Author Options:

Challenge build my perpetual motion device this is the only one that makes sense PLEASE HELP Answered

Guys please help me out i havent built this device yet but it has to work trust me read my instructable and it should make perfect sense www.instructables.com/id/How-to-build-a-perpetual-motion-device-Gotthard-G/ thanks to all who contribute if you have any questions or theory of why it wont work shoot me an email    mgotthard1@yahoo.com



6 years ago

Sadly perpetual motion is impossible ( because of friction)


8 years ago

i don't want to say 'something like this is possible' but if all the inventors trusted in people who said 'that'S impossible' we would still be carving stones for knifes and reffering to it as 'high-tech' so don't tell the people 'thats impossible' they shall find out thru trying or proove us all wrong

there's a difference between scientists making a discovery that showed that something was possible, and scientists breaking the laws of physics. one can be done, the other cannot.

this isn't a matter of "dude that's stupid and you can't do it" it's a matter of "unless you find a way to travel to a parallel universe that has a different set of physical laws governing it, this won't work"

 Could Be wrong but are the laws of physics not just a thereon?
Didn't Nikola Tesla break several "Laws"  Isn't science buy definition a quest to prove wrong what others believe is right?  Progress Can't be made if all you ever do is fight to prove what you know is the only way. 

I don't think this does or doesn't work.

And every time a "Perpetual Motion" Machine is made its simply explained as using an alternate energy input.

Some guy in New Zealand made a motor that ran without energy input it was said the energy he used was the earths polarization.

Hertz "Discovered" Hertz and was renowned Tesla didn't understand so tried to reproduce Hertz's output and failed but discovered the real Hertz. Before that Hertz was Hertz and that was that no ifs buts or maybes.

Please also note that since were surrounded by potential energy what most people consider a Perpetual Motion machine is possible without breaking precious "Laws of (Insert Science topic here)" Gravity, Solar Energy, Polarization. either (If your a Tesla subscriber which i am)

"Some guy in New Zealand made a motor that ran without energy input..."

Have you noticed that everybody who believes perpetual motion is possible knows that somebody has done it, but is never exactly clear about who it was, and how?

Hertz didn't discover Hertz, he demonstrated radio waves, and a unit of measurement was named after him in recognition.  Tesla demonstrated radio communications the year Hertz died.

It doesn't matter how much energy you are surrounded with - you cannot use it if there is no energy gradient.

The simple fact is that there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine.

 Actually It was late at night and sifting through my bookmarks was tedious.  I realised some one would want precise information.


I can't find the pertaining information i was speaking about Hertz.  So i cant clarify.  I just remember that the specific discovery was incorrect and tesla while attempting to observe the observations discovered what hertz believed he had discovered under different circumstances.  Hertz had obviously discovered something just not what he thought he had.

I still can't see any reason why a perpetual motion machine is impossible.  Only that to discover/create/invent one you would have to disprove theory and practical understanding.  

I don't see why a theory can't be proved incorrect or need correction.  I Only see that most of us are to simple to be able to break these "rules"  My Self included.

However i never condone an idea on the basis of breaking the "rules" 

 My point isn't that is has been done although i believe the above example is plausible (The link i provided)  If the law was broken it would cease to be the law.  My point is to not exclude a possibility simply because some one else says it cant be done.  

People seem to get educated into stupidity.  I don't necessarily think it can or will be done.  I just don't discount it.  Even the guidelines of a scientific law don't make it a given.  Ill type some guidelines for you.  Please note the words like


These allow room for error since you can never prove a negative hence they can never be sure something NEVER happens.  So everything is possible just sometimes improbable.

Physical Law Characterizations


My point with Tesla and hertz was the fact that everybody assumed hertz was correct in his observations and ridiculed Tesla for doubting what hertz was actually observing.

I don't think i ever stated some one had broken laws simply that they are theoretically breakable. And I asked didn't Tesla break laws of his time.

Even the guy above quoting "Some guy from New Zealand" obviously didn't read the context.  As i specified it was explained, as harnessing the earths polarization.  i even put "perpetual motion" in quotations.

