. PM is a device that runs with no energy input at all, which is impossible.
Every single one of these functions as demonstrated for the most part, IF perfectly balanced which is the real challenge. What CalculusVariations was saying, these function because the only force that drives them is the force created by the weight being moved, no less, no more. More over you have to remove all resistance by perfectly balancing the forces around the circle. If you tried to generate energy with one of these you would be adding resistance which would prevent them from working. In other words, the energy generated is the same as the energy that makes it move.
just to make everything clear to anyone claiming that they built some thing with a unlimited amount of energy let me explain perpetual motion is using gravity to its advantage and there is no such thing as a unlimited amount of energy I can say that there is super efficient machines but they can't run forever and don't say that someone built a machine that can run forever. I understand if some of you people think this is possible but once you learn physics you will understand
The perpetual motion machine is impossible, according to studies physical. They go against some laws, such as the second law of thermodynamics. Any machine had never its energy transformed with 100% yield. The friccion of the gases is another reason, and even if it is in vacuum, would not work, frictional null does not exist. This machine can seem to be perpetual, while maintaining the rotation for a few days, but will not tarry to present loss of rotation. This type of machine, for now, cannot be built, so, this video is a lie.
Kamille Monteiro Would it really be that hard for an engineer to restart the system once a week? Doesn't matter as far as it works long enough to produce energy + there are even magnetic perpetual systems, they're faster and there is a less chance of them ever stopping
+seezookey they may be perfectly real, what you dont see is A the hidden motor or B them stopping after a certain amount of time since no engine/system ever conceived have been 100% efficient due to a number of reasons, air resistance for one. The Uploader of this video sure knew how to troll the intrawebs, I find this humorous
I'd like to be crazy rather than being a parrot ... Acting traditionally won't get you anywhere ... Not mention how boring it is .. Abstraction of willingness and ambition is the real disability, Proofed by many instances .. Ameen
During the pour, notice the blockage at the thick support just below the funnel. Then notice how it starts fast, with added large bubbles. Then you notice that the base is a box, not just a block. Would be a little less conspicuous if the pump had been mounted closer, or an impeller as suggested by Greenaum.
so what happens to law of thermodynamics? and if these are really infinitely moving without stopping then why not commercializing it and using it as an alternative energy source?
Wilker Azevedo What if the machine was big enough for the motion to be able to act as a power generator and keep it going? Just an idea. If the power of the motion is scaled up enough but the generator smaller in proportion.
turboshaft77 in the big projects you can get some power... but the cost don't pay. But have a way. Add neodimium to give the extra power in the moviment. The neodimium don't need power to operate, it is a perpetual energy. One side pushing and the other blocked to not break the push moviment. Some people made the projects using neodimium (youtube), but all they have a big weight to work. Any one would have use the perpetual machine with neodim instead the old idea. Less weight and more power.
It's all about conservation of energy. What these machines do is they use the energy of some action to turn around and cause that action, creating a cycle. Because of nonconservative forces, like friction and air resistance, not all the energy is sent back to starting the cycle. Therefore, if given enough time, these machines will eventually stop. The other issue is that even if we could create a perfect machine in which 100% of the energy produced is sent back to starting the action, if you attached a generator to it, that would take away some of its energy just like friction and air resistance. Therefore you can't have a perpetual motion machine or a free energy device. That said, it's still pretty cool.
I thought of doing a self-powering fountain like the first example in the video when I first saw my dad use a siphon to fuel up a car when I was 6. I tried to replicate it at home and quickly realized that the exit end of the siphon hose has to be lower than the water level in the cup for it to work (and outside of the water cup). Otherwise the water in the tube isn't heavy enough to pull more water out with itself, which makes sense if you do the math about it. I then understood that everything is self-balancing like this and that you cannot just get free energy out of no where. That was way before I even heard of the law of conservation of energy. If you watch the "endless fountain" from the video you can see the green water bubbling after is appeared to pass through that wooden beam that supports the base of the cup. But these air bubbles seem to be coming out of no where. It's because these air bubbles are coming from the pump hidden inside the wooden beam as the pump starts dry. This also explains the delay between the moment the liquid is seen reaching the bottom of the cup and the moment it is seen coming out in the hose below that wooden beam. The same thing applies for all those "self-spinning wheels". If you sit down and examine them carefully you realize that these wheels are not constantly heavier on the same side during its entire revolution. It just looks like it could work at the first glance if you make false assumptions. The only reason why they work in the video is because there is a powered device hidden somewhere in the rig that spins them. Oh and this cone wheel thing going "up" the rail? The cone is actually going down a hill because the rail opens up to lower the cone faster than the ramp rises to raise it.
Some philosophy to go with your physics ... Does something become a "perpetual motion machine" the moment when it lasts longer than the skeptic's lifespan? Does it ever stop if there is no internet troll in existence to say "see i told you friction would get it eventually"?
Your philosophical question is fine and all. How would anyone possibly ever test infinity? But, the main problem is that you're not actually describing anything useful. See, a "perpetual motion machine" doesn't actually mean "something that moves perpetually." The phrase "perpetual motion machine" is an idiom, like "it's raining cats and dogs." It's not meant to be taken literally word for word. A perpetual motion machine is about ENERGY. If you had a machine that could produce more energy than it consumed, it would be a perpetual motion machine, even if it only ran for 2 minutes. Meanwhile, if you found some hypothetical region of deep space, and fired a bullet into that region that could go on for an infinite amount of time, it's not a perpetual motion machine, because that's not what the idiom means.
rockethead7 this is false in almost every way. A perpetual motion machine is a machine that can start moving by itself, and continue moving by itself, infinitely. where energy comes into to play is the main reason people want to create a perpetual motion machine is because if you have something that moves infinitely, the amount of energy that can be harvested from it is also infinite. however the reason no one has been successful is because, say you used the Da Vinci overbalanced machine, it works fine in theory but the friction caused by the axel is also infinite. friction is a force that opposes movement. meaning if you have infinite movement, you also have infinite friction. By that logic the two forces would equal out to have a net force of 0. when an object has a net force of 0, it doesn't move.
rockethead7 this is false in almost every way. A perpetual motion machine is a machine that can start moving by itself, and continue moving by itself, infinitely. where energy comes into to play is the main reason people want to create a perpetual motion machine is because if you have something that moves infinitely, the amount of energy that can be harvested from it is also infinite. however the reason no one has been successful is because, say you used the Da Vinci overbalanced machine, it works fine in theory but the friction caused by the axel is also infinite. friction is a force that opposes movement. meaning if you have infinite movement, you also have infinite friction. By that logic the two forces would equal out to have a net force of 0. when an object has a net force of 0, it doesn't move.
Titan Powner253 YOU SAID: "this is false in almost every way. A perpetual motion machine is a machine that can start moving by itself," == I've never once heard anyone say that a hypothetical perpetual motion machine must start itself. YOU SAID: "and continue moving by itself" == Yes, the concept is that a hypothetical perpetual motion machine must be capable of powering itself, just as I said. But, of course, that's impossible. YOU SAID: "infinitely." == Yeah yeah yeah, but of course that can't be taken literally. Everything in science has to be testable. How in the hell can anyone actually test something infinitely? No. The idea is that if it produces more energy than it consumes (impossible), it could power itself for as long as it exists (doesn't deteriorate). YOU SAID: "where energy comes into to play is the main reason people want to create a perpetual motion machine is because if you have something that moves infinitely, the amount of energy that can be harvested from it is also infinite." == Oh, good grief. That's not what it means. If you extract energy from something that's moving, it SLOWS DOWN!!! Sheeesssshhh. YOU SAID: "however the reason no one has been successful is because" == of the 1st law of thermodynamics. YOU SAID: "say you used the Da Vinci overbalanced machine, it works fine in theory but the friction caused by the axel is also infinite." == Oh, good grief, why are you pretending to understand concepts you don't understand?? No. No. No. No. No. The overbalanced wheel doesn't work in any theory. Even if you had hypothetical zero-friction bearings, and placed the thing in a hypothetical perfect vacuum, sorry, it still can't work. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. See, if you examine the moments of any/every component of an overbalanced wheel, and you create a vector diagram of all of the forces in play, you'll find that all forces cancel out to ZERO. ZERO net force = ZERO ability to make itself turn. An overbalanced wheel is no different than taking a hypothetical bicycle with hypothetical zero-friction bearings, and turning it upside down, and then expecting the front wheel to spin all by itself. (It's not going to spin unless you spin it with an outside energy source.) Overbalanced wheels may look (to the uneducated) like there's some sort of net force that results from one side being heavier than the other. But, that effect is canceled out by the fact that the center of mass on the heavier side of the wheel is closer to the center, thus it has more weights on one side, but less torque per weight. Net result = ZERO force. There is no possible design of any overbalanced wheel that will ever even work "in theory" - even if you could eliminate all sources of friction. YOU SAID: "friction is a force that opposes movement." == Sigh. No. The opposing torque of the other side of the wheel opposes the movement. Again, having more weight on one side doesn't mean having more torque. In any/all overbalanced wheels, the net torque is always zero, every single time, and no design will ever change that. You obviously have zero understanding of physics. YOU SAID: "meaning if you have infinite movement, you also have infinite friction." == Sigh. First of all, that's not what it means. But, it's irrelevant anyway, because your entire premise is dead wrong. YOU SAID: "By that logic the two forces would equal out to have a net force of 0. when an object has a net force of 0, it doesn't move." == Yes, but you were wrong about what the opposing force was in overbalanced wheels. It's not the friction that opposes the movement, it's the torque from the other side of the wheel that opposes the movement (cancels it out). Yeah, friction can also oppose movement, sure. But, in overbalanced wheels, friction is irrelevant, since the damned thing will never result in any actual net force/torque to make the thing turn in the first place. And, giving it a start with an outside energy source isn't going to help either. Despite the moving contraptions on various overbalanced wheels, the actual net torque is still zero (even if frictionless), and if it's no different than spinning a bike wheel. Yeah, people look at the moving parts and think maybe they're helping the movement of the wheel somehow. But, in fact, no, it doesn't work that way. Overbalanced wheels do NOT work "in theory" like you're claiming. Friction never even gets a chance to play a role, since the net torque in an overbalanced wheel is always zero anyway (even before you even calculate the factor of friction). But, hey, you go right ahead and keep on trying to teach physics when you don't know a damned thing about physics in the first place. I'm sure you're proud of yourself for pretending to know things you don't know.
@@6Sisu9 don't forget to notice the delay between pouring in the green liquid to how long it takes before it's visible in the below tube. It should be instantaneous but there's a lag. Therefore, the liquid is flowing to the left, to a hidden pump, then back to the right and 'then' into the below tube - tube bends and pump are hidden behind the wooden framework.
I love reading the comments from people asking why these don't produce energy. They don't need to. What people forget is that these machines didn't just start running on their own, energy was added to the machine in the form of someone starting the reaction (turning a wheel for the first time, dropping a marble in, pouring water in, etc..). These things aren't creating energy, they're taking that initial energy to conserve it indefinitely in the form of kinetic energy, energy of movement. It's like taking 0 (energy), adding 1 to it (movement), then spending 1 energy to make movement that will give you 1 energy that you will need to spend to make the movement. If you take away 1 energy to power something, you'll need human intervention to add 1 to it, you've added an additional step to a hand crank. These are fascinating machines, none of which confuse physics, but are not by any means going to produce more power than the power used to start it up.
***** Oh, good grief. So, just taking the first "machine" (toy) as an example... you believe that pouring water into a flask will make water run around in circles?? It's not the electric pump in the base that makes the water run around in circles, but you say it's the "initial energy" from pouring it that makes it run around in circles?? Please, when you don't know anything about physics, spare the rest of the world your broken opinions.
rockethead7 OK so say you build one big enough to charge an entire city. Being that this one in the video couldn't power an LED light, how do you propose filling it with water? You have to spend energy to lift the water up into the air, then you have to spend energy to let the water spill down into the device. The water's initial movement will create energy, which will then be converted to kinetic energy via movement, which powers the device to work, by taking that water's movement and pushing it through the tube (which is how movement works in physics F=ma). OK So now you've spent tons and tons of energy to pour water in to the device, but it has to be less and less water to the spout otherwise wouldn't cycle, so you have now made a huge spout of water that pours out like a small waterfall, congratulations, you've still not get enough force to turn a turbine. Now if you keep scaling the size, there is a point where the water going up would have to be throttled more and more otherwise the immense weight would not be able to be lifted due to gravity's limitation on how hard it pulls down on the main supply. The reason this thing works is because it's so small. If you don't understand that then you shouldn't be proclaiming physics understanding at all.
