Literature Survey

Pre-1800s

The "magic wheel", a wheel spinning on its axle powered by lodestones, appeared in 8th century Bavaria. The wheel was supposed to rotate perpetually; in fact, it did rotate for a long time, but friction inevitably eventually stopped it. Early designs of perpetual motion machines were done by Indian mathematician–astronomer Bhaskara II, who described a wheel (Bhāskara's wheel) that he claimed would run forever.

A drawing of a perpetual motion machine appeared in the sketchbook of Villard de Honnecourt, a 13th century French master mason and architect. The sketchbook was concerned with mechanics and architecture. Following the example of Villard, Peter of Maricourt designed a magnetic globe which, if it were mounted without friction parallel to the celestial axis, would rotate once a day. It was intended to serve as an automatic armillary sphere.

Leonardo da Vinci made a number of drawings of devices he hoped would make free energy. Leonardo da Vinci was generally against such devices, but drew and examined numerous overbalanced wheels

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

Various scholars in this period investigated the topic. Robert Boyle devised the "perpetual vase" ("perpetual goblet" or "hydrostatic paradox") which was discussed by Denis Papin in the Philosophical Transactions for 1685.Johann Bernoulli proposed a fluid energy machine. In 1686, Georg Andreas Böckler, designed a "self operating" self-powered water mill and several perpetual motion machines using balls using variants of Archimedes screws. In 1712, Johann Bessler (Orffyreus), investigated 300 different perpetual motion models and claimed he had the secret of perpetual motion. Though allegation of fraud surfaced later (from a maid in his employment), investigators at the time, such as the lawyer Willem Jacob s'Gravesande, reported no such fraud.

In the 1760s, James Cox and John Joseph Merlin developed the Cox's timepiece. Cox claimed the timepiece a true perpetual motion machine, but as the device is powered from changes in atmospheric pressure via a mercury barometer, this is not the case.

In 1775, the Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris made the statement that the Academy "will no longer accept or deal with proposals concerning perpetual motion. The reasoning was that perpetual motion is impossible to achieve and that the search for it is time consuming and very expensive. According to the members of the academy, those bright minds dedicating their time and resources to this search, could be utilized much better in other, more reasonable endeavors. Nevertheless, many individuals continued to propose and build various "perpetual" machines, in a quest of attaining their end goal of free energy. An example is Doctor Conradus Schiviers (1790). Schiviers made a belt-driven wheel in which several balls powered a water wheel bucket-chain (again raising the balls). Others tried to adapt his designs unsuccessfully a century l.

Industrial Revolution

1800s

In 1812, Charles Redheffer, in Philadelphia, claimed to have developed a "generator" that could power other machines. Upon investigation, it was deduced that the power was being routed from the other connected machine. Robert Fulton exposed Redheffer's schemes during an exposition of the device in New York City (1813). Removing some concealing wooden strips, Fulton found a cat-gut belt drive went through a wall to an attic. In the attic, a man was turning a crank to power the device.

In 1827, Sir William Congreve, 2nd Baronet devised a machine running on capillary action that would disobey the law of liquids never rising above their own level] so to produce a continuous ascent and overflow. The device had an inclined plane over pulleys. At the top and bottom, there travelled an endless band of sponge, a bed and, over this, again an endless band of heavy weights jointed together. The whole stood over the surface of still water. Congreve believed his system would operate continuously

In 1868, an Austrian, Alois Drasch, received a US patent for a machine that possessed a "thrust key-type gearing" of a rotary engine. The vehicle driver could tilt a trough depending upon need. A heavy ball rolled in a cylindrical trough downward, and, with continuous adjustment of the device's levers and power output, Drasch believed that it would be possible to power a vehicle.

In 1870, E.P. Willis of New Haven, Connecticut made money from a "proprietary" perpetual motion machine. A story of the overly complicated device with a hidden source of energy appears in Scientific American article "The Greatest Discovery Ever Yet Made." Investigation into the device eventually found a source of power that drove it

John Ernst Worrell Keely claimed the invention of an induction resonance motion motor. He explained that he used "etheric technology". In 1872, Keely announced that he had discovered a principle for power production based on the vibrations of tuning forks. Scientists investigated his machine which appeared to run on water, though Keely endeavored to avoid this. Shortly after 1872, venture capitalists accused Keely of fraud (they lost nearly five million dollars). Keely's machine, it was discovered after his death, was based on hidden air pressure tubes.

