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 mathematicianastronomer Bhaskara II, who described a wheel (Bhskara'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 Bckler, 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 H
2
and O
2
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 sourcessuch as ocean
currentsare capable of moving "perpetually" (for as long as that energy source itself
endures), but they are not considered to be perpetual motion machines because they
are consuming energy from an external source and are not isolated systems. (In
reality, no system can ever be a fully isolated system.) Similarly, machines which
comply with both laws of thermodynamics but access energy from obscure sources
are sometimes referred to as perpetual motion machines, although they also do not
meet the standard criteria for the name.
Despite the fact that successful isolated system perpetual motion devices are
physically impossible in terms of the current understanding of the laws of physics, the
pursuit of perpetual motion remains popular.

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

The seemingly mysterious ability of magnets to influence motion at a distance without any
apparent energy source has long appealed to inventors. One of the earliest examples of a system
using magnets was proposed by Wilkins and has been widely copied since: it consists of a ramp
with a magnet at the top, which pulled a metal ball up the ramp. Near the magnet was a small
hole that was supposed to allow the ball to drop under the ramp and return to the bottom, where a
flap allowed it to return to the top again. The device simply could not work: any magnet strong
enough to pull the ball up the ramp would necessarily be too powerful to allow it to drop through
the hole. Faced with this problem, more modern versions typically use a series of ramps and
magnets, positioned so the ball is to be handed off from one magnet to another as it moves. The
problem remains the same.
Gravity also acts at a distance, without an apparent energy source. But to get energy out of a
gravitational field (for instance, by dropping a heavy object, producing kinetic energy as it falls)
one has to put energy in (for instance, by lifting the object up), and some energy is always
dissipated in the process. A typical application of gravity in a perpetual motion machine
is Bhaskara's wheel in the 12th century, whose key idea is itself a recurring theme, often called
the overbalanced wheel: Moving weights are attached to a wheel in such a way that they fall to a
position further from the wheel's center for one half of the wheel's rotation, and closer to the
center for the other half. Since weights further from the center apply a greater torque, the result is
(or would be, if such a device worked) that the wheel rotates forever. The moving weights may
be hammers on pivoted arms, or rolling balls, or mercury in tubes; the principle is the same.
Yet another theoretical machine involves a frictionless environment for motion. This involves
the use of diamagnetic or electromagnet levitation to float an object. This is done in a vacuum to
eliminate air friction and friction from an axle. The levitated object is then free to rotate around
its center of gravity without interference. However, this machine has no practical purpose
because the rotated object cannot do any work as work requires the levitated object to cause
motion in other objects, bringing friction into the problem. Furthermore, a perfect vacuum is an
unattainable goal since both the container and the object itself would slowly vaporize, thereby
degrading the vacuum.
To extract work from heat, thus producing a perpetual motion machine of the second kind, the
most common approach (dating back at least to Maxwell's demon) is unidirectionality. Only
molecules moving fast enough and in the right direction are allowed through the demon's trap
door. In a Brownian ratchet, forces tending to turn the ratchet one way are able to do so while
forces in the other direction aren't. A diode in a heat bath allows through currents in one
direction and not the other. These schemes typically fail in two ways: either maintaining the
unidirectionality costs energy (Maxwell's demon needs light to look at all those particles and see
what they're doing)
[dubious discuss]
, or the unidirectionality is an illusion and occasional big
violations make up for the frequent small non-violations (the Brownian ratchet will be subject to
internal Brownian forces and therefore will sometimes turn the wrong way).
Buoyancy is another frequently-misunderstood phenomenon. Some proposed perpetual-motion
machines miss the fact that to push a volume of air down in a fluid takes the same work as to
raise a corresponding volume of fluid up against gravity. These types of machines may involve
two chambers with pistons, and a mechanism to squeeze the air out of the top chamber into the
bottom one, which then becomes buoyant and floats to the top. The squeezing mechanism in
these designs would not be able to do enough work to move the air down, or would leave no
excess work available to be extracted.








Term Paper Report


A term paper report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement of
Bachelor of Technology in
Mechanical And Automation Engineering


Submitted By
ROOPAK GOYAL
Enrollment No.:A50105411050



Submitted to

Mr.


Department of MECHANICAL AND AUTOMATION
Amity School of Engineering and Technology
Amity University Haryana
August 2012




ABSTRACT

Ever since the first century A.D. there have been relative descriptions of known devices as well
as manufactures for the creation of perpetual motion machines. Although physics has led, with
two thermodynamic laws, to the opinion that a perpetual motion machine is impossible to be
manufactured, inventors of every age and educational level appear to claim that they have
invented something entirely new or they have improved somebody elses 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 inventors 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 thats 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. Thats 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 (dont)
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
globules 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 hasnt 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 didnt constitute a perpetual motion machine. The simplest of these manufactures
consists of a wheel in the perimeter of which less or more complicated arms are attached and
which change the center of mass, during the rotation. While an impression of a perpetual
motion machine may be given visually, in fact the system balances at some moment. On the
other hand nowadays, we know that the rotating wheel heats the axis due to friction and it must
also overcome the drag with the result after some rotations the energy caused by the initial
external propulsion will be consumed and thus rotation stops.