***** You take stupidity to new heights. These are all motorized novelty toys (except the rolling cone, which is just an optical illusion). And, Boyle's flask doesn't work at ANY scale. P=pgh. Bernoulli proved this centuries ago. I have no idea what you're rambling about. There's a hidden electric pump in the base. If you think you can make Boyle's flask work as shown in the video (minus the electric pump), then go do it, and win a Nobel Prize. Sheeessssshhhhh. What a fool you are.
***** YOU SAID: "I love reading the comments from people asking why these don't produce energy. They don't need to." -- Then you should keep reading the, because, yes, they WOULD need to keep producing energy in order to keep operating. There are many factors for why this is true, but the biggest one is friction. Friction is energy lost. Therefore, to overcome friction and make these things work, you'd need to continuously supply energy. (The ones in this video get that energy in the form of electricity, from the nearby socket that powers the hidden electric motors/pumps.) YOU SAID: "What people forget is that these machines didn't just start running on their own, energy was added to the machine in the form of someone starting the reaction (turning a wheel for the first time, dropping a marble in, pouring water in, etc..)." -- Pfftttt. None of those "energy sources" (your viewpoint) are correct. The energy source is the nearby power socket. YOU SAID: "These things aren't creating energy, they're taking that initial energy to conserve it indefinitely in the form of kinetic energy, energy of movement." -- Oh, just stop pretending to understand things you clearly don't understand. YOU SAID: "It's like taking 0 (energy), adding 1 to it (movement), then spending 1 energy to make movement that will give you 1 energy that you will need to spend to make the movement. If you take away 1 energy to power something, you'll need human intervention to add 1 to it, you've added an additional step to a hand crank." -- No, it's like plugging a toy into a power socket. Nothing you say is correct. YOU SAID: "These are fascinating machines" -- Fascinating when? Centuries ago when they failed? Or fascinating in the billions of attempts since then, when they kept failing? Personally, I'm most fascinated by the Da Vinci overbalanced wheels, which he made to demonstrate to people that they do NOT work. Yet, here we are, centuries later, and STILL there are people who haven't learned a damned thing from the lessons from centuries ago (i.e. you). YOU SAID: "none of which confuse physics" -- "Confuse" physics??? What does that mean? Anyway, they're motorized toys, so of course they don't "confuse" physics. If they actually worked without the motors, of course, then they'd defy several laws of physics. YOU SAID: "but are not by any means going to produce more power than the power used to start it up." -- Well, there's one thing you said that's correct... half way correct anyway. YOU SAID: "OK so say you build one big enough to charge an entire city. Being that this one in the video couldn't power an LED light, how do you propose filling it with water?" -- I don't propose any such thing. Boyle's flask doesn't work, you nutbag. YOU SAID: "You have to spend energy to lift the water up into the air, then you have to spend energy to let the water spill down into the device." -- Well, you don't really spend any energy to let things fall, but whatever, I'm talking to a brick wall, you'll never understand anyway. YOU SAID: "The water's initial movement will create energy, which will then be converted to kinetic energy via movement, which powers the device to work" -- Bernoulli's laws of fluid dynamics, you nitwit. P=pgh. Communicating vessels. Go look those things up. This is exactly why "water seeks its own level." The water will only rise up the small tube to the level of the fluid in the flask. And, you keep talking about the act of pouring being the energy source. Well, you're wrong. It's being poured from a height of 1/2 way between the flask and the top of the tube, therefore there isn't any physical way that the fluid can even rise up past the level it was poured from, and can't make it all the way up to the top of the tube. Pesky laws of thermodynamics, you know. If you think you can pour something from a height of 8 inches, and route it through a tube, and you think it'll rise to a level of 16 inches, you're nuts. That's a clear violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics, and would also violate Bernoulli's laws. MABYE, just MAYBE, you can get some fluid to spring up for a fraction of a second to the height you poured it from (which, in the video is still below the top of the tube), but you can't get it to rise higher than that. And, very very very very quickly afterward, it'll stabilize and level out to the same level as the source flask. NEVER will it go all the way up the tube and create the flow you see in the video. That's why he installed the hidden pump. Because it can't work without it. YOU SAID: "by taking that water's movement and pushing it through the tube (which is how movement works in physics F=ma)." -- Bravo, you quoted a formula in physics. Too bad that it's the wrong one, and irrelevant. YOU SAID: "OK So now you've spent tons and tons of energy to pour water in to the device, but it has to be less and less water to the spout otherwise wouldn't cycle, so you have now made a huge spout of water that pours out like a small waterfall, congratulations, you've still not get enough force to turn a turbine." -- Oh, so now the guy who thinks these motorized novelty toys are REAL is going to teach me physics. Dandy. I guess I should forget those 9-10 years I spent at my university, all of those proven formulas, all of that lab time, etc., and believe YOU, right? Because, yeah, you're spouting nonsense that flies right in the face of everything known about physics, and you fall for hoax videos hook line and sinker... but, yeah, YOU are the one who should sit here and teach physics to the world, huh?? Pffttttt. What a clown. YOU SAID: "Now if you keep scaling the size, there is a point where the water going up would have to be throttled more and more otherwise the immense weight would not be able to be lifted due to gravity's limitation on how hard it pulls down on the main supply." -- You don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about. YOU SAID: "The reason this thing works is because it's so small." -- No, the reason it works is because there's a hidden electric pump in the base. YOU SAID: "If you don't understand that then you shouldn't be proclaiming physics understanding at all." -- Jeeesssuuuzzz ffffrrrreeeaaakkkinnn goooddddammnnnedd immagiinaaarrryy chhhrriiissstttt, what a hypocrite!!!! Holy mother of a thousand gods, are you insane??? You're commenting on a video of motorized novelty toys, and you think they're real, and you're telling OTHERS they shouldn't proclaim knowledge of physics??? You're proclaiming that Boyle's flask actually WORKS (without the hidden motor), and you're telling OTHERS they shouldn't proclaim knowledge of physics??? Even Boyle himself admitted he was wrong about the flask. Sheeessssssshhhhh. Look, I don't know how old you are. I certainly hope that you're just one of those know-everything idiot teenagers who is 3 weeks into a physics class, and therefore you stupidly believe you know enough physics to overturn the last 400 years of knowledge we gain. This sort of idiocy is common amongst teens, and the good news is that you might grow out of your idiocy. But, if you're an adult, then you're one of the most ridiculous and idiotic hypocrites out there, and you're never going to grow out of it.
rockethead7 Oh it's adorable when a troll spends hours typing crap I'm not going to read. I read about three responses and clearly you don't know anything about physics. Go buy one of those executive ball clackers and put it on your desk, pull one ball up and watch it go for a few hours. Then take a picture of where it takes batteries for me.
These are machines that conserve the energy added to them from a starting motion such as pouring water in the container or giving a wheel a turn in the first place. The energy remains within the system so well that it cycles through with seemingly infinite energy. The reason why the systems are hypothetical is because they will eventually lose the energy in the system after enough time has passed due to friction. So unless you make a frictionless machine you can't have a truly perpetual machine. Even then no energy is being made and if you tried to remove energy from the system you could not receive any more energy than you applied to the machine in the first place.
And that's what ball bearings are for. With friction reduced, motion is prolonged. Have you ever noticed how a wheel on an overturned shopping cart won't spin as long as a fidget spinner? That's because the fidget spinner has ball bearings and can spin for a long time, and most people just get fed up and stop them spinning, whereas the shopping cart wheel doesn't have ball bearings and therefore can only spin for so long.
That cone rolling 'up' hill kills me. The passengers in a train designed around this concept would have to go UP steps to get out of the train at exactly the increase in elevation the gradual slope presents. The weight moves down at a higher rate than it goes up the slope. The axis of rotation (the pointy ends of the weight) goes down, not up.
To make that possible to have infinite motion out of that, furthermore, you should use an infinitelly large cone, put that cone on infinitelly long rails that part further and further from each other, to infinity. Since there's no such a thing as "infinite" something, you can't make a train out of that concpet, anyway.
actually everyone with basic physics knowledge knows that perpetual motion machines are fake. they go against law of conservation of energy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. search it on google and you will know why. it is too complicate to explain here since i am lazy to type so many words =D.
according to the definition of perpetual motion machines, the machines must be able to do work without source of energy supply. also the work done by gravity or anything else will eventually lose as heat and this is irreversible. therefore sooner or later the machines will stop.
RisingWings yes i agree with you, that is not a perpetual motion machine, because of this the machine showing in the video works well... but even the machine loses energy as heat, the force of gravity always be there to serve more energy to system, so i dont know if this really will come to stop one day
Davi Rodrigues A) Gravity is not an energy source. B) The toys in this video are powered by hidden electric motors (except the rolling cone, which is just an optical illusion rolling downhill).
+Matthis Tauritz Bakker == Sorry Matthis, you're wrong. These are motorized novelty toys. They'll come to a pretty quick stop when you unplug them from the electric socket.
Matthis Tauritz Bakker I understand the physics. But, if that's not good enough for you, then you can go to veproject1's website and blog, where he explains that these are motorized examples of failed "inventions" from centuries ago. Or, you can go to his "behind the scenes" channel and see the hidden motors. Or, you can just pay close attention to this one, and notice the long delay as the clear fluid is spurting through the hidden tubing as the hidden pump is priming, before the green fluid slowly follows behind.
rockethead7 OK well...... I knew perpetual motion machines were impossible but I didn't know that they lose momentum that fast. Can you explain why the fluid wouldn't work cause I couldn't think of something
all of the above working models are operating on external source of energy..a simple force analysis of above machine will show that they will come in a equlibirium or a balanced condition after a small angular displacement..and in first case of boyles model there is a hidden pump under the base and a hidden tube at the vary junction of reservoir and tube ....pump outlet tube is connected to the inlet of the pipe coming out of reservoir
@@atulgarg5801 wut, I'm just copy pasting this around to any comment I glance at that looks like it's saying *FAKE!* because this is a demonstration only
4:18 Pay close attention. Isn't it cool how the motor that actually turns the wheel kicks on and drags his finger a little bit before he pretends to push start it?
Very cool, though as many people have mentioned, these are really just mechanisms for reducing the friction of the system. Eventually, they will stop spinning.
It's fake. Look how high the two edges of the cone are on top of the wood. He obviously has a downhill piece so the cones can roll down, hence why it sinks down into the wood.
+Voracious Weasel do you not realise as the two wood tracks separate the further it travels. as the split increase the coned wheel can "climb" it. those pieces are not parallel. re watch that segment please.
The cones center of mass is getting lower as it rolls because the cones inclination is greater than the inclination of the rails. In essence the center of mass is rolling downhill
+ThatZommy The laws of physics are loose laws (and prove it by use numbers) Numbers are not necessarily mean the real value of things Energy can be produced using (the supporting systems)
Thanks to the good humans behind this channel! These kind of videos should be consciously searched by all and everyone. More ‘Human Beings’ and less ‘Human Doings’ in 2021 I hope...
+Dan Dart While they do use energy more efficiently than many other machines, they still only last a few seconds, depending the the entry energy (e.g. The energy put into the system in the beginning.)
SimmiSwe The weak of mind depend on hidden electricity-dependent pumps to do Gravity's Work provided to us for Free. Tell ya what guy. List all the properties of water, and how water behaves, then try combining some together using a 2nd flask to make a constant fluid exchange happen => Criss-Cross. That's what the stronger methodical mind would do.