In 1881, John Gamgee developed a liquid ammonia machine which could operate at the boiling point from vaporation by radiant heat. The resultant expansion would drive a piston. The vapor does not condense to liquid to start the cycle over again, however, thus making the system inoperable. The Navy approved of the device and showed it to U.S. President James A. Garfield]

1900 to 1950

In 1900, Nikola Tesla claimed to have discovered an abstract principle on which to base a perpetual motion machine of the second kind. No prototype was produced. He wrote:

“ A departure from known methods – possibility of a "self-acting" engine or machine, inanimate, yet capable, like a living being, of deriving energy from the medium – the ideal way of obtaining motive power ”

By 1903, 600 English perpetual motion patents had been granted A design patented in the early years of the 20th century involved a cable projecting 150 miles into the sky to induce electricity (technology at the time would limit its usefulness, as it weighed 80 tons) and to be held.

In the 1910s and 1920s, Harry Perrigo of Kansas City, Missouri, a graduate of MIT, claimed development of a free energy device. Perrigo claimed the energy source was "from thin air" or from aether waves. Perrigo demonstrated the device before the Congress of the United States on December 15, 1917. Perrigo had a pending application for the "Improvement in Method and Apparatus for Accumulating and Transforming Ether Electric Energy". Investigators report that his device contained a hidden motor battery.

Modern era

1951 to 1980

During the middle of the 20th century, Viktor Schauberger claimed to have discovered some special vortex energy in water. Since his death in 1958, people are still studying his works.

In 1966, Josef Papp (sometimes referred to as Joseph Papp or Joseph Papf) supposedly developed an alternative car engine that used inert gases. He gained a few investors but when the engine was publicly demonstrated, an explosion killed one of the observers and injured two others. Mr. Papp blamed the accident on interference by physicist Richard Feynman, who later shared his observations in an article in LASER, Journal of the Southern Californian Skeptics.] Papp continued to accept money but never demonstrated another engine.

On December 20 of 1977, Emil T. Hartman received U.S. Patent 4,215,330 titled "Permanent magnet propulsion system". This device is related to the Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy (SMOT).

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

Paul Bauman, a German engineer, developed a machine referred to as the "Testatika and known as the "Swiss M-L converter" or "Thesta-Distatica". The device's operation has been recorded as far back as 1960s at a place called Methernitha (near Berne, Switzerland). The Testatika is an electromagnetic generator based on the 1898 "Pidgeon electrostatic machine" which includes an inductance circuit, a capacitance circuit, and a thermionic rectification valve. Allegedly a perpetual motion machine, the Testatika resembles in some respects a Wimshurst machine] Guido Franch reportedly had a process of transmuting water molecules into high-octane gasoline compounds (named Mota fuel) that would reduce the price of gasoline to 8 cents per gallon. This process involved a green powder (this claim may be related to the similar ones of John Andrews (1917)). He was brought to court for fraud in 1954 and acquitted, but in 1973 was

convicted. Justice William Bauer and Justice Philip Romiti both observed a demonstration in the 1954 case.

In 1958, Otis T. Carr from Oklahoma formed a company to manufacture UFO-styled spaceships and hovercraft. Carr sold stock for this commercial endeavor. He also promoted free energy machines. He claimed inspiration from Nikola Tesla, among others.

In 1962, physicist Richard Feynman discussed a Brownian ratchet that would supposedly extract meaningful work from Brownian motion, though he went on to demonstrate how such a device would fail to work in practice.

In the 1970s David Hamel produced the Hamel generator, an "antigravity" device, supposedly after an alien abduction. The device was tested on MythBusters where it failed to demonstrate any lift-generating capability.

Howard R. Johnson's US Patent 4151431

2000s

Motionless electromagnetic generator circuit as explained in US Patent 6362718

The motionless electromagnetic generator (MEG), granted a U.S. patent in 2002, is most notable for claims of over-unity operation, a feat which would violate the first law of thermodynamics. Allegedly, the device can eventually sustain its operation in addition to powering a load without application of external electrical power, by extraction of vacuum energy from the immediate environment.

In 2002, the GWE (Genesis World Energy) group claimed to have 400 people developing a device that supposedly separated water into H2 and O2 using less energy than conventionally thought possible. No independent confirmation was ever made of their claims, and in 2006, company founder Patrick Kelly was sentenced to five years in prison for stealing funds from investors.

In 2006, Steorn Ltd. claimed to have built an over-unity device based on rotating magnets, and took out an advertisement soliciting scientists to test their claims. The selection process for twelve began in September 2006 and concluded in December 2006. The selected jury started investigating Steorn's claims. A public demonstration scheduled for July 4, 2007 was canceled due to "technical difficulties." In June 2009, the selected jury said the technology does not work.