A notebook of Villard de Honecourt aged back to the 13
th
century has been rescued.in this
notebook he presents several magnificants buildings and a series of machines .among them a
perpentualmotion machine with masses(hammers), which change the center of mass during its
rotation. It is not known whether these designs of Honecourt were ever accomplished or not, but
for sure the perpetual motion machine didnt work because it is a version of Bhaskaracharyas
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
havent 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 Gods will. In the second category belonged the systems which
man would make following as example the divine creations. These aspirations of the researchers
were considered then, sometimes, to be a recognition of the divine deed and an effort of its
imitation and sometimes they are insulting. Those occupied with such subjects would be
presented before the Inquisition and be sentenced to death. Anyway, in 1775 the French
Academy of ided not to accept suggestions about perpetual motion machines any more.



3. Definitions

First kind of perpetual motion machine:
Every machine which functions perpetually and produces work, without an input of
external energy in any form and without being subjected to any decay as time passes as far as its
components and materials are concerned.

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

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




















4. Thermodynamic Laws

With the statement of the 19th century the creation of a perpetual motion machine was
theoretically excluded.
The equation
QU= W . (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 U of the system.
The first law of thermodynamics is the application of the principle of the conservation of
energy, which is valid for every isolated system.
The thermal efficiency, e, of the heat engine is defined as

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

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

W = Qh - |Qc|. (3)

Replacing Eq 3 in the Eq 2 we have:

It is interesting to note that the efficiency of steamengines has increased from 0.17% for the first
steam engines of the seventeenth century to over 40% for the turbines used
in modern power plants.
From the Eq 4 we see that the thermal efficiency of an operating heat engine must
always be less than 100%. It would be 100% if the engine transformed the whole amount of heat
to work. So far nobody managed to manufacture such they exhaust a notable amount of heat to
the environment. The repeated failures of the researchers to manufacture perfect heat engine
which would transform completely the heat to available work convinced us that this incapability
is due to restriction set by the nature itself. This finding out led to the formulation of the second
thermodynamic law by Kelvin and Plank:
It is impossible to extract an amount of heat from a hot reservoir and use it
all to do work. Some amount of heat must be exhausted to a cold reservoir.
Speaking about heat, it flows spontaneously from a high temperature object to a lower
temperature object. The reverse course demands consumption of energy. A heat pump is a device
which applies external work to extract an amount of heat from a cold reservoir and delivers heat
to a hot reservoir. A refrigerator is a heat engine in which work is done on a refrigerant substance
in order to collect energy from a cold region and exhaust it to a higher temperature region
thereby further cooling the cold region. The statements about refrigerators apply to air
conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles. However for the function of
these machines we spend energy. It is impossible to manufacture a refrigerator, which can
function without consuming energy. This finding out led to the "second form" or Clausius
statement of the second law.
It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any
work having been done to accomplish this flow.
The two forms of the second thermodynamic law, which apparently are entirely unlinked, are
equal in value. If one of them is true the other one will be true, too. The first law is the
application of conservation of energy to the system, and the second sets limits on the possible
efficiency of the machine and determines the direction of energy flow. According to the second
law though, nature sets restrictions in the transformation of one kind of energy to another one.
Heat cannot be transformed 100% to mechanic energy. Also the second thermodynamic law
defining that the heat is always transmitted from the warmer to the colder body, defines the
direction towards which the phenomena happen spontaneously in nature.

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

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

The ratio between the work done and the amount of heat introduced into a system going
through a Carnot cycle, the Carnot efficiency, is equal to the difference between the two
temperatures of the isothermal steps of the cycle divided by the higher of the two temperatures
. The result states that the Carnot efficiency depends only on the temperatures of the two
heat tanks. It is big when the temperature difference is great and it is very small when the
temperatures differ a little. Since most of the practical applications have as cold tank the
environment, that is the temperature of about 300 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 elses, 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 dont need to be proved. Contrary to the
unsolved problems of Euclids 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 hasnt 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 doesnt 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 thats why it has been impossible to be manufactured or be in
function.



















6. A perpetual motion machine which functions with buoyant force

There have been a lot of efforts to manufacture a perpetual motion machine concerning the
production of work with the use of the buoyant force. Motive for the following analysis
was a new effort of manufacturing a perpetual motion machine, which we prove theoretically,
that cant function.

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



The force F that we will apply should be so much that would be able to overcome the force
caused by the pressure at the depth h, that is
F = PS.. (6)

And the consumed work will be:

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

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

W2 = Ah or W2 = dgVh ..(8)
From the Eq 7 and 8 the result is that
W1 = W2 . (9)
6.2 Description of the machine

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



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

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

nW1 = nW2.. (10)

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



7. Our perpetual motion machine

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


Fig. 5. Arabian Perpetuum Mobile.

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



Fig. 7. Details concerning fig. 6.
The result was astonishing. The students are influenced and express the view that the machine
will rotate, although they have been taught the conservation of energy. After discussion they
understand their error, and so they consolidate their knowledge on the law of conservation of
energy. So we manufactured a perpetual motion machine based on the design of fig.5, which
describes the Arabian perpetual motion machine (Arabian Perpetuum Mobile) which is a version
of Bhaskaracharyas 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, .,
Thssaloniki (1968).
3. Aleksopo
4. Ioannou A., Ntanos I .,Pittas A., Raptis S, Physics, Form B of the
Senior High School, Athens, (2000).
5. http://sfrang.com/historia/parart089.htm
6. http://www.richardclegg.org/htdocs/perpetual/torus.html