It's like saying that a rock that's perfectly balanced is a perpetual motion machine . You can't actually generate anything from it because it has a net energy of 0, it merely maintains that which was initially put into it.
carultch YOU SAID: "The self-flowing flask is often faked, by using a carbonated liquid. It will run out as soon as the carbonation becomes undissolved." -- Don't be ridiculous. Where'd you get the idea that carbonated water will run around in circles on its own? You decided not to fall for one hoax video, and decided to fall for a different one instead?? Go ahead, carbonate the living daylights out of any liquid you want. If you can make it run around in circles for even 2 seconds as shown in the video (minus the hidden pump), then you'll have a Nobel Prize awaiting you for overturning several laws of physics.
Majid Ibrahim Abstract This is about workable Free Energy Device. There are three different Free Energy Devices but the fundamental workings of the devices are the same. High Pressure at the bottom of water tank (height 75 cm, radius 25 cm ) because of gravity so we make a small hole (5mm) in the water tank then we attach average latex sheet balloon to It outside. By using the high pressure of water at the bottom to expand/ stretch the latex balloon fully so we have Elastic Potential Energy then stop the flow of water from the water tank to the balloon by using a system as exactly as the floating ball closed the incoming water in the toilet flushing system of our home. Then nothing can get into the balloon because string is being used to knot the opening of the balloon but still the balloon is connected to the water tank. we release the pressure in the balloon by making small hole on top of it without breaking the balloon (so small nozzle is being used) then pushed up water will go above the water level of the water tank as water- jet through the air then the pushed up water will end up in the water tank only. We have gravitational potential Energy at the top of the pushed up water trajectory to generate electricity by water turbine generators. Repeat the process to get Free Energy. The manual hands actions should be automated and repeated then perpetual motion. The main use of this Device is for Electricity But Ship, Space Ship etc.. We can not separate anything from everything. So All are one.
porque ela apenas tem movimento perpétuo quando não há resistência... a do ar é desprezível. qualquer maquina que produza eletricidade com quantidade significativa vai gerar resistência e parar o movimento perpétuo. é isso, traduza se quiser ler.
All of these are possible, but none of these are perpetuum mobiles. In a vakuum or in zero Gravity they wouldn't work. Gravity is the "energy" that is being fed into these machines. But they will probably work "forever".
Quintar Farenor Don't be ridiculous. YOU SAID: "All of these are possible" -- No, none of them are possible. YOU SAID: "Gravity is the "energy" that is being fed into these machines." -- Gravity isn't energy. You are confusing force for energy. Gravity cannot "feed" these machines or any others like them. -- The only thing feeding these toys energy is the local electric outlet that feeds the hidden electric motors. YOU SAID: "But they will probably work forever" -- They'll stop working the second that you unplug them from the power socket.
I was always under the impression, that true perpetual motion was impossible. This video now has me questioning my assumptions. Thanks for sharing this with us :-) 👍
These all use motors to give the illusion of being perpetual motion. None of these are actually possible and have all been demonstrated to not actually work.
@@koripeter1641 people have made these contraptions and shown that they do not actually allow for perpetual motion. The ones shown in this video use electric motors. It’s obvious watching how they move. And no Tesla did not create any perpetual motion machines.
“The most difficult part of building a Perpetual Motion Machine is figuring out where to hide the batteries.”
LOL😂😂😂
True
Lol
Lolmao😂🤣
Funny comment but there is no batteries. And I don’t think that you even know what a perpetual motion machine is. The idea about it is that it gives it keeps it’s energy to make more energy to keep it moving (this is the idea behind it it’s not trying to me rude for no reason)
To be fair, the description does say that perpetual motion is impossible and this is just what those machines would look like
I like how this guy occasionally trolls the know it alls that go "Haha! Fake! I smart!".
True but that is also the point I was explaining what the meaning behind it
The description says that the 3 laws stated that perpetual motion is impossible. In another comment the uploader says that the 3 laws aren't proven.
@@hebdabid6260 True, maybe someone will find a way to break the laws of physics but think about it: Landing on the moon, flying, using electricity, it seems impossible but remains in the confinement of the universe. Yes, many physics theories have been proven wrong time and time again but thermodynamics is something so fundamental, it’s probably near impossible to violate. It’s not too similar to a theory or a statement that can be proven wrong, it’s basically what we think the rules of the universe are, it’s how existence works. Think of it this way: Your examples are kinda like saying “there’s no way you can build remote teleportation in vanilla Minecraft”. It seems near impossible but we’ve seen things in the game do that and we know it’s possible, because we’ve seen it before. Eventually, someone manages to create such a thing. Great! The “impossible” became possible. Now, with the thermodynamics, it’s like trying to make vertical slabs in vanilla Minecraft. We never seen anything like that in Minecraft (because it doesn’t exist in the code). You can compromise and make something else or maybe scale your builds up and add more detail but you can never truly make vertical slabs in vanilla Minecraft, as the game engine doesn’t have any code for it. Of course, I’m not saying you shouldn’t try to break the laws of physics and I’m not saying our understanding of the laws of the universe is absolutely correct, things can change and maybe it will, but I’m just giving my opinion on this.
?
I love how for all of the "overbalanced wheel" ones you can visibly see that the wheel should be balanced and shouldn't be moving
What you mean!
@@masondougherty7412 yeah, it just stretches out the use on the energy to keep it in motion until a combo of friction and gravity stops it. (Unless it doesn't stop because of a motor powering it)
Hence...."over" (beyond) balanced.
Yeah, because perpetual motion is impossible, this video is just showing how they would work.
Are you stupid or plain braindead?
some people out here thinking they’re real smart calling out this video for being fake, yet they dont have the 2nd grade reading level to notice that it was mentioned that these would not realistically work (as far as we know) they are just to demonstrate how they would look like if these PMM did what they were first intended for them to do
Thanks for reading the section "Channel about"
@@veproject1 you should pin this
pin it
If anyone had the audacity to read his youtube description and/or channel information they would surely know it was just a demonstration of how it would operate functionally if the idea worked as intended to, but no one gives a shit about that. At the introduction of the video, it questions whether PPMs are impossible or not and talks about constructing these building designs to test if it is or not. This may inform the audience that this is a new video for experiments tested by someone who is interested in this subject and activity. At the end, it questions if you are impressed and whether you believe it or not. Again, this may inform the audience that the experiment for each test was successful and proven to be possible and informs them that the creator predicts there will be two sides of the project, real or fake, but he says not to say PPMs cannot be achieved because it cannot be functional. To not trick people into thinking this is a legitimate video, please inform the viewers that this is only a demonstration of the ideas if they would functional operate, in the forms of followed build designs, and that none of this can be realistically achieved in the video. Also "as far as we know" is incorrect, it's as we for sure know they're not fucking possible.
@@veproject1 pin it you brat
I appreciate very much the fact that people prefer to make wonderful videos about pseudo-science (or, in that case, pseudo-phisics) rather than making serious scientifical talking. If I can join, here's a mathematical proof that 2=1 (from Bertrand Russel):
Suppose there are two equal numbers, a and b:
a=b
Multiply by a each member:
a^2=ab
Subtract b^2 from each member:
a^2-b^2=ab-b^2
Factorize each member:
(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)
Divide each member for (a-b):
a+b=b
We supposed a=b, so substitute a with b:
b+b=b
2b=b
Divide by b:
2=1
P.s. Since the whole world is shouting at me that this demonstration is uncorrect, I write it here in upper case so I hope it will close the argument: YES, THIS DEMONSTRATION IS FALSE, IT IS, AND I WAS IRONICAL BY POSTING IT; IT IS FALSE SINCE, WHEN I DIVIDED BY (a-b), I WAS IN FACT DIVIDING BY 0, WHICH BREAKS RULES OF ARITHMETICS. THE POINT IS, I'M CLAIMING THAT THE PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINES SHOWN IN THIS VIDEO ARE NO MORE REAL PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINES THAN THIS DEMONSTRATION IS CORRECT.
Got it?
but it's not the same
since you supposed a=b, you divided by zero (a-b) in step 4 :)
Norbert Dickmeis Exactly that
veproject1 You are saying to show machines that have 100℅ efficiency, while most of the ones you showed have 80-90% efficiency maximum. A perpetual motion machine must continue to move forever, not only one hour or even three days after it was first moved, but forever. Or, alternatively, it must provide more energy that it drains from the system. The Boyle bottle, for example, works only if you use a liquid that reacts with himself to produce gas (beer, for example), but after the reaction has ended, so has the working of the machine. Make that machine work with water, you won't be able to do that. Also magnetic motors aren't perpetual motion machines, the magnets lose their force after a long while. In conclusion, it is very interesting to see some examples of well designed machines with high efficiency, but I'd like to see some scientific analysis added; furthermore, as long as you're not a magician, you can't break the first rule of thermodynamics and you should claim that.
Very well said. However, if i may share my opinion on a general misconception of the modern day term of "perpetual motion".
Yes, as far as we are aware, currently there are no machines and or devices that qualifies as a perpetual motion device.
The big push for perpetuity has to do with all the advertised grants that are currently still unclaimed. If the consortium of modern and applied sciences eliminated the "must run forever" clause and say must be self running and generate power for x years without human or outside intervention. Could you imagine the world of innovations that would surface that have been otherwise affraid of even mentioning the words perpetual and motion in the same week ? ;)
if energy was free, I would take it to school any day.
if energy was free, i'd have money
Sun : am I joke to u?
@@tony-pc4kd sun its a nuclear reactor and will run out of fuel some day, not free.
Too bad only stress
@@tony-pc4kd just like other starts it will end up collapsing on its own mass, or just go extinct because it doesnt have any more hydrogen to keep making fusion
There's a book called "Physics for entertainment" by Y.E Perelman. In this book Perelman extensively talks about perpetual motion machines. He gives mathematical and scientific proof to debunk these machines that you've just shown.
And none of the machines you've shown will work. You're using motors to run these contraptions.
Anyway, I suggest everyone who hasn't read it to get the digital copy, it's really an amazing book.
+Kevin Arnold I have red all books of Mr. Perelman. And I even published one video based on his article. I'd like to correct you. Laws of Thermodynamics are not proven mathematically. They are result of observation. In other words, they are considered to be true because nobody has invented PMM for 300 years. Y. Perelman just talking about the friction and the amount of weights on left and right sides of the wheel
+veproject1 And I'd like to correct you. If you managed to sit through a lecture of thermodynamics you'll get the mathematical proof. It's not that hard actually. And even if these machines in your video would really go on and on for ever they aren't perpetuum mobiles. A perpetuum mobile would produce energy. If you could manage to lift a weight with the wheels you'll have a real perpetuum mobile. But these machines just use the little energy you put in to it's best. And to be honest. I'm pretty sure after some years they would stop.
+veproject1 Sorry, You're wrong. Stop getting your education from Buzzfeed.
+veproject1 i did a 20 second search and managed to find 3 different mathematical statements and one addressing infinitesimal processes in closed, homogeneuos systems
must be magic then
Funny how many doubters there are. Sure we might be smart as humans but we have not gotten to the point where we understand 100% of all physics in the universe. Just because its someones "theory" that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, does not mean its 100% correct. There could be an infinite amount of energy that we have not discovered. Yeah I'm sure cavemen thought they were smart too, because they could outsmart an animal and turn it into his next meal, but he would have never understood the world we live in today. Just as we will not understand the world of technology 500 years from now. What if we could harness the energy of a black hole? What if we can harness the energy of dark matter? Ideas that seem crazy now could be a part of everyday life thousands of years from now. All you doubtful minded people are just limiting the capability of innovative ideas. We will never know if perpetual motion exists until we have tried every possible way of attempting it...
My favorite part about these kinds of machines is that you can see the motor struggle to keep up a perpetual motion in a smooth manner
Can you love me?
@@nathanielmiller5813 wtf dude
That’s why it isn’t a perpetual motion machine as it isn’t well perpetual
Machine 1: If you look closely you can see clear water being pumped in before the dye.
Machine 2: Watch the center of the cone relative to the green line. It constantly moves downward. It will have to lift it back up to restore its potential energy
All of the others will stop eventually due to friction.
If you really have a design that violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics go ahead. Make it. You'll be filthily rich. According to this video it should be easy.
Yeah I think I saw clear water injected into the thin tube before the green water reached it but wasn't so sure, but obviously without pumping in water to give the fluids some initial thrust, the green water in the thin tube can only stay at the same height as the portion of it in the flask when it reaches equilibrium. This video is seriously cancer.