1.What is perpentual motion?

Robert Fludd's 1618 "water screw" perpetual motion machine from a 1660 wood engraving. This device is widely credited as the first recorded attempt to describe such a device in order to produce useful work, that of driving millstones.[1] Although the machine would not work, the idea was that water from the top tank turns a water wheel (bottom-left), which drives a complicated series of gears and shafts that ultimately rotate the Archimedes' screw (bottom-center to top-right) to pump water to refill the tank. The rotary motion of the water wheel also drives two grinding wheels (bottom-right) and is shown as providing sufficient excess water to lubricate them.

Perpetual motion describes "Motion that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy; impossible in practice because of friction."[2] It can also be described as "the motion of a hypothetical machine which, once activated, would run forever unless subject to an external force or to wear".[3] There is a scientific consensus that perpetual motion in an isolated systemion  would violate the first and/or second law of thermodynamics.

Basic principles

There is a scientific consensus that perpetual motion in an isolated system violates either the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics, or both. The first law of thermodynamics is essentially a statement of conservation of energy. The second law can be phrased in several different ways, the most intuitive of which is that heat flows spontaneously from hotter to colder places; the most well known statement is that entropytends to increase (see entropy production), or at the least stay the same; another statement is that no heat engine (an engine which produces work while moving heat from a high temperature to a low temperature) can be more efficient than a Carnot heat engine.

In other words:

1. In any isolated system, one cannot create new energy (first law of thermodynamics)2. The output power of heat engines is always smaller than the input heating power. The rest

of the energy is removed as heat at ambient temperature. The efficiency (this is the produced power divided by the input heating power) has a maximum, given by the Carnot efficiency. It is always lower than one

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

The statements 2 and 3 only apply to heat engines. Other types of engines, which convert e.g. mechanical into electromagnetic energy, can, in principle, operate with 100% efficiency.

Machines which comply with both laws of thermodynamics by accessing energy from unconventional sources are sometimes referred to as perpetual motion machines, although they do not meet the standard criteria for the name. By way of example, clocks and other low-power machines, such as Cox's timepiece, have been designed to run on the differences in barometric pressure or temperature between night and day. These machines have a source of energy, albeit one which is not readily apparent so that they only seem to violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Machines which extract energy from seemingly perpetual sources - such as ocean currents - are indeed capable of moving "perpetually" until that energy source runs down. They are not considered to be perpetual motion machines because they are consuming energy from an external source and are not isolated systems.

PATENTS

Proposals for such inoperable machines have become so common that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has made an official policy of refusing to grant patents for perpetual motion machines without a working model. The USPTO Manual of Patent Examining Practice states:

With the exception of cases involving perpetual motion, a model is not ordinarily required by the Office to demonstrate the operability of a device. If operability of a device is questioned, the applicant must establish it to the satisfaction of the examiner, but he or she may choose his or her own way of so doing.[19]

And, further, that:

A rejection [of a patent application] on the ground of lack of utility includes the more specific grounds of inoperativeness, involving perpetual motion. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lack of utility should not be based on grounds that the invention is frivolous, fraudulent or against public policy.[20]

The filing of a patent application is a clerical task, and the USPTO won't refuse filings for perpetual motion machines; the application will be filed and then most probably rejected by the patent examiner, after he has done a formal examination.[21] Even if a patent is granted, it doesn't mean that the invention actually works; it just means that the examiner thinks that it works, or that he couldn't figure out why it wouldn't work.[21]

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

In 1979, Joseph Newman filed a US Patent application for his "energy machine" which unambiguously claimed over-unity operation, where power output exceeded power input; the source of energy was claimed to be the atoms of the machine's copper conductor.[22] The Patent Office rejected the application after the National Bureau of Standards measured the electrical input to be greater than the electrical output. Newman challenged the decision in court and lost.[23]

Other patent offices around the world, such as the United Kingdom Patent Office, have similar practices. Section 4.05 of the UKPO Manual of Patent Practice states:

Processes or articles alleged to operate in a manner which is clearly contrary to well-established physical laws, such as perpetual motion machines, are regarded as not having industrial application.[24]

The European Patent Classification (ECLA) has classes including patent applications on perpetual motion systems: ECLA classes "F03B17/04: Alleged perpetua mobilia ..." and "F03B17/00B: [... machines or engines] (with closed loop circulation or similar : ... Installations wherein the liquid circulates in a closed loop; Alleged perpetua mobilia of this or similar kind ...".[28]