I have not said they exist all Ive said is science doesn't dismiss the possibility, People like you dismiss the possibility.

At least kite man used energy gradient to dismiss the argument.

I even stipulated myself that im "to simple" to break the rules.  My mind adheres to the known.  As i keep saying my point is i don't just dismiss things because they don't comply.  My comments are inline with Arano's feelings.

"Even the guy above quoting "Some guy from New Zealand" obviously didn't read the context.  As i specified it was explained, as harnessing the earths polarization"

I did read the context.  Everybody who has fallen for the idea of free energy or perpetual motion or cars that run on water know about "some guy" who has achieved their particular Holy Grail, but can never actually present them.

"Harnessing the earth's polarisation" is nonsense.  The only "polarisation" the Earth has is its magnetic field.  Nothing can extract energy from a magnetic field - instead something must move (either the field or the device) to utilise the magnetic field to convert kinetic energy into electricity.  It's called a generator.

You must remember that scientific Laws are not the same as legislative laws.  Legislative laws can be easily broken - that's why we have police and courts.

Scientific Laws cannot be broken.  They are the very small number of absolutes that exist in science.

No loop-holes, no semantic twists, no appeal to a higher authority.

There are no science police enforcing these Laws, because there is no need - they cannot be broken.

scientific laws are only the state of knowledge and as we know from history they changed often thru the centuries... they are nothing absolute and it is possible to proof them wrong

You are confusing "laws of nature" with "theories to explain the laws of nature".

The theories may change, even be discarded, as more data is gathered, but the laws cannot.

Think of theories as maps - as our measuring techniques get better and better, the maps get more and more accurate, get closer and closer to "true" representations of the world they map.  Over the years, we get from the Mappa Mundi through Ordnance Survey to Google Maps.

that is exactly what i was going to say, though you (as always) said it better than i would have.

you're talking about the observations of physical law being able to be changed, which is true. the item that's being observed doesn't change.

why anyone would argue with kiteman is beyond me.

Really?  Could you remind me which "laws of nature" were proven wrong?  As opposed to the many theories and theoretical models which have been either dismissed or shown to be restricted cases?

.  Theories are mutable. Laws are ... well, Laws. In a nutshell, Laws don't tell you why something happens, just that it does happen. Eg, a body at rest stays at rest unless acted on by an external force (see Newton's Laws of Motion).
.  I suppose we can know nothing with 100% certainty, but Scientific Laws are as close as you get.

After Reading it i don't think it will work but still stand on the basis of not disregarding something just because we don't "Believe" its possible.

There a big difference between coming up with an idea that has sound foundations and something that is fundamentally wrong. Inventors who achieve are working from established precedents and facts.
It follows that there's a big difference between "That's impossible" (I can't understand it) and "That's impossible" (I do understand why)


Conservation of energy. This is impossible. The weight of the buckets wouldn't be enough to operate the pump to pump water back up to the other bucket, because of friction/ loss of energy, plus taking energy out of the system to generate electricity would grind the device to a halt. People really need to read a basic physics textbook before posting this stuff.

"I wouldn't be surprised if this technology had already been released but suppressed by the government"
So every physicist in the country (what country is this anyways? "Government" is so ambiguous. Where? America? Britain? South Africa?) is making a massive cover-up of a device that would end the energy crisis (if it had any chance of ever working)... just because they feel like it?

Just build one of these yourself and watch it fail spectacularly. Aka, sit there and do nothing.

Oh, come on!  The South African government doesn't suppress us, they just make a situation in which you wouldn't want to do something! :-)

No, it doesn't "have to work."  You think it works, probably because you have made simplifying assumptions that don't apply in reality, or you've made wrong assumptions because you don't understand the physics and engineering of the system.

If you don't know how to build it, then you certainly don't understand the physics or engineering involved.

People have been trying this for years and years and years, and no one ever has because you can't. That doesn't stop people who have little understanding of physics from trying of course.
Where do you think you're going to get the energy from? Don't think about the design, just think about where the energy comes from.


One word: friction.

If you're so convinced, build it yourself and prove those irritating laws of physics wrong.