No that's the actual water. The trick is that there are actually two sections of tube that connect at the wooden piece. Where it covers the tubes there is an impeller that forces the water to move, creating suction on the bottom and pressure on the top, cycling the fluid. That's why it bubbles so violently when liquid first hits the impeller. That's also why the parts holding up the tube are made of wood, to hide the wires that power the impeller.
umm, technically in the overbalanced wheel examples more than the friction the real catch is that there is actually one balance point that the wheel will eventually reach again. It is just really efficient but that is about it. For example in the one at 4:50, it is true that the weigths on the right are further from the center, so they apply more torque. However, ue to the angle and desing the weights at 12 and 1(as in clock positions) are "pulling" to the other side.
Either way, all these examples have been overly discussed, explained etc.....still pretty interesting imo.
James Alderman
No. There's no impeller at the connection you're referring to. And, no, the wood sections are not to hide wires. The wood sections are to hide the tubing to the electric pump in the base.
I guess that works too
If this was real, then the machines would tend to accelerate.
They do I'm working on a governor system for my P M developer .
In the first example, the green liquid in the tube would NEVER go up farther than the level of the liquid in the vessel, except for momentarily from the pressure of pouring.
PlanetRockJesus it will if the pressure from the weight of the water is great enough how do you think a siphon works and it is an accepted part of science, the experiment has been seen and is true.
thebogangamer PlanetRockJesus is correct. This is not a siphon. Clearly, you do not know how a siphon works. Look it up. (At least you spelled 'accepted' right this time.)
PlanetRockJesus minor correction, it's not from the pressure of pouring, it's from the momentum of the water. There is no net force felt at the equilibrium point and so the water (which has mass and velocity and therefore momentum) continue traveling up where it feels the downward force of gravity and will eventually accelerate down into equilibrium.
Smithy0013 This cannot work, and it does not work. It's a trick. There is a pump built into the machine, or, water is being added from another hidden tube. Build one yourself. It does not work.
PlanetRockJesus No yeah I realize it doesn't work. I was just correcting you when you said "except for momentarily from the pressure of pouring" It goes up momentarily because of momentum, not the pressure of pouring.
The best perpetual motion machines consist of:
video loops
hidden motors
false perceptions
deceptions
:-)
Jim Kelly read the description dumbo
Wait, even the ":-)" ? lol
@@m.skittle9864 read the comments dumbo
@@athame1217 what?
@@original_rockstar the person i mentioned deleted his comment
What caught my attention is when the flask was first filled. Instead of having the tube bellow filled instantly along with the flask (as one would expect), it took a second or two longer at which point the fluid suddenly comes out the bottom. There is clearly a pump like mechanism positioned just bellow the flask that has to be primed before it starts to function; thus the brief delay in the flow down to the tube below.
Ikr thats what im talking about
i was thinking, thats not how hydraulics work
Uh, yeah, you do realize that this video is just “hypothetical” right? You know what that word means, right??
@@prepare8286 "you have to realize" is a requirement, not a disclaimer in the beggining of the video, many know perpetual movement is impossible but others will get confuse and think this video is possible.
@@prepare8286 r/wooooosh
Wouldn't they stop eventually due to friction?
Griffin Mackenzie Yes
Chris M No, they stop when the concealed motor is unplugged.
44sharpshooter ha! And sacrifice their own profits for efficiency? Unlikely. Unfortunately with the way the world works there are many great inventions that would rock at us forward technologically up to 50 years but the unfortunate part with that is sometimes it's just not profitable and nobody wants to make it
travis williams Really, at least in the world of astronomy, they are always looking for new energy sources as we know what we have will soon run out. These things just do not work. Build some of them and try them out. Anyone can do it and word gets out it has been done and the inventor makes billions. They are not out there trying to hush hush these things up. if a factory got their hands on a perpetual motion energy they would use it for sure and make HUGE profits.
+44sharpshooter There is no money in perpetual motion energy generators because once a design is out the supplier of raw materials (who no doubt has shares in the energy companies and a senator on a puppet string) will have no business.
You can clearly see the motor start at 4:17
+wyldeman0O7 Wanna see my motor start?
+wyldeman0O7 They're all fake. There's been no proof of any form of true perpetual motion. It's impossible.
I HAVE to agree with you. They give no true explanation of their own experiments and that leaves us to simply wonder. But, personally, I want to believe its real. I think it is real, but believing isn't enough. We NEED proof. But I still feel strongly about perpetual motion, so fuck YOU, and any other fucker nut who thinks its fake. (I love you.)
LETTUCE PLAY If you need explanation, then clearly you don't understand what they're trying to do here how they're trying to imply the way it's done, and why it's impossible. It fools simpletons. But if you can see the grand picture of each machine, you don't even need a professor to tell you why it's impossible. You clearly can't see the grand picture, or else you wouldn't need detail explanations on these machines. Make yourself understand why they think these machines would work and then understand why it can't. Also, all of these were done by motor. You can see the inconsistency in their RPM, because the weak electric motors don't have the firm torque to maintain a smooth roll. FAKE
+LETTUCE PLAY water doesn't flow up hill does it? Spacecraft can orbit freely for a really long time, but eventually slow down due to minute friction from air molecules. There is no scenario that you get "free energy" from.
The legends say that it is still running to this day...
until the motor burns out
they patched this bug in the 2.0.17 update
ur not in matrix, have a nice day!
Woooosh
Actually they patched this bug in the 0000000.000000000000.000000000000000000000000000000000000.0000001 update
DanTheMan31 More like they fixed the bug during alpha development.
lol
Perpetual motion is impossible. At least not when friction is present. Anybody with minimal physics education knows this.
yea i think so too
+dash1dash2 but why it worked on this video
+Be Your BOSS maybe an engine or so
+Öli Gallusel exept of the bottle
+Be Your BOSS those are pretty vlever inventions that (some of em at least) seem to run forever, but they loose a small amount of energy from time to time. The machines may run for a day, even a week maybe.. but then they stop.
Thank you for reporting this glitch. It will be patched in the next update of Life.
You're not funny. At all.
MutantSushi
I'm not being funny
Skarmory Fly I liked it actually
lol
Currently we're ddosing life with overpopulation
"Lisa! In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -Homer
"And this perpetual motion machine she built is a JOKE! It just keeps going faster and faster!"
visual "education" but none of this actually works perpetually
and that overbalanced wheel so obviously has a motor! that thing wouldn't move evenly, it would jolt every time an arm dropped!
It can have a kinetic wheel attached behind, the same thing cars have to smooth cilindrical force.
oh yeah, to absorb more of the energy
those who ignore must read the universe is expanding perpetually
The cone going "up" the slope is real, but it doesn't have any perpetual motion in it. It is a matter of the center of gravity going down (potential into kinetic energy)
I'm not. Physics major but every example shown has friction.
Not just the air around objects but also any other objects that touch or interact.
That's why a bike on flat ground eventually loses energy when you stop pedaling.
they all use gravity in some way.
+123devinzz1 yeah but think about this, if it uses gravity to bring it down, it's gotta bring it back up again doesn't it ?
+Max B youl noticed their design so the weight is farther out when coming down therefore having more leverage on the structure then the weights closer in on the other side going up.
+123devinzz1 try to build it for yourself and you'll see that these are fake.
+Max B you build it yourself and see how wrong you are
#1 Self flowing flask. In reality, the liquid both in the flask and the tube would come to the exact same height and stay there. The bottom of the flask and wood holder obviously have a hidden pump. You can see that the fluid as it poured in does not flow into the tube immediately as it should if it was only an open tube.
I was about to type that. Thx you help me know there are other people who aren't dumb
It's like the pipe in your toilets or sink, the one that bends upwards before it goes to the floor, you know what I mean. After water is done being pushed through it, the last bit of water levels out on both sides of the pipe.
At first I thought the later green liquid is motor oil instead of water (due to water stickiness feature to the walls of the funnel) so the first glassy liquid would be water the cameraman tries to show it is not working. BUT even in a large funnel (to have a lot of pressure by the weight of stored liquid upon eachother) the whole gravity pressure of the stored liquid would be restrained by the pipe walls and I don't assume even the motor oil to be able pass the high level of the stored water
Run it at quarter speed and watch the flask fill for over two seconds before anything comes out the bottom.
Incorrect. The “engine” would work for a while. On the merit of higher pressure in the wider reservoir versus the pressure in the tubing. But you are right, it’s by no means perpetual as the rate of flow into the flask is below the rate of the outflow, so, eventually, the system would balance out and the motion would seize.
I love these ideas and even though they're impossible the models are things of real beauty. Also thanks for the sciency comments explaining what would really happen- also beautiful 😍
I guess this is just a repetition of truism, but Perpetum Mobile is impossible. Simply because of Einstein's E=MC2 formula, the law of relativity: Energy can't be created nor destroyed, it only changes form and location. To build a machine with perpetual motion would basically mean building a perfectly sterile box not just trapping energy inside without a leak, but also to channel that energy in the same stream without a leakage. And that is impossible, because there's no such lubricant that will reduce friction by exactly 100%, because there are no magnets that hold their magnetic powers for ever without recharge, because there are no cog wheels nor parts that won't break or wither out through use.
those machines are using gravity to run. as long as there is gravity, there will be motion unless something intervene.
*****
I was kind and assumed that white plastic we see was the orifice mentioned in the video, that I believe the water would flow continuously. Of course non of these where in motion when the camera first turned on them
***** My eyes are bleeding with because of your comment, did you even finish high school?
***** what part of "something intervene" dont you understand. other forces do play a roll in the device, but gravity is the dominate roll.
Ricardo Vega you should get that checked out. also i did graduate high school.
Plot twist: none of this is real
At least not the actual perpetual motion things ✌️
dans lesible des millier d inventeur ont deja tous essayees et un dicton dit rien ne se cree tous se transforme regarder la roue qui tourne les billes se resserre d un coter mais de l autre une bille descent pendant que 4 monte de l autre coter ne perdez pas votre temps le perpetuel n existe pas
jackyvacances au revoir es wird nie mehr sein wie es war... Speak English dumbass 😂
***** read my first comment on this comment
I'm confused, are you saying these machines are fake and don't actually work and that perpetual motion is impossible..cos I was convinced as they look so feasible.
Quick question: is this supposed to be a joke, or a sham?
I know that, I understand how friction works. :P
But still, you gotta wonder what the motivation for this is.
They don't work forever because energy will be stolen from the system, but on the short run, they appear to be "perpetual"
+Liam Arduino well made machines like this can run for days, but never forever.
+Gabe Merritt Especially if you try to make it do any kind of work (e.g. generate electricity). It will come to a halt very quickly.
+Joshua Carr (ThePistolKing) of course its not making energy just conserving it.
I sometimes question how hard it is to read a description. Specially before commenting.
To make extraordinary claims one must supply extraordinary evidence. A wheel spinning for thirty seconds is far from perpetual. I challenge anyone to create one of these devices and let it run with a live camera on it. I guarantee if it never stops (at least for a time longer than one would expect the energy to dissipate) you will be granted a Nobel Prize, and prize money, so it is surely worth the try if you believe it can be done.
A well made "perpetual" motion machines can run for days, but friction will eventually stop it.
A well made "perpetual" motion machines can run for days, but friction will eventually stop it.
+Gabe Merritt There are possible perpetual motion machines out there, but they either
- use temperature flow to stay in motion (I never said it was a closed system)
- are the objects in space or other frictionless medium (though only when there is no gravity source present other than the object itself, since you would otherwise get tidal locking between the gravity sources and relativistic procession of orbits)
I don't know for sure if you could consider our universe to be a pepetual motion machine.
I do know that unless sufficient input energy is supplied, increasing motion machines are impossible.
An example of an increasing motion machine is an electro motor. It gets enough energy to keep spinning.
DO NOTE THAT YOUR DEFINITION OF A PEPETUAL MOTION MACHINE MIGHT BE DIFFERENT THEN MINE.
Perpetual: forever lasting
Motion: moving
Machine: thingimajig
So a perpetual motion machine is a forever lasting moving thingimajig.