.The current formulation of the laws of physics (called "The Standard Model") is known to be incomplete. Stating that physical things are absolutely impossible is often considered un-scientific. However, the term "epistemic impossibility" is used to describe those things which absolutely cannot occur within the context of our current formulation of the physical laws. This interpretation of the word "impossible" is what is intended in discussions of the impossibility of perpetual motion in a closed system.[8]

The conservation laws are particularly robust from a mathematical perspective. Noether's theorem, which was proven mathematically in 1915, states that any conservation law can be derived from a corresponding continuous symmetry of the action of a physical system.[9] This means that if the laws of physics (not necessarily the current understanding of them, but the actual laws, which may still be undiscovered) and the various physical constants remain invariant over time — if the laws of the universe are fixed — then the conservation laws must hold. On the other hand, if the conservation laws are invalid, then much of modern physics would be incorrect as well.[10]

Scientific investigations as to whether the laws of physics are invariant over time use telescopes to examine the universe in the distant past to discover, to the limits of our measurements, whether ancient stars were identical to stars today. Combining different measurements such as spectroscopy, direct measurement of the speed of light in the past and similar measurements demonstrates that physics has remained substantially the same, if not identical, for all of observable history spanning billions of years.[11]

The principles of thermodynamics are so well established, both theoretically and experimentally, that proposals for perpetual motion machines are universally met with disbelief on the part of physicists. Any proposed perpetual motion design offers a potentially instructive challenge to physicists: one is almost completely certain that it can't work, so one must explain how it fails to work. The difficulty (and the value) of such an exercise depends on the subtlety of the proposal; the best ones tend to arise from physicists' own thought experiments and often shed light upon certain aspects of physics. So, for example, the thought experiment of a Brownian ratchet as a perpetual motion machine was first discussed by Gabriel Lippmann in 1900 but it was not until 1912 that Marian Smoluchowski gave an adequate explanation for why it cannot work.[12] However, during that twelve year period scientists did not believe that the machine was possible. They were merely unaware of the exact mechanism by which it would inevitably fail.

The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."There is something lamentable, degrading, and almost insane in pursuing the visionary schemes of past ages with dogged determination, in paths of learning which have been investigated by superior minds, and with which such adventurous persons are totally unacquainted.

Conclusions

Machines which extract energy from seemingly perpetual sources—such as ocean currents—are capable of moving "perpetually" (for as long as that energy source itself endures), but they are not considered to be perpetual motion machines because they are consuming energy from an external source and are not isolated systems. (In reality, no system can ever be a fully isolated system.) Similarly, machines which comply with both laws of thermodynamics but access energy from obscure sources are sometimes referred to as perpetual motion machines, although they also do not meet the standard criteria for the name.

Despite the fact that successful isolated system perpetual motion devices are physically impossible in terms of the current understanding of the laws of physics, the pursuit of perpetual motion remains popular.

Techniques

Some common ideas reoccur repeatedly in perpetual motion machine designs. Many ideas that continue to appear today were stated as early as 1670 by John Wilkins, Bishop of Chester and an official of the Royal Society. He outlined three potential sources of power for a perpetual motion machine, "Chymical Extractions", "Magnetical Virtues" and "the Natural Affection of Gravity".[1]

The seemingly mysterious ability of magnets to influence motion at a distance without any apparent energy source has long appealed to inventors. One of the earliest examples of a system using magnets was proposed by Wilkins and has been widely copied since: it consists of a ramp with a magnet at the top, which pulled a metal ball up the ramp. Near the magnet was a small hole that was supposed to allow the ball to drop under the ramp and return to the bottom, where a flap allowed it to return to the top again. The device simply could not work: any magnet strong enough to pull the ball up the ramp would necessarily be too powerful to allow it to drop through the hole. Faced with this problem, more modern versions typically use a series of ramps and magnets, positioned so the ball is to be handed off from one magnet to another as it moves. The problem remains the same.

Gravity also acts at a distance, without an apparent energy source. But to get energy out of a gravitational field (for instance, by dropping a heavy object, producing kinetic energy as it falls) one has to put energy in (for instance, by lifting the object up), and some energy is always dissipated in the process. A typical application of gravity in a perpetual motion machine is Bhaskara's wheel in the 12th century, whose key idea is itself a recurring theme, often called the overbalanced wheel: Moving weights are attached to a wheel in such a way that they fall to a

position further from the wheel's center for one half of the wheel's rotation, and closer to the center for the other half. Since weights further from the center apply a greater torque, the result is (or would be, if such a device worked) that the wheel rotates forever. The moving weights may be hammers on pivoted arms, or rolling balls, or mercury in tubes; the principle is the same.

