Perpetual energy machine idea. Would it work?

I know what you mean. But you also have to look at it from a different perspective. We all know that the law of conservation of energy basically means that all energy within an enclosed system never really escapes it just changes from one form into another. And the second law of thermodynamics being entropy basically means that chaos reigns when objects are in motion. Motion creates friction friction creates heat, heat creates degradation to the point of eventual destruction. Therefore when it comes to a system like the one proposed it would only work under the given parameters: The exchange of energy would have to be perfect. Hence you would need a 100% efficient solar cell, a 100% efficient Light, connected by superconductive wiring(that operates at room temp) and to top it off all this would have to be placed in an enclosed system such as a 100% reflective box. Even this would only give an equal exchange at best. The moment you tap into this system, blamo...shutdown. Only in theory could this be perpetual...or could it be in reality? Let's just say what if. What if we looked to the actual output of a solar cell as the bar by which we judged instead of the input? What If a solar cell under 7,000 lumen put out 400 VOLTS AND 250 MILLIAMPERES. Then in knowing the output of the cell all that has to be done is to find a light source that creates 7000 lumen for less energy than the cell puts out under that given source of light(400 volts and 250 miiliamperes) What if you used a 4 watt LED LED made by Everlight LED that runs from 200 volts and 20 milliamps which creates 350 lumen. What if you placed two of these in series so that you have to run 400 volts and 20 milliamperes(8w) to get a total of 700 lumen. What if you placed ten sets of these; one beneath the other. What if you placed these ten sets of 2 LED's in parallel creating a grid of LED's that requires 400 VOLTS AND 200 MILLIAMPERS to create 7,000 lumen. You would have 50 Milliamperes left over. Perpetual energy is not practical when trying to acheive through ouput but when you alter the input it seems to be mathematically feasible.

that is very col. But wouldn't it be true that energy would escape through heat that escapes from the LEDs?

Oh absolutely. You will have loss in so many areas that it just isn't funny. However, If properly accounted for all loss to include degradation of the solar cell, Lumen loss from heat as well as life span, Heat loss through absorption of the mirror, Ohm's law/ resistance in wiring, etc. can all be accounted for. The loss will be continual but gradual. Like sand sifting through an hourglass or a boat with a pinhole in it. You don't throw away the boat with a pinhole even if you can't find the hole to plug it; you accept it and gladly keep fishing. What I'm saying is; there is no perfect system; all systems have loss but if the the loss can be accounted for then it can be controlled to a degree. So Imagine an hour glass that leaks so slowly that it would take several lifetimes for it to finish. The example above is one that would not last that long but it is self-sustaining for a while, maybe 6 months to a year before degradation causes that extra 50 milliamperes to drop below the 100% mark. This of course would spiral into shutdown in a nanosecond. However as long as you can keep the extra energy a great deal above 100% then the lifespan would be prolonged. So imagine doubling the amount of LED's then the total above 100% goes from 50milliamperes to 100milliamperes. It will still leak but it will take two years for it to sink not one year. And to be 100% honest the only reason that entropy is controllable at this level is because there are no moving parts. Therefore heat can be accounted for and compensated for. If you placed a match under ten thousand gallons of water, and let us say the match burned eternally, would you ever get the water to boil? No. The amount of heat generated will never rise above the water's ability to disperse it / release it.

Wow I never expected that this kind of system could last for so long. Even though it is not perpetual, I think it is still rather remarkable.

No, it's not really perpetual in the sense that it will run forever but it will power itself. I have even figured out how to create so much extra that you can run another object. I'm in the process of building it with similar parts to the one I showed above. I have shown the concept to a few physicist which are still arguing about it. The only way to truely show them is to build it. Wished I had help yet when one person says the word perpetual its like breaking wind in church. Physicist immediately start to cry, "Stone him." Yet the math is undeniable and the suggested LED and actual numbers are real; not made up. But the really cool thing is that when the LED's burn out you can simply replace them so it's renewable.

That's awesome! You should make an instructable for it if you get it to work.

It took Edison over a thousand tries to perfect the light bulb. I have been working on this concept for 4 years now. I have failed countless times but yet in each failure I have gotten a step closer to making it work. Edison was once asked by a journalist, "how did it feel to fail 1000 times before getting it right?" He replied, "I did not fail a thousand times. The incandescent light bulb was just an invention with a thousand steps." I feel as if I have taken a thousand and one steps and I'm weary. But I have never had the actual math proven until now. So I am not just hopeful in the outcome but I am sure of the outcome. However, I am too tired to celebrate even if it is successful. I have a physicist coming from Utah in late December or early January to help me complete it and test it. If it does work he is going to display it at a symposium and I'm sure the details will be given then.

but isn't there a law which says when a charged particle is accelerating, it emits EM waves? and EM waves r source of energy.

magnets

what would be the point in the end like i said above you might as well carry an empty box

if you can see the light from the LED, you're losing energy. You lose energy and the cycle is broken. The minimum input is higher than the maximum output. You would have to fully understand the input value in joules to understand. Look, a little bit of electricity is hotter than the sun. All that heat energy and you only get two volts. And to collect the heat, you would need the energy level to drop. Not going to work.