+Rik Schaaf Do you really believe space is a "frictionless medium?" My faith in humanity died a little more with every sentence you wrote.
+Rik Schaaf A perpetual motion machine has to work without any input.
Perpetual motion is not possible. Water will always seek to be level and the friction of the moving parts on the wheels will eventually stop them.
The closest we will ever get to perpetual motion is 99% efficiency.
it is possible to create a frictionless pivot point with a magnetic field. And water also seeks an equilibrium of vapor pressure - there could be a version of that water machine that incorporates that principle. But anyone who grew up with a filterless aquarium and had to change the water himself will tell you that, as is, the water one wouldn't work...
***** Why then not use it to create a self sustaining energy and then use a tiny fraction of the energy it creates to continue it's movement? The rest can be sent out to where ever.
Scott Little No, it isn't, because the cause of friction doesn't go away. The only difference is that the electromagnetism is at a longer range.
***** Even if these devices actually worked, they would only be 100% efficient. They would not produce energy, only preserve it.
***** not necessarily a problem - one step in the process of a perpetual motion machine might involve a type of chemical reaction that can go through endless cycles, that would help to overcome any resistance from air. Also you could build a vacuum tight room at 0g's.
Wow. How handy is it that everyone in the comments is an expert in physics.
多くの研究者が永久機関に挑み、成功せず消えていった永久機関の模型たち
これどれも永久機関にならなかったよね？
なりませんでした
どっかのコメントで
[永久機関を作るために研究して分かった事は、永久機関は作れないということ]って書いてあってすごい皮肉だなぁと思いました(小並感
大体老朽化かなんかなんだっけ
Quisiera hablar taka taka :(
@@悠樹レノン
老朽化以前にできてない...
#4 Rolling balls; if you do the math, at any given point the number of balls in their position and torque generated would be equal on both sides. This contraption would stop immediately when it loses momentum, and come to a final balanced rest.
*DEMONSTRATION ONLY, READ DESCRIPTION*
Here is the catch: perpetual motion machines never require more energy.
Self flowing flask: could it run forever without needing more water?
Perpetual train: can you keep widening the tracks indefinitely?
wheels: friction
The problem with this is you cannot test it forever, so you don't know. the machines probably are losing some amount of energy the will eventually stop it
it's definitely fake as perpetual motion machines can't exist as they violate second law of thermodynamics, plus energy will definitely be lost to the surroundings through WDagainst frictional forces etc
that is for da vinci's wheel and the wheel with all the metal balls
+David R1978 stop due to energy loss from system ,due to work done in overcoming friction and air resistance
+David R1978 gravity does not cause the system to lose energy. in an anti gravity chamber , if you cause it to spin, the trajectory willl be uncertain and it will start to float and move sound, due to momentum.
in a perfect vacuum (perfect vacuum does not exist in the universe ), if a object is rotating, it will continue to rotate indefinitely.
+De Day actually, in a perfect vacuum, it may come to a stop eventually. in an isolated system, no energy is created or destroyed. but the kinetic energy might be converted to e.g. heat and sound energy, and it may stop ,eventually.
+Non Ofyourbuisness I respect your comment a lot. You and I think quite alike. But not everyone does. They think that just because we can prove its true now, that means it will be true forever. I think theories will always continue to advance, and everything as we know it will be different, yet still make sense some how, just as it does today.
永久機関じゃなくてもいいから、こういう動き続けるオブジェクトを家に置きたい
わかる
Same
@@waterbottle3109 me too
摩擦と老朽化による劣化があるから
10年あれば壊れるよね。
Yeah
From where I come from, we obey the laws of Thermodynamics
*DEMONSTRATION ONLY, READ DESCRIPTION*
Perpetual motion is motion of bodies that continues indefinitely. This is impossible because of friction and other energy-dissipating processes. A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work indefinitely without an energy source. This kind of machine is impossible, as it would violate the first or second law of thermodynamics.
True, all of this machines (more like apparatus) use the force of gravity and, without it, they might dont work (or maybe they would, i havent go to space). But they kinda "are" perpetual motion machines because they work, in our terrestial conditions, " forever" with only a starter force, until another force stops them. So this are "technically" perpetual motion machines but they arent. Maybe we should redefine the concept of perpetual motion machine, or maybe im way to wrong, who am i to judje.
They don't work anyway...this video is a scam.
+JJ Random op just copied the wiki page xD
LOL so wut?
+Angie Lynn Well, no, "perpetual motion" refers specifically to a device or system that produces more energy than it consumes (which is impossible) and generally does not include things in simple inertial motion, like planets in orbit. And the human body is certainly not such a device ... it is taking in energy all the time. If it doesn't, it dies.
So, 'god' has it all figured out, eh? Does that mean we should not bother to try to understand how the world works? ... just say "God did it..." ?? Is that what you are teaching your kids? "That's OK son, your don't have to pay attention to math or science. God takes care of all that." What kind of a future will that give your children in a technology-based world? I'll tell you what kind ... the kind where someone else is making all their decisions for them.
cats always land on their feet and buttered toast always lands butter side up. Strap buttered toast to cats back and then attach the two to a generator. the only real perpetual motion device that could power the world.
Underrated
I think you would just create a black hole. Or the strap would break :)
*tl;dr how to create a black hole
Two issues. First, these two phenomena only occur before landing. They likely use some of their potential energy to right themselves in the air, which is of course, not perpetual. Second, only living cats land on their feet, so you need to provide some sustenance to the cat, meaning it's not perpetual. It's probably just better to stick to the machines in the video.
@@Hocotatium111 too bad they don’t work either
"Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another" -A.Einstein
Just remember that in another universe with different laws of thermodynamics, these would be legit and free energy would be everywhere
A universe like this would likely disappear a plank time after it is created
@@TunaBear64 But what if the laws of physics of that universe enables it to not disappear?
@@viktorramstrom3744 that it's not how it works, if energy can't be transformed that means that the universe would basically be a sea of energy that basically can't be converted into matter no matter how hot or how much pressure is being applied to it
that universe would explode instantly because of the feedback loop, like for example when you hold a mic too close to the speaker it makes that terrible ringing sound, the ringing is the universe exploding forever
wait sorry i change my view, lanay is right since if there arent laws of thermodynamics that have the universe tend to disorder, or have things that want to be at a lower potential energy level, then explosions cant happen in the first place so it will just be a big universe packed with energy with no way to get rid of it, an explosion waiting to happen but never will basically
未だにコメントで喧嘩してるの笑うｗ
That’s what I thought
These presumably have hidden motors, although the water one is impressive, I can only think there's a small impeller pump somewhere in one of the non-transparent bits.
As a simple test, you can build the liquid one at home with a funnel and some tube. Notice that it doesn't do what the one in the video does!
By this day and age I'd hope we're more advanced than Da Vinci's time, enough to know there's no such thing as perpetual motion. But they're nice fakes.
"These presumably have hidden motors, although the water one is impressive, I can only think there's a small impeller pump somewhere in one of the non-transparent bits."
=== The pump is in the base. The tubes are in the wooden structure, beginning at the thick wooden support bottom of the flask.
"I'd hope we're more advanced than Da Vinci's time, enough to know there's no such thing as perpetual motion."
== There's no shortage of believers in nonsense. But, FYI, Da Vinci didn't think his would work. He built them to show people that they do NOT work. So, you correct, but it's especially sad that people still haven't learned Da Vinci's lesson after all of these centuries.
greenaum you are wrong, have a closer look, the water one actually works when you use the right kind of water, aka soda water, it's the bubbles in the water that push it up the tube similar to how an aquarium air pump causes water flow... and it will only work for a few minutes before all the bubbles has been released... give it a try at home with a funnel and pipe and some fizzy drink, it's kinda fun
water wants to achieve equilibrium so it will only push up to where the tube and the flask are the same height
It also looks like this isn't even colored water. It looks like something far more viscous, like motor oil.
greenaum no I did the water one it's real
The only working perpetual motion machine I've seen is that "waving" cat statue at my local Chinese restaurant.
Works on the same principle as these ones anyway lol
runs on solar.
hey have you got a time machine, need one badly!
Master Hughes I have one to travel to the future only
I'd like to explain.
Right after you turn the time machine on trying to travel to the past, the machine will stop just because she was off in the past.
Comments?
veproject1 unless you go to a parallel time dimension.
veproject1 No, a time machine would not work like that. The vehicle would be surrounded by a temporal discontinuity field, which allows the vehicle and its contents to travel backward in time relative to the external reference frame, but time aboard the vehicle is not affected. So, you as a passenger do not grow younger and disappear. Neither does the vehicle experience reverse aging. IMHO :) BUT, if you stick your hand out the window there's gonna be trouble!
Just so long as there room for a ice chest. gotta have a cold drink when traveling.
dont leave those running all the time they might lag the server
I can remember not too many years ago when everyone including scientists said that it would be impossible to cross the Atalntic Ocean in less than 7 days. Thinking out of the box might surprise you some day.
YOU SAID: "I can remember not too many years ago when everyone including scientists said that it would be impossible to cross the Atalntic Ocean in less than 7 days."
== Pfftttt. What are you? A 900 year old vampire? Ships have crossed the Atlantic in under 7 days for more than a century.
== And, c'mon, name one scientist who ever said that crossing the Atlantic in under 7 days was IMPOSSIBLE?? What ARE you babbling?
YOU SAID: "Thinking out of the box might surprise you some day."
== And, that's relevant to the famous physics failures in this video, how?? I mean, this isn't new science here. This stuff was disproven almost 400 years ago. Even Da Vinci never expected his machines to work, and he essentially built them to show people that they DO NOT work. But, here you are in a video showing motorized novelty toys, encouraging people to "think outside the box"?? What box?
that's not too many years ago given that the earth has and will be around for billions.....
the *outside of the box part* was hard to comprehend I get it
Papi Panther
Sigh, he said he REMEMBERS it. Sheeesshh. Did you read a single word before you wrote your silly reply?
Funny how you replied to the wrong guy ironically, do you have a brain?
You should do a video about which "perpetual" motion machine shown here can go the longest before losing its energy to an outside system.
Every single one of them would imstantly stop. It would be an all-around tie.
#1 - pump in the device (look at how long I takes the water to get from the bottom of the glass into the tube)
#2 - The hole table is titled as I the camera
#3 - Simply a motor in the back of the device
#4 - Again a motor in the back
#5 - Motor in the base of the device or the back
#6 - That's my favorite. Of course there is a motor again somewhere in the device, but the funny part is you see that so clearly, because as the weights are falling, and stopped hard you would expect the wheel to get a boost. The reason for that is a gearbox, because the standard electrical motors are spinning way to fast, that it would not look real at all, he needed to slow it down, with the help of a gearbox. On the side where the motor is connected you can easily spin it, but on the other side, where the wheel is connected it is extremely hard to move it, because the gear ratio is so high.
Confusing energy and forces leads to non-sensical ideas such as free energy (perpetual motion) machines. Such machines always fail precisely because forces are not energy, and you can't extract one single bit of energy from a force itself. For instance, a "free energy" machine could consist of a ball that rolls down a hill and hits a paddle, which turns a wheel. The problem with this machine is that the ball has to be returned to the top of the hill for the process to continue, and the amount of energy you have to put into your machine to put the ball back at the top of the hill equals the energy you get out of your machine from the spinning wheel. Actually, the amount of energy you get out of your machines is always less than the energy you put into it because some of the inputted energy is wasted to heat energy through friction. Free energy proponents devise ever cleverer ways to get the ball back to the top of the hill (or the magnets separated again, or the rubber band stretched again, etc.), hoping that just one more extra gear or wheel will somehow magically create energy out of nothing. But they can never get around the fact that forces are not energy and you can never get more energy out of a system than you put in.
What about hydroelectric plants that extract energy from the falling water in rivers? Don't they extract energy from gravity for free? No. The water in the river is no different from the ball that you have to haul up the hill. The water got its energy not from gravity but from some external agent that placed it high up in the mountains against gravity, so it could fall down the river bed. The external agent in this case is sunlight. Sunlight warms the ocean, causing the water to evaporate and float into the sky. The energy contained in the photons of sunlight is converted to the potential energy of the water molecules that are lifted high in the sky. These water molecules then rain down to the ground, form rivers, and flow back down to the ocean, converting their potential energy to kinetic energy, heat, and (in a hydroeletric plant) electricity. Ultimately, therefore, hydroelectric plants extract solar energy from water.