Yet another theoretical machine involves a frictionless environment for motion. This involves the use of diamagnetic or electromagnet levitation to float an object. This is done in a vacuum to eliminate air friction and friction from an axle. The levitated object is then free to rotate around its center of gravity without interference. However, this machine has no practical purpose because the rotated object cannot do any work as work requires the levitated object to cause motion in other objects, bringing friction into the problem. Furthermore, a perfect vacuum is an unattainable goal since both the container and the object itself would slowly vaporize, thereby degrading the vacuum.

To extract work from heat, thus producing a perpetual motion machine of the second kind, the most common approach (dating back at least to Maxwell's demon) is unidirectionality. Only molecules moving fast enough and in the right direction are allowed through the demon's trap door. In a Brownian ratchet, forces tending to turn the ratchet one way are able to do so while forces in the other direction aren't. A diode in a heat bath allows through currents in one direction and not the other. These schemes typically fail in two ways: either maintaining the unidirectionality costs energy (Maxwell's demon needs light to look at all those particles and see what they're doing)[dubious – discuss], or the unidirectionality is an illusion and occasional big violations make up for the frequent small non-violations (the Brownian ratchet will be subject to internal Brownian forces and therefore will sometimes turn the wrong way).

Buoyancy is another frequently-misunderstood phenomenon. Some proposed perpetual-motion machines miss the fact that to push a volume of air down in a fluid takes the same work as to raise a corresponding volume of fluid up against gravity. These types of machines may involve two chambers with pistons, and a mechanism to squeeze the air out of the top chamber into the bottom one, which then becomes buoyant and floats to the top. The squeezing mechanism in these designs would not be able to do enough work to move the air down, or would leave no excess work available to be extracted.

Term Paper Report

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

Mechanical And Automation Engineering

Submitted By ROOPAK GOYAL

Enrollment No.:A50105411050

Submitted to

Mr. …………

Department of MECHANICAL AND AUTOMATIONAmity School of Engineering and Technology

Amity University HaryanaAugust 2012

ABSTRACT

Ever since the first century A.D. there have been relative descriptions of known devices as well as manufactures for the creation of perpetual motion machines. Although physics has led, with two thermodynamic laws, to the opinion that a perpetual motion machine is impossible to be manufactured, inventors of every age and educational level appear to claim that they have invented something «entirely new» or they have improved somebody else’s invention, which «will function henceforth perpetually. However the fact of the failure in manufacturing a perpetual motion machine till now, it does not mean that countless historical elements for these fictional machines become indifferent. The discussion on every version of a perpetual motion machine on the one hand gives the chance to comprehend the inventor’s of each period level of knowledge and his way of thinking, and on the other hand, to locate the points where this perpetual motion machine» clashes with the laws of nature and that’s why it is impossible to have been manufactured or have functioned. The presentation of a new «perpetual motion machine» has excited our interest to locate its weak points. According to the designer of it the machine functions with the work produced by the buoyant force.

Introduction

Perpetual motion machine: A machine which, since set in function, continues to function perpetually without supplying any energy.

The question about the perpetual motion machine is one of the issues, which attracts people who tend to believe strange things and occultism. That’s why such ideas are adopted from various non-recognized religious circles which often describe in their books or in their speeches perpetual motion machines, which however have neither been Manufactured nor have functioned. Usually the members of these organizations ignore the fundamental laws of physics and surely they are not the researchers who possess the knowledge to improve or generalize the laws. On the other side it must be stated that it is not always easy to be proved theoretically that it is impossible for a manufacture to function because in each more complicated system a great number of secondary or inconspicuous activities are involved, which in energy issues should be taken into consideration.

There is also a great number of ideas about perpetual motion machines, which (don’t) function with magnets, chemical substances or flame. The eternal light without the addition of fuel seems to have been cultivated through the centuries mainly in religious circles. Since the first century A.D. there have been relative descriptions of the Roman military officer, politician, natural philosopher and website of Hans-Peter Gramatke there is a detailed presentation of the most known devices for the designing of a perpetual motion machine with pictures, assimilated movements e.t.c.As an example historian Gaius Plinius Secundus (23 – 79 A.D.). In the here is a plumbing –mechanic system with communicating tubes of different length as Fig.1,which contains two liquids with an important difference in density e.g. water and mercury. The globules that will be moving perpetually in the two tubes, float in both liquids. Each globule that goes upwards because of the buoyant force in the left tube falls onto the wheel, which rotates because of each globule’s momentum, while afterwards drops into the right tube. There the increased total weight of the globules pushes the formed column and in this way another globule reaches the bottom and then it rises to the surface of the liquid in the left tube, and so on. Even if this device is not possible to function as a perpetual motion machine, the factual cause seems not easy to be located .