I see what you mean, and even if the light did not escape then some must be lost as heat in the PN junction of the LED, the electrical conductors and some would be lost by striking the solar cells themselves. While more efficient than an incandescent bulb you could never achieve 100% efficiency. Have fun, be well T

There would never be an absence of gravity, because the mass of any part of the system would create its own gravity. It is inevitable :) It simply costs too much (energy-wise) to achieve any sort of work, and no amount of work will ever output more energy than was put into it in the first place.. It's the glue which holds the universe together; eventually the universe will cool down and slow to a crawl because of the laws of thermodynamics.

or in some theories when it slows down enough, everything will be affected by the gravity and be pulled back into a single point, then we get another big bang. this will happen over and over so its sorta like a bouncy ball that bounces up to 100% of the energy given to it. the only reason the universe can do this though is that everything will pulled into it and not even energy will escape. As for why it blows up... idk I'm not a theoretical physicist (but I play one on TV -Jk) but my guess would be with all the energy/heat partials will be bouncing around so much in so small of an area one splits creates a tiny boom with a chain reaction, you get the biggest atom bomb like explosion to ever exist. - that is the only way of perpetual motion i can see to work

And then blow apart from dark matter. :)

But what if you had a fan that blew air toward a wind-generator which would then power the fan and so on....?

The generator would have to take more energy from the fan then it generates to power the fan, which is impossible.

Not all the air would hit the fan, not all the electricity would be used to move the fan (think friction, motor warming up etc. etc.), some energy would be lost along the wire through friction, the generator wouldn't be 100% efficient, and a host of other things.

yes this is true....but thermodynamics is newtonian (classical) physics...the idea in this post is fundamentally flawed but the idea of energy production from "thin air" is not entirely impossible...yes the energy has to come from somewhere but there is nothing that says were it has to come from....take this for example...... ....suppose a machine designed to use the motion of a magnetic ball in a perfectly frictionless environment and using that to drive a generator....although the energy is not coming from nowhere it certainly isn't coming from the kinetic energy of the ball....simply put it is harnessing energy and would continue until....well thats the thing in the perfect theoretical world we dont know when it would stop but in reality there is no such thing as a "frictionless environment" or perfect darkness for that matter.... ....but until we totally understand everything we cannot be certain of the possibility of ANY type of free energy, perpetual motion or zp machine!

although the energy is not coming from nowhere it certainly isn't coming from the kinetic energy of the ball

Erm... yes it is. The induction of an electric field in the generator causes an opposing magnetic field which slows down the ball, trading kinetic energy for electrical.

Magnetic generators have a wildly differing resistance depending on the load on them. This is how regenerative braking on electric cars works- by connecting a generator to the wheels and making it charge the batteries, it slows the car down much like normal brakes do. If the generator isn't under load it won't have any magnetic drag but just the very small amount of friction in the bearings etc.). Some bike dynamos do this as well- you can actually feel the increase in drag when you turn the lights on.

until we totally understand everything we cannot be certain of the possibility of ANY type of free energy, perpetual motion or zp machine!

No, but we can be sure that if such a thing exists it won't operate on purely macroscopic newtonian physical principles, because the known laws of "normal" physics preclude such a thing. There might be some possible perpetual motion machine using exotic quantum stuff like Hawking radiation and so on, but anything involving just magnets, electrolysis of water, overbalancing wheels etc. can be written off- we know it won't work.

You're right on!

Unless I miss my guess, if you drove the generator with the energy from the magnetic ball, the ball would quickly run out of energy to drive the generator, unless the energy moving the ball was coming from somewhere else. The other thing is: how would you harness the energy from the ball in the frictionless environment, without introducing friction? I don't think you could have a frictionless environment with ANY transfer of energy to an output... tell me where I'm off? Nice idea, though. It's similar to something I had daydreams of back in the late 80's. Keep thinking!

What he meant, is that for some reason there is NO friction, for whatever reason. And you're right, the ball would lose energy bouncing off the sides of the container (energy released as sound, heat, and a tiny flash of light). And the device drawing energy from the ball would reduce its kinetic energy.

How would it harness the energy from the ball? A Faraday Generator (or whatever they're called >_>). The idea is some of the energy would be lost over time, its called Entropy. Electrons moving through the wire would lose heat (except in your frictionless world). And how would the magnet stay moving? That requires energy.

However, you can get some close-to-perpetual motion machines. There's a clock that runs on barometric pressure changes, so not TECHNICALLY a perpetual motion machine, but it doesn't need any winding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox%27s_timepiece