Excellent! Now, if only the idiots would read (and believe) what you wrote ...
Just checked, sunlight is free, therefore no cost to supply water to the river, a tidal lagoon also is free to fill via moon power.
Just cos you can give a very long explanation of a basic process doesn't mean that you are right.
Well, yes Robin, but that's not what Calc-99 is talking about. Solar power, tidal power, etc. are not generally considered to be "perpetual motion" (PM). He does, however, equate "free energy" with PM, which is a bit confusing. Sure, sunlight is free, but in the same sense so are coal and oil ... they're just laying there, waiting to be dug up (the purely human-invented concept of mineral rights notwithstanding). But that's not what PM is. PM is a device that runs with no energy input at all, which is impossible.
Still these machines are impossible
Every single one of these functions as demonstrated for the most part, IF perfectly balanced which is the real challenge. What CalculusVariations was saying, these function because the only force that drives them is the force created by the weight being moved, no less, no more. More over you have to remove all resistance by perfectly balancing the forces around the circle. If you tried to generate energy with one of these you would be adding resistance which would prevent them from working. In other words, the energy generated is the same as the energy that makes it move.
It is really pathetic to see some people spend so much time and effort to confuse others? Why?
agree on what you said :)
Marcelo Ois Lagarde #1 to insperate #2to try and make people happy
buzz
$
it's not to confuse it's that the idea is there just be caus u don't know how the rain bow is maid or never seen one dosent mean it's not real
Nice project!, now lets wait until it stops because of phisics
just to make everything clear to anyone claiming that they built some thing with a unlimited amount of energy let me explain perpetual motion is using gravity to its advantage and there is no such thing as a unlimited amount of energy I can say that there is super efficient machines but they can't run forever and don't say that someone built a machine that can run forever. I understand if some of you people think this is possible but once you learn physics you will understand
The perpetual motion machine is impossible, according to studies physical. They go against some laws, such as the second law of thermodynamics. Any machine had never its energy transformed with 100% yield.
The friccion of the gases is another reason, and even if it is in vacuum, would not work, frictional null does not exist.
This machine can seem to be perpetual, while maintaining the rotation for a few days, but will not tarry to present loss of rotation. This type of machine, for now, cannot be built, so, this video is a lie.
Kamille Monteiro Would it really be that hard for an engineer to restart the system once a week? Doesn't matter as far as it works long enough to produce energy + there are even magnetic perpetual systems, they're faster and there is a less chance of them ever stopping
Kamille Monteiro Dont Speak Inglish v: I Love xD
Your fucktardation is astounding, if it needs to be restarted then it's not outputting more energy than is input.
You're smart!
Omg the threads you find in the comment sections on youtube still astound me
If any of these were real, the person who sold them would be a billionare.
+seezookey Yes, I am
+seezookey they may be perfectly real, what you dont see is A the hidden motor or B them stopping after a certain amount of time since no engine/system ever conceived have been 100% efficient due to a number of reasons, air resistance for one. The Uploader of this video sure knew how to troll the intrawebs, I find this humorous
+veproject1 Whoever you are guys,, you are so damn awesome and brave .. don't care what those close-minded fuckers say ... keep it up
theres a difference between having an open mind and having a hole in your head :-)
I'd like to be crazy rather than being a parrot ... Acting traditionally won't get you anywhere ... Not mention how boring it is ..
Abstraction of willingness and ambition is the real disability, Proofed by many instances .. Ameen
What's the soundtrack of this Video? Is it something from Earth?
During the pour, notice the blockage at the thick support just below the funnel. Then notice how it starts fast, with added large bubbles. Then you notice that the base is a box, not just a block. Would be a little less conspicuous if the pump had been mounted closer, or an impeller as suggested by Greenaum.
so what happens to law of thermodynamics? and if these are really infinitely moving without stopping then why not commercializing it and using it as an alternative energy source?
Perpetual is not impossible, but use the energy is almost. The power results is used to keep the movement. To get some energy will stop the movement.
Wilker Azevedo What if the machine was big enough for the motion to be able to act as a power generator and keep it going? Just an idea. If the power of the motion is scaled up enough but the generator smaller in proportion.
turboshaft77 in the big projects you can get some power... but the cost don't pay. But have a way. Add neodimium to give the extra power in the moviment. The neodimium don't need power to operate, it is a perpetual energy. One side pushing and the other blocked to not break the push moviment. Some people made the projects using neodimium (youtube), but all they have a big weight to work. Any one would have use the perpetual machine with neodim instead the old idea. Less weight and more power.
It's all about conservation of energy. What these machines do is they use the energy of some action to turn around and cause that action, creating a cycle. Because of nonconservative forces, like friction and air resistance, not all the energy is sent back to starting the cycle. Therefore, if given enough time, these machines will eventually stop. The other issue is that even if we could create a perfect machine in which 100% of the energy produced is sent back to starting the action, if you attached a generator to it, that would take away some of its energy just like friction and air resistance. Therefore you can't have a perpetual motion machine or a free energy device. That said, it's still pretty cool.
Wilker Azevedo Pure nonsense, go back to school.
What this video proves is that hundreds of years ago people still wasted time with utter nonsense just as effectively as we do now with TH-cam.......
Russ B aren't you also wasting your time by commenting on this video.
at least they are trying to invent something mate.
Mr Spooderman bro, there are no such thing as perpetual machines yet
they will never exist, there is no "yet."
Joseph S actually, it could be scientifically possible, currently, with our understandings of physics, it is impossible due to friction.
Best Video I Ever Seen 😇😇
一億年動き続けるなら人のスケールでは実質永久機関だ。
地球はもう46億年も太陽の周りを回り続けている。
我々は永久機関にほぼ等しいモノの上で生きているわけだ。
宇宙は136億年ずっと活動を続けている、我々は永久機関に思える空間の中に居る
Michio Noma つまり半永久期間
I thought of doing a self-powering fountain like the first example in the video when I first saw my dad use a siphon to fuel up a car when I was 6. I tried to replicate it at home and quickly realized that the exit end of the siphon hose has to be lower than the water level in the cup for it to work (and outside of the water cup). Otherwise the water in the tube isn't heavy enough to pull more water out with itself, which makes sense if you do the math about it. I then understood that everything is self-balancing like this and that you cannot just get free energy out of no where. That was way before I even heard of the law of conservation of energy. If you watch the "endless fountain" from the video you can see the green water bubbling after is appeared to pass through that wooden beam that supports the base of the cup. But these air bubbles seem to be coming out of no where. It's because these air bubbles are coming from the pump hidden inside the wooden beam as the pump starts dry. This also explains the delay between the moment the liquid is seen reaching the bottom of the cup and the moment it is seen coming out in the hose below that wooden beam. The same thing applies for all those "self-spinning wheels". If you sit down and examine them carefully you realize that these wheels are not constantly heavier on the same side during its entire revolution. It just looks like it could work at the first glance if you make false assumptions. The only reason why they work in the video is because there is a powered device hidden somewhere in the rig that spins them. Oh and this cone wheel thing going "up" the rail? The cone is actually going down a hill because the rail opens up to lower the cone faster than the ramp rises to raise it.
Holy moly
same here
I watched this video 3 months ago and when i came back it was still playing!!
all the smart guys forgot to read the description where it does say perpetual motion machines are literally impossible
It only says the laws of thermodynamics say they're impossible; the uploader has posted comments saying these laws haven't been proven.
word?
Some philosophy to go with your physics ...
Does something become a "perpetual motion machine" the moment when it lasts longer than the skeptic's lifespan? Does it ever stop if there is no internet troll in existence to say "see i told you friction would get it eventually"?
Your philosophical question is fine and all. How would anyone possibly ever test infinity? But, the main problem is that you're not actually describing anything useful. See, a "perpetual motion machine" doesn't actually mean "something that moves perpetually." The phrase "perpetual motion machine" is an idiom, like "it's raining cats and dogs." It's not meant to be taken literally word for word. A perpetual motion machine is about ENERGY. If you had a machine that could produce more energy than it consumed, it would be a perpetual motion machine, even if it only ran for 2 minutes. Meanwhile, if you found some hypothetical region of deep space, and fired a bullet into that region that could go on for an infinite amount of time, it's not a perpetual motion machine, because that's not what the idiom means.
rockethead7 this is false in almost every way. A perpetual motion machine is a machine that can start moving by itself, and continue moving by itself, infinitely. where energy comes into to play is the main reason people want to create a perpetual motion machine is because if you have something that moves infinitely, the amount of energy that can be harvested from it is also infinite. however the reason no one has been successful is because, say you used the Da Vinci overbalanced machine, it works fine in theory but the friction caused by the axel is also infinite. friction is a force that opposes movement. meaning if you have infinite movement, you also have infinite friction. By that logic the two forces would equal out to have a net force of 0. when an object has a net force of 0, it doesn't move.
rockethead7 this is false in almost every way. A perpetual motion machine is a machine that can start moving by itself, and continue moving by itself, infinitely. where energy comes into to play is the main reason people want to create a perpetual motion machine is because if you have something that moves infinitely, the amount of energy that can be harvested from it is also infinite. however the reason no one has been successful is because, say you used the Da Vinci overbalanced machine, it works fine in theory but the friction caused by the axel is also infinite. friction is a force that opposes movement. meaning if you have infinite movement, you also have infinite friction. By that logic the two forces would equal out to have a net force of 0. when an object has a net force of 0, it doesn't move.
Titan Powner253
YOU SAID: "this is false in almost every way. A perpetual motion machine is a machine that can start moving by itself,"
== I've never once heard anyone say that a hypothetical perpetual motion machine must start itself.
YOU SAID: "and continue moving by itself"
== Yes, the concept is that a hypothetical perpetual motion machine must be capable of powering itself, just as I said. But, of course, that's impossible.
YOU SAID: "infinitely."
== Yeah yeah yeah, but of course that can't be taken literally. Everything in science has to be testable. How in the hell can anyone actually test something infinitely? No. The idea is that if it produces more energy than it consumes (impossible), it could power itself for as long as it exists (doesn't deteriorate).
YOU SAID: "where energy comes into to play is the main reason people want to create a perpetual motion machine is because if you have something that moves infinitely, the amount of energy that can be harvested from it is also infinite."
== Oh, good grief. That's not what it means. If you extract energy from something that's moving, it SLOWS DOWN!!! Sheeesssshhh.
YOU SAID: "however the reason no one has been successful is because"
== of the 1st law of thermodynamics.
YOU SAID: "say you used the Da Vinci overbalanced machine, it works fine in theory but the friction caused by the axel is also infinite."
== Oh, good grief, why are you pretending to understand concepts you don't understand?? No. No. No. No. No. The overbalanced wheel doesn't work in any theory. Even if you had hypothetical zero-friction bearings, and placed the thing in a hypothetical perfect vacuum, sorry, it still can't work. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. See, if you examine the moments of any/every component of an overbalanced wheel, and you create a vector diagram of all of the forces in play, you'll find that all forces cancel out to ZERO. ZERO net force = ZERO ability to make itself turn. An overbalanced wheel is no different than taking a hypothetical bicycle with hypothetical zero-friction bearings, and turning it upside down, and then expecting the front wheel to spin all by itself. (It's not going to spin unless you spin it with an outside energy source.) Overbalanced wheels may look (to the uneducated) like there's some sort of net force that results from one side being heavier than the other. But, that effect is canceled out by the fact that the center of mass on the heavier side of the wheel is closer to the center, thus it has more weights on one side, but less torque per weight. Net result = ZERO force. There is no possible design of any overbalanced wheel that will ever even work "in theory" - even if you could eliminate all sources of friction.
YOU SAID: "friction is a force that opposes movement."
== Sigh. No. The opposing torque of the other side of the wheel opposes the movement. Again, having more weight on one side doesn't mean having more torque. In any/all overbalanced wheels, the net torque is always zero, every single time, and no design will ever change that. You obviously have zero understanding of physics.