2. Historical elements

The idea of the perpetual motion machine appears for the first time in the East and to be exact in the 12th century A.D. in India. In ancient Greece and in Rome, but also during the later Antiquity it hasn’t been reported a perpetual motion machine not even as a theoretical version.The Indian Mathematician and astronomer baskaracharya (1114 – 1185) describes a perpetual motion mechanism as Fig.2, in one of his literary works with the following words: «The machine rotates at full speed because the mercury is at the one side of the wheel nearer the axis and farther from the other side». at full speed because the mercury is at the one side of the wheel nearer the axis and farther from the other side». The apparatus which Bhaskaracharya describes was manufactured by a lot of subsequent researchers in the same form or in different versions and of course it didn’t constitute a perpetual motion machine. The simplest of these manufactures consists of a wheel in the perimeter of which less or more complicated arms are attached and which change the center of mass, during the rotation. While an impression of a perpetualmotion machine may be given visually, in fact the system balances at some moment. On the other hand nowadays, we know that the rotating wheel heats the axis due to friction and it must also overcome the drag with the result after some rotations the energy caused by the initial external propulsion will be consumed and thus rotation stops.

A notebook of Villard de Honecourt aged back to the 13th century has been rescued.in this notebook he presents several magnificants buildings and a series of machines .among them a perpentualmotion machine with masses(hammers), which change the center of mass during itsrotation. It is not known whether these designs of Honecourt were ever accomplished or not, but for sure the perpetual motion machine didn’t work because it is a version of Bhaskaracharya’s conception. During the Renaissance De Georgio, Leonardo da Vinci and Vittorio Zonca designed or tried to manufacture a perpetual motion machine. Of the three above-mentioned Leonardo is of the opinion that the function of a perpetual motion machine belongs to the field of the impossible and he identifies the researchers of perpetual motion machine with the Alchemists: «You researchers of the perpetual motion, how many conceited, fictional works haven’t you created carrying out your researches…. You had better make company with the creators of gold».

In the centuries rearchers for the perpetual motion machine were added till johann bessler, who around 1715 presented to his In the petual motion machines are referred as: perpetuum mobile naturae and perpetuum mobile physicae. The first category concerned systems of the nature

(sun, stars, seasons of the year and so on), which were considered as perpetually moving mainly because they functioned with God’s will. In the second category belonged the systems which man would make following as example the divine creations. These aspirations of the researchers were considered then, sometimes, to be a recognition of the divine deed and an effort of its imitation and sometimes they are insulting. Those occupied with such subjects would be presented before the Inquisition and be sentenced to death. Anyway, in 1775 the French Academy of ided not to accept suggestions about perpetual motion machines any more.

3. Definitions

First kind of perpetual motion machine: Every machine which functions perpetually and produces work, without an input of

external energy in any form and without being subjected to any decay as time passes as far as its components and materials are concerned.

Second kind of perpetual motion chine in periodical function, which converts totally heat energy into other type (mechanic, electric e.t.c.).

Third kind of perpetual motion machine: The first kind, without producing work. Perpetual motion machine of first motor – generator where the generator supplies electricenergy in return for its motion without any loss. Perpetual motion machine of second kind coutem, which would use for its function the heat of the environment e.g. a vehicle which would move exploiting the heat of the air. Finally, per sidered a system sun – planets or every nucleus of an atom with its electrons, which seem to function without exchange of energy with their environment, thing which is not right.

4. Thermodynamic Laws

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

The equationQU= ΔW …………………………………………………. (1)consists the first law of thermodynamics

The quantity o f energy supplied to any isolated system in C the form of heat Q is equal to the work W done by the system plus the change in internal energy ΔU of the system.

The first law of thermodynamics is the application of the principle of the conservation of energy, which is valid for every isolated system.

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

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

The net amount of heat Q, which is absorbed by the substance, is the amount of heat it receives from the high temperature heat source Qh minus that one which it exhausts to the low temperature heat sink Qc. The work produced by the gas equals with the net amount of heat it absorbs that is

W = Qh - |Qc|……………………. (3)

Replacing Eq 3 in the Eq 2 we have:

It is interesting to note that the efficiency of steamengines has increased from 0.17% for the first steam engines of the seventeenth century to over 40% for the turbines usedin modern power plants.