YOU SAID: "meaning if you have infinite movement, you also have infinite friction."
== Sigh. First of all, that's not what it means. But, it's irrelevant anyway, because your entire premise is dead wrong.
YOU SAID: "By that logic the two forces would equal out to have a net force of 0. when an object has a net force of 0, it doesn't move."
== Yes, but you were wrong about what the opposing force was in overbalanced wheels. It's not the friction that opposes the movement, it's the torque from the other side of the wheel that opposes the movement (cancels it out). Yeah, friction can also oppose movement, sure. But, in overbalanced wheels, friction is irrelevant, since the damned thing will never result in any actual net force/torque to make the thing turn in the first place. And, giving it a start with an outside energy source isn't going to help either. Despite the moving contraptions on various overbalanced wheels, the actual net torque is still zero (even if frictionless), and if it's no different than spinning a bike wheel. Yeah, people look at the moving parts and think maybe they're helping the movement of the wheel somehow. But, in fact, no, it doesn't work that way. Overbalanced wheels do NOT work "in theory" like you're claiming. Friction never even gets a chance to play a role, since the net torque in an overbalanced wheel is always zero anyway (even before you even calculate the factor of friction). But, hey, you go right ahead and keep on trying to teach physics when you don't know a damned thing about physics in the first place. I'm sure you're proud of yourself for pretending to know things you don't know.
rockethead7 That is the most amount of effort I have ever seen being put into a TH-cam comment.
4:18 you can see the wheel move before it is even pushed, motor driven
0:47 u could see clear water alrdy flowing bfr green colour... the flask wouldn't just separate the colors,now would they!? XD XD XD #FAKE
@@kdb_7223 but the water running is green I understand there's clear water but the method is working right?
@@6Sisu9 don't forget to notice the delay between pouring in the green liquid to how long it takes before it's visible in the below tube. It should be instantaneous but there's a lag. Therefore, the liquid is flowing to the left, to a hidden pump, then back to the right and 'then' into the below tube - tube bends and pump are hidden behind the wooden framework.
@@kalindonchesca2373 very true.
@@6Sisu9 You must be really bored with that infinity gauntlet that you end up watching videos of how to create perpetual motion on TH-cam.
I love reading the comments from people asking why these don't produce energy. They don't need to. What people forget is that these machines didn't just start running on their own, energy was added to the machine in the form of someone starting the reaction (turning a wheel for the first time, dropping a marble in, pouring water in, etc..). These things aren't creating energy, they're taking that initial energy to conserve it indefinitely in the form of kinetic energy, energy of movement. It's like taking 0 (energy), adding 1 to it (movement), then spending 1 energy to make movement that will give you 1 energy that you will need to spend to make the movement. If you take away 1 energy to power something, you'll need human intervention to add 1 to it, you've added an additional step to a hand crank. These are fascinating machines, none of which confuse physics, but are not by any means going to produce more power than the power used to start it up.
***** Oh, good grief. So, just taking the first "machine" (toy) as an example... you believe that pouring water into a flask will make water run around in circles?? It's not the electric pump in the base that makes the water run around in circles, but you say it's the "initial energy" from pouring it that makes it run around in circles??
Please, when you don't know anything about physics, spare the rest of the world your broken opinions.
rockethead7 OK so say you build one big enough to charge an entire city. Being that this one in the video couldn't power an LED light, how do you propose filling it with water? You have to spend energy to lift the water up into the air, then you have to spend energy to let the water spill down into the device. The water's initial movement will create energy, which will then be converted to kinetic energy via movement, which powers the device to work, by taking that water's movement and pushing it through the tube (which is how movement works in physics F=ma). OK So now you've spent tons and tons of energy to pour water in to the device, but it has to be less and less water to the spout otherwise wouldn't cycle, so you have now made a huge spout of water that pours out like a small waterfall, congratulations, you've still not get enough force to turn a turbine. Now if you keep scaling the size, there is a point where the water going up would have to be throttled more and more otherwise the immense weight would not be able to be lifted due to gravity's limitation on how hard it pulls down on the main supply. The reason this thing works is because it's so small. If you don't understand that then you shouldn't be proclaiming physics understanding at all.
*****
You take stupidity to new heights. These are all motorized novelty toys (except the rolling cone, which is just an optical illusion). And, Boyle's flask doesn't work at ANY scale. P=pgh. Bernoulli proved this centuries ago. I have no idea what you're rambling about. There's a hidden electric pump in the base. If you think you can make Boyle's flask work as shown in the video (minus the electric pump), then go do it, and win a Nobel Prize. Sheeessssshhhhh. What a fool you are.
*****
YOU SAID: "I love reading the comments from people asking why these don't produce energy. They don't need to."
-- Then you should keep reading the, because, yes, they WOULD need to keep producing energy in order to keep operating. There are many factors for why this is true, but the biggest one is friction. Friction is energy lost. Therefore, to overcome friction and make these things work, you'd need to continuously supply energy. (The ones in this video get that energy in the form of electricity, from the nearby socket that powers the hidden electric motors/pumps.)
YOU SAID: "What people forget is that these machines didn't just start running on their own, energy was added to the machine in the form of someone starting the reaction (turning a wheel for the first time, dropping a marble in, pouring water in, etc..)."
-- Pfftttt. None of those "energy sources" (your viewpoint) are correct. The energy source is the nearby power socket.
YOU SAID: "These things aren't creating energy, they're taking that initial energy to conserve it indefinitely in the form of kinetic energy, energy of movement."
-- Oh, just stop pretending to understand things you clearly don't understand.
YOU SAID: "It's like taking 0 (energy), adding 1 to it (movement), then spending 1 energy to make movement that will give you 1 energy that you will need to spend to make the movement. If you take away 1 energy to power something, you'll need human intervention to add 1 to it, you've added an additional step to a hand crank."
-- No, it's like plugging a toy into a power socket. Nothing you say is correct.
YOU SAID: "These are fascinating machines"
-- Fascinating when? Centuries ago when they failed? Or fascinating in the billions of attempts since then, when they kept failing? Personally, I'm most fascinated by the Da Vinci overbalanced wheels, which he made to demonstrate to people that they do NOT work. Yet, here we are, centuries later, and STILL there are people who haven't learned a damned thing from the lessons from centuries ago (i.e. you).
YOU SAID: "none of which confuse physics"
-- "Confuse" physics??? What does that mean? Anyway, they're motorized toys, so of course they don't "confuse" physics. If they actually worked without the motors, of course, then they'd defy several laws of physics.
YOU SAID: "but are not by any means going to produce more power than the power used to start it up."
-- Well, there's one thing you said that's correct... half way correct anyway.
YOU SAID: "OK so say you build one big enough to charge an entire city. Being that this one in the video couldn't power an LED light, how do you propose filling it with water?"
-- I don't propose any such thing. Boyle's flask doesn't work, you nutbag.
YOU SAID: "You have to spend energy to lift the water up into the air, then you have to spend energy to let the water spill down into the device."
-- Well, you don't really spend any energy to let things fall, but whatever, I'm talking to a brick wall, you'll never understand anyway.
YOU SAID: "The water's initial movement will create energy, which will then be converted to kinetic energy via movement, which powers the device to work"
-- Bernoulli's laws of fluid dynamics, you nitwit. P=pgh. Communicating vessels. Go look those things up. This is exactly why "water seeks its own level." The water will only rise up the small tube to the level of the fluid in the flask. And, you keep talking about the act of pouring being the energy source. Well, you're wrong. It's being poured from a height of 1/2 way between the flask and the top of the tube, therefore there isn't any physical way that the fluid can even rise up past the level it was poured from, and can't make it all the way up to the top of the tube. Pesky laws of thermodynamics, you know. If you think you can pour something from a height of 8 inches, and route it through a tube, and you think it'll rise to a level of 16 inches, you're nuts. That's a clear violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics, and would also violate Bernoulli's laws. MABYE, just MAYBE, you can get some fluid to spring up for a fraction of a second to the height you poured it from (which, in the video is still below the top of the tube), but you can't get it to rise higher than that. And, very very very very quickly afterward, it'll stabilize and level out to the same level as the source flask. NEVER will it go all the way up the tube and create the flow you see in the video. That's why he installed the hidden pump. Because it can't work without it.
YOU SAID: "by taking that water's movement and pushing it through the tube (which is how movement works in physics F=ma)."
-- Bravo, you quoted a formula in physics. Too bad that it's the wrong one, and irrelevant.
YOU SAID: "OK So now you've spent tons and tons of energy to pour water in to the device, but it has to be less and less water to the spout otherwise wouldn't cycle, so you have now made a huge spout of water that pours out like a small waterfall, congratulations, you've still not get enough force to turn a turbine."
-- Oh, so now the guy who thinks these motorized novelty toys are REAL is going to teach me physics. Dandy. I guess I should forget those 9-10 years I spent at my university, all of those proven formulas, all of that lab time, etc., and believe YOU, right? Because, yeah, you're spouting nonsense that flies right in the face of everything known about physics, and you fall for hoax videos hook line and sinker... but, yeah, YOU are the one who should sit here and teach physics to the world, huh?? Pffttttt. What a clown.
YOU SAID: "Now if you keep scaling the size, there is a point where the water going up would have to be throttled more and more otherwise the immense weight would not be able to be lifted due to gravity's limitation on how hard it pulls down on the main supply."
-- You don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
YOU SAID: "The reason this thing works is because it's so small."
-- No, the reason it works is because there's a hidden electric pump in the base.
YOU SAID: "If you don't understand that then you shouldn't be proclaiming physics understanding at all."
-- Jeeesssuuuzzz ffffrrrreeeaaakkkinnn goooddddammnnnedd immagiinaaarrryy chhhrriiissstttt, what a hypocrite!!!! Holy mother of a thousand gods, are you insane??? You're commenting on a video of motorized novelty toys, and you think they're real, and you're telling OTHERS they shouldn't proclaim knowledge of physics??? You're proclaiming that Boyle's flask actually WORKS (without the hidden motor), and you're telling OTHERS they shouldn't proclaim knowledge of physics??? Even Boyle himself admitted he was wrong about the flask. Sheeessssssshhhhh. Look, I don't know how old you are. I certainly hope that you're just one of those know-everything idiot teenagers who is 3 weeks into a physics class, and therefore you stupidly believe you know enough physics to overturn the last 400 years of knowledge we gain. This sort of idiocy is common amongst teens, and the good news is that you might grow out of your idiocy. But, if you're an adult, then you're one of the most ridiculous and idiotic hypocrites out there, and you're never going to grow out of it.
rockethead7 Oh it's adorable when a troll spends hours typing crap I'm not going to read. I read about three responses and clearly you don't know anything about physics. Go buy one of those executive ball clackers and put it on your desk, pull one ball up and watch it go for a few hours. Then take a picture of where it takes batteries for me.
“In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!!!”
YES! I was hoping to see this quote.
These are machines that conserve the energy added to them from a starting motion such as pouring water in the container or giving a wheel a turn in the first place. The energy remains within the system so well that it cycles through with seemingly infinite energy. The reason why the systems are hypothetical is because they will eventually lose the energy in the system after enough time has passed due to friction. So unless you make a frictionless machine you can't have a truly perpetual machine. Even then no energy is being made and if you tried to remove energy from the system you could not receive any more energy than you applied to the machine in the first place.
And that's what ball bearings are for. With friction reduced, motion is prolonged. Have you ever noticed how a wheel on an overturned shopping cart won't spin as long as a fidget spinner? That's because the fidget spinner has ball bearings and can spin for a long time, and most people just get fed up and stop them spinning, whereas the shopping cart wheel doesn't have ball bearings and therefore can only spin for so long.
new video idea-these machines after one hour
One hour? Most of these stop after like 2 seconds, if there weren't any motors.
正直、永久機関が作れるかもって思いながら、あーだこーだ考えて色々作ってた時が1番楽しかった説。
最初に、絶対に出来ないって分かっちゃた時の残念感半端なかっただろうな...