From the Eq 4 we see that the thermal efficiency of an operating heat engine must always be less than 100%. It would be 100% if the engine transformed the whole amount of heat to work. So far nobody managed to manufacture such they exhaust a notable amount of heat to the environment. The repeated failures of the researchers to manufacture «perfect» heat engine which would transform completely the heat to available work convinced us that this incapability is due to restriction set by the nature itself. This finding out led to the formulation of the second thermodynamic law by Kelvin and Plank:

It is impossible to extract an amount of heat from a hot reservoir and use it all to do work. Some amount of heat must be exhausted to a cold reservoir.

Speaking about heat, it flows spontaneously from a high temperature object to a lower temperature object. The reverse course demands consumption of energy. A heat pump is a device which applies external work to extract an amount of heat from a cold reservoir and delivers heat to a hot reservoir. A refrigerator is a heat engine in which work is done on a refrigerant substance in order to collect energy from a cold region and exhaust it to a higher temperature region thereby further cooling the cold region. The statements about refrigerators apply to air

conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles. However for the function of these machines we spend energy. It is impossible to manufacture a refrigerator, which can function without consuming energy. This finding out led to the "second form" or Clausius statement of the second law.

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow.The two forms of the second thermodynamic law, which apparently are entirely unlinked, are equal in value. If one of them is true the other one will be true, too. The first law is the application of conservation of energy to the system, and the second sets limits on the possible efficiency of the machine and determines the direction of energy flow. According to the second law though, nature sets restrictions in the transformation of one kind of energy to another one. Heat cannot be transformed 100% to mechanic energy. Also the second thermodynamic law defining that the heat is always transmitted from the warmer to the colder body, defines the direction towards which the phenomena happen spontaneously in nature.

In 1824 the French engineer Sadi Carnot described a reversible cyclic process which, was called Carnot Cycle. The Carnot cycle can be thought of as the most efficient heat engine cycle allowed by physical laws. The Carnot efficiency sets the limiting value on the fraction of the heat, which can be so used. Such a supposed idealized machine is called Carnot engine and its output constitutes the superior limit for the output of all the other machines. This deduction is known as Carnot theorem:

The efficiency of a Carnot engine or Carnot efficiency is the maximum efficiency possible for a heat engine working between two given temperatures.It is proved that the Carnot efficiency.

The ratio between the work done and the amount of heat introduced into a system going through a Carnot cycle, the Carnot efficiency, is equal to the difference between the two temperatures of the isothermal steps of the cycle divided by the higher of the two temperatures

. The result states that the Carnot efficiency depends only on the temperatures of the two heat tanks. It is big when the temperature difference is great and it is very small when the temperatures differ a little. Since most of the practical applications have as cold tank the environment, that is the temperature of about 300º K, the higher is the temperature of the body which «emits» heat, the more profitable may be its exploitation. Also the result confirms the second thermodynamic law. In order to have Carnot efficiency 100% we must have Tc = 0, which is impossible

.

5. Criterion of success for a perpetual motion machine

Although physics has led with the two thermodynamic laws to the opinion that it is impossible to manufacture a perpetual motion machine, researchers of every age and educational level appear, claiming that they have found something «entirely new» or that they have improved the invention of somebody else’s, which will function for ever henceforth» Executives in research centers and educational institutions very often face persistent visitors with ideas of perpetual motion machines.

Firstly the rules of physics, which we call axioms, are simply principles that are deductions, which are confirmed in every measurement and every calculation. Because, therefore the universality and the general acceptance of theseprinciples, we consider that they hold a place of axiom that is they constitute fundamental affairs, which don’t need to be proved. Contrary to the unsolved problems of Euclid’s Geometry (trisection of the acute angle, squaring the cycle e.t.c.) which evidently are not solved with the predetermined rules, the axioms of physics are empirical principles, which perhaps some time will be proved to be of limited validity in space or in time. On the one side, therefore, we have with absolute certainty the repetition of the same results in an enormous number of measurements and calculations. And on the other side in science there is the possibility of subversion or as it is usually happens the extensions and generalization of some

deductions, which are considered obvious today. Of course, criterion of success for a machine is not whether it obeys the 1st or the 2nd law of physics or not, but whether it functions. That is if it does what its manufacturer claims. With this criterion we are in position to declare in advance that till today a perpetual motion machine hasn’t been materialized despite the countless efforts, theoretical and constructional ones.

Thus, every claim that a «new scientific theory proves» the possibility of function of perpetual motion machines e.g. with the introduction of new concepts, which are unknown in physics, such as the discussed free energy and so on, is false-scientific. From the other side, the fact that up to (and with all certainty in the predictable future) failure in manufacturing a perpetual motion machine doesn’t mean that the countless historical elements for these fictional machines are vain. The discussion on any version of perpetual motion machine gives the opportunity on the one hand to comprehend the level of knowledge and the way of thinking of the researchers of each period and on the other hand, to locate the points in which this «perpetually moving machine» clashes with the natural laws and that’s why it has been impossible to be manufactured or be in function.

6. A perpetual motion machine which functions with buoyant force

There have been a lot of efforts to manufacture a perpetual motion machine concerning the production of work with the use of the buoyant force. Motive for the following analysiswas a new effort of manufacturing a perpetual motion machine, which we prove theoretically, that can’t function.

6.1. Theoretical introductionSupposing we have a container filled with a liquid of density d, the free surface of which is at a height h from the bottom. On the bottom of the container there is a parallelepiped ofnegligible length as in fig. 3. We are going to calculate the work produced during the shift to length L, of a side with area S of the elementary parallelepiped of null initial volume, which is in the container at a depth h, until parallelepiped acquires volume V.

The force F that we will apply should be so much that would be able to overcome the force caused by the pressure at the depth h, that is

F = PS………………………………….. (6)

And the consumed work will be:

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

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

W2 = Ah or W2 = dgVh ………………………..(8)From the Eq 7 and 8 the result is that W1 = W2 ………………………………………………. (9)

6.2 Description of the machine

The perpetual motion machine that we are examining is composed of a circular disc to which we have adapted weightless n parallelepipeds, as fig. 4. During the rotation of the disc the parallelepipeds can pass from the lower part of a container which is filled with a liquid via a suitable mechanism so that the liquid cannot slop away. According to the designer the buoyant force is exerted on the parallelepipeds when they are in the liquid and so the buoyant force will be the moving force for the production of energy.

Fig. 4. A circular disc, to which we have adapted n weightless parallelepipeds, is rotating while a part of it is submerged in a container filled with a liquid.

In fact for each rotation of the disk the buoyant force A produces a work equal with nW1. For each rotation, however, is consumed also work for the submersion of the parallelepipeds in the container equal with nW2 in order to overcome force the F because hydrostatic pressure.But because of Eq 9 we have

nW1 = nW2…………………………………………….. (10)

Therefore the kinetic energy of the disc is not altered,since as much work is produced so much is consumed. That is to say that the machine does not produce any energy.

The error of the designer of the particular machine is that he did not take into consideration the force F because of the hydrostatic pressure and the work that will be consumed for the submersion of the parallelepipeds in the container. In the whole analysis we made we did not include, by no means, frictions. However frictions exist and they will consume any initial kinetic energy we give to the disc with result after a little time it stops.

7. Our perpetual motion machine

The study we have done for the perpetual motion machines gave us the opportunity to see some designs and conceptions of them. Some of these machines, although don’t function, impressed us for the imagination of their designers. We were also occupied with the educational use of such a machine. We thought then to materialize some design of such a machine, not with purpose to research whether this machine works or not, but to help the students, who based on its notfunctioning, consolidate the conservation of energy and validity of the two thermodynamic laws.So we manufactured a perpetual motion machine based on the design of fig.5, which describes the Arabian perpetual motion machine (Arabian Perpetuum Mobile) which is a version of Bhaskaracharya’s machine. Our manufacture is shown in the fig.6

Fig. 5. Arabian Perpetuum Mobile.

The stems of the Arabian Perpetuum Mobile which fold only towards the one direction were replaced by parts of a bicycle chain, which were adapted on a disc made of Plexiglas. At the nodes we have tied up nylon joints so that the chain can fold only towards one side as it shown in fig 7.

Fig. 7. Details concerning fig. 6.The result was astonishing. The students are influenced and express the view that the machine will rotate, although they have been taught the conservation of energy. After discussion they understand their error, and so they consolidate their knowledge on the law of conservation ofenergy. So we manufactured a perpetual motion machine based on the design of fig.5, which describes the Arabian perpetual motion machine (Arabian Perpetuum Mobile) which is a version of Bhaskaracharya’s machine. Our manufacture is shown in the fig. 6.

Fig. 6. Picture of our perpetual motion machine which is a version of Arabian Perpetuum Mobile

REFERENCES

1. Marketou Pilarinou Maria, Lessons of General Physics, Issue I, Thermodynamics, Thessaloniki (1967).

2. Ikomomou N., Introduction in Physics, Issue II, Οικονόμου Ν., Thssaloniki (1968).

3. Aleksopo4. Ioannou A., Ntanos I .,Pittas A., Raptis S, Physics, Form B of the

Senior High School, Athens, (2000).5. http://sfrang.com/historia/parart089.htm6. http://www.richardclegg.org/htdocs/perpetual/torus.html