それでも人間がコレだけ技術が発達してもなお永久機関を研究し続けるのは
きっとそれそのものがロマンだからなんやろなぁ……
出来ないと証明されても[出来るかも？]って覆そうとする人達も少なからずいるってわけやんね
Ur right buddy, I've perfectly understood
@レンコンゲームズ 出来るかもよ
@レンコンゲームズ じゃあそれをまた違うエネルギーに変換させて最終的に元に戻したら？
@レンコンゲームズ 成り立つかもしれないよ
What's the soundtrack and where can I get it?
"LISA! IN THIS HOUSE WE OBEY THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS!" - Homer Simpson
Love how all these wheels aren't moving until they're 'started' ;)
??? I hope you know that in the description it is stated these are demonstration only
DO NOT LET STONERS SEE THIS ****
Too late, just finished watching
same
damn bro
I didn't smoke tonight but I guess i've been called out.
Too late.
Wow...
100% efficiency, 0 gravity, 0 friction, power factor 1, 100% ideal design. The key to perpetual motion.
That cone rolling 'up' hill kills me. The passengers in a train designed around this concept would have to go UP steps to get out of the train at exactly the increase in elevation the gradual slope presents. The weight moves down at a higher rate than it goes up the slope. The axis of rotation (the pointy ends of the weight) goes down, not up.
+hotpockets222 You are the best kind of person.
+jaguilar7643 yeah man
+jaguilar7643 yeah man
+jaguilar7643 yeah man
To make that possible to have infinite motion out of that, furthermore, you should use an infinitelly large cone, put that cone on infinitelly long rails that part further and further from each other, to infinity.
Since there's no such a thing as "infinite" something, you can't make a train out of that concpet, anyway.
actually everyone with basic physics knowledge knows that perpetual motion machines are fake. they go against law of conservation of energy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. search it on google and you will know why. it is too complicate to explain here since i am lazy to type so many words =D.
but the systems show in video is not isolated, but the force of gravity acts on it
according to the definition of perpetual motion machines, the machines must be able to do work without source of energy supply.
also the work done by gravity or anything else will eventually lose as heat and this is irreversible. therefore sooner or later the machines will stop.
RisingWings yes i agree with you, that is not a perpetual motion machine, because of this the machine showing in the video works well... but even the machine loses energy as heat, the force of gravity always be there to serve more energy to system, so i dont know if this really will come to stop one day
Davi Rodrigues
A) Gravity is not an energy source.
B) The toys in this video are powered by hidden electric motors (except the rolling cone, which is just an optical illusion rolling downhill).
come on dude, do you forget the gravitational potential energy?????? E=-GMm/r^2
Awesome music, anyone know what it is?
transtremm description
I like the music too, what is it, veproject1 ? PLS
description
veproject1
I can't see it in the description. What is it?
*Energy Technology*
*Some of the most powerful content anywhere*
*digitalproduct.hol.es/?gocbp=4472*
*****
I stand to be corrected but all the gravity wheels in this video are powered by motors. Please take a video from all angles for me.
I had not seen other ppls comment before posting comment.
I'm impressed with the craftsmanship and how well you hid the motors.
good magic trick.
these are really working thins they just aren't 'infinite' they do go for a long time though
+Matthis Tauritz Bakker == Sorry Matthis, you're wrong. These are motorized novelty toys. They'll come to a pretty quick stop when you unplug them from the electric socket.
rockethead7 oh....... But how do you know?
Matthis Tauritz Bakker I understand the physics. But, if that's not good enough for you, then you can go to veproject1's website and blog, where he explains that these are motorized examples of failed "inventions" from centuries ago. Or, you can go to his "behind the scenes" channel and see the hidden motors. Or, you can just pay close attention to this one, and notice the long delay as the clear fluid is spurting through the hidden tubing as the hidden pump is priming, before the green fluid slowly follows behind.
rockethead7 OK well...... I knew perpetual motion machines were impossible but I didn't know that they lose momentum that fast. Can you explain why the fluid wouldn't work cause I couldn't think of something
lol, implying you did not have an electronic motor to spin your devices.....
also: "please donate".....
lol. you are the hero the internet deserves.
All of these are just very good at conserving energy, and the train one is just rolling downhill!
These are fake
@@qwertyuiopasdf160 Yes, that’s why I said conserving energy, not perpetual motion
@@AlexPBenton yes but why do people think tat these work
@@qwertyuiopasdf160 Because they look like they work
@@AlexPBenton but they dont
What music did you used?
all of the above working models are operating on external source of energy..a simple force analysis of above machine will show that they will come in a equlibirium or a balanced condition after a small angular displacement..and in first case of boyles model there is a hidden pump under the base and a hidden tube at the vary junction of reservoir and tube ....pump outlet tube is connected to the inlet of the pipe coming out of reservoir
good observation. the (hypothetical) in the title already told everyone that though.
*DEMONSTRATION ONLY, READ DESCRIPTION*
@@yeetusdeletus8565 why are you getting offended
@@atulgarg5801 wut, I'm just copy pasting this around to any comment I glance at that looks like it's saying *FAKE!* because this is a demonstration only
@@yeetusdeletus8565 weird way of finding people to have conversation with them
4:18 Pay close attention. Isn't it cool how the motor that actually turns the wheel kicks on and drags his finger a little bit before he pretends to push start it?
Good catch. Totally faked it. Though golden video for certain audience.
scam lol
*DEMONSTRATION ONLY, READ DESCRIPTION*
Very cool, though as many people have mentioned, these are really just mechanisms for reducing the friction of the system. Eventually, they will stop spinning.
*DEMONSTRATION ONLY, READ DESCRIPTION*
1:02 i thought it wasn’t supposed to work, how is this happening? did they cut before it stopped?
Electric water pump.
I would like to see you make a perpetual cone train track (longer experiment).
it's here
th-cam.com/video/fQQ8_PDAdfI/w-d-xo.html
It's fake. Look how high the two edges of the cone are on top of the wood. He obviously has a downhill piece so the cones can roll down, hence why it sinks down into the wood.
+Voracious Weasel do you not realise as the two wood tracks separate the further it travels. as the split increase the coned wheel can "climb" it. those pieces are not parallel. re watch that segment please.
The cones center of mass is getting lower as it rolls because the cones inclination is greater than the inclination of the rails. In essence the center of mass is rolling downhill
It's just a ramp in disguise.
This is a first that goes "hypothetical" :)
Love the honesty. Liked!
Aren't these breaking the laws of physics? Ya know, that whole energy thing?
lol
+Philippe Jacquot (Hacyran) There are no motors or pumps. These will just stop spinning after a while 'cus of friction and stuff.
+ThatZommy No, this is Newtons first law
+ThatZommy The laws of physics are loose laws (and prove it by use numbers)
Numbers are not necessarily mean the real value of things
Energy can be produced using (the supporting systems)
+TheJzoli They're definitely using motors and pumps.
Thanks to the good humans behind this channel!
These kind of videos should be consciously searched by all and everyone.
More ‘Human Beings’ and less ‘Human Doings’ in 2021 I hope...
how long do they last unpowered?
+Dan Dart While they do use energy more efficiently than many other machines, they still only last a few seconds, depending the the entry energy (e.g. The energy put into the system in the beginning.)
+FieryWingedAngel kewl, I have heard of some that last hours
Dan Dart I wouldn't believe that.
I think some more complicated like some sand one has, but not longer.
+Dan Dart They are all motorized, you can even see it at 4:17
Explain me why the marble one is not true perpetual motion.
SimmiSwe The weak of mind depend on hidden electricity-dependent pumps to do Gravity's Work provided to us for Free. Tell ya what guy. List all the properties of water, and how water behaves, then try combining some together using a 2nd flask to make a constant fluid exchange happen => Criss-Cross.
That's what the stronger methodical mind would do.
It's like saying that a rock that's perfectly balanced is a perpetual motion machine . You can't actually generate anything from it because it has a net energy of 0, it merely maintains that which was initially put into it.
Gamerinstitute Nope, rocket is right and you are wrong.
carultch
YOU SAID: "The self-flowing flask is often faked, by using a carbonated liquid. It will run out as soon as the carbonation becomes undissolved."
-- Don't be ridiculous. Where'd you get the idea that carbonated water will run around in circles on its own? You decided not to fall for one hoax video, and decided to fall for a different one instead?? Go ahead, carbonate the living daylights out of any liquid you want. If you can make it run around in circles for even 2 seconds as shown in the video (minus the hidden pump), then you'll have a Nobel Prize awaiting you for overturning several laws of physics.
rockethead7 tried and failed with carbonated liquids.
Nice visual, would like to have one or two for decoration
Speaking of free energy, the sun is bright outside
なんだ、全部みせかけてるだけで、仕掛けが内部にあるわけね。そりゃそうだよなー 一瞬夢を見てしまい興奮してしまった・・・
永久機関を求め続けるその働きが永久機関なんやで！（）
@@おでんの卵-e9z この先人類が滅亡したとしたら永久ではなくなるよ。
雑魚が
@@あに-u6p なるほど、確かにそうですね。でもそれって、仮に永久機関が出来ても壊れたら永久機関じゃないと言っているのと同じなのでは？
@@あに-u6p そもそも永遠なんてないからな、宇宙にも星にもいつかは死ぬからな。
"Oh, ye seekers after perpetual motion, how many vain chimeras have you pursued? Go and take your place with the alchemists."
-Leonardo daVinci
Then y u are not making free ectricity
BECAUSE THEY DONT WANT!!!!!!!!
Majid Ibrahim Abstract
This is about workable Free Energy Device. There are three different Free Energy Devices but the fundamental workings of the devices are the same. High Pressure at the bottom of water tank (height 75 cm, radius 25 cm ) because of gravity so we make a small hole (5mm) in the water tank then we attach average latex sheet balloon to It outside. By using the high pressure of water at the bottom to expand/ stretch the latex balloon fully so we have Elastic Potential Energy then stop the flow of water from the water tank to the balloon by using a system as exactly as the floating ball closed the incoming water in the toilet flushing system of our home. Then nothing can get into the balloon because string is being used to knot the opening of the balloon but still the balloon is connected to the water tank. we release the pressure in the balloon by making small hole on top of it without breaking the balloon (so small nozzle is being used) then pushed up water will go above the water level of the water tank as water- jet through the air then the pushed up water will end up in the water tank only. We have gravitational potential Energy at the top of the pushed up water trajectory to generate electricity by water turbine generators. Repeat the process to get Free Energy. The manual hands actions should be automated and repeated then perpetual motion. The main use of this Device is for Electricity But Ship, Space Ship etc.. We can not separate anything from everything. So All are one.
Why isnt this being used to produce electricity?
porque ela apenas tem movimento perpétuo quando não há resistência... a do ar é desprezível. qualquer maquina que produza eletricidade com quantidade significativa vai gerar resistência e parar o movimento perpétuo. é isso, traduza se quiser ler.
BurningPsych0 foi exatamente o que eu pensei, mas será possível realizar esse experimento em grande escala?
Few of those even have secret motor inside... (Actually, most of them, probably all have secret motors.)
All of these are possible, but none of these are perpetuum mobiles. In a vakuum or in zero Gravity they wouldn't work. Gravity is the "energy" that is being fed into these machines. But they will probably work "forever".
Quintar Farenor
Don't be ridiculous.
YOU SAID: "All of these are possible"
-- No, none of them are possible.
YOU SAID: "Gravity is the "energy" that is being fed into these machines."
-- Gravity isn't energy. You are confusing force for energy. Gravity cannot "feed" these machines or any others like them.
-- The only thing feeding these toys energy is the local electric outlet that feeds the hidden electric motors.
YOU SAID: "But they will probably work forever"
-- They'll stop working the second that you unplug them from the power socket.
I was always under the impression, that true perpetual motion was impossible. This video now has me questioning my assumptions. Thanks for sharing this with us :-) 👍
These all use motors to give the illusion of being perpetual motion. None of these are actually possible and have all been demonstrated to not actually work.
@@BallMuncher555 where? Laughs in Tesla
@@koripeter1641 people have made these contraptions and shown that they do not actually allow for perpetual motion. The ones shown in this video use electric motors. It’s obvious watching how they move. And no Tesla did not create any perpetual motion machines.