Talk:Perpetual motion

I can't believe it. Electrons in atoms are in perpetual motion, as are the planets. Such perpetual motion is not only possible; it does, in fact, exist! But they are not perpetual motion machines. The name "perpetual motion machine" is highly misleading, at best. It should be called "energy-generation" machines, or energy out of nothing machines. The article is about the machines, not the motion. So the title should be "Perpetual Motion Machines." Betaneptune (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Convince all those reliable sources that they should change their vocabulary, then it will end up in the WIkipedia article eventually. There is no shortcut. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The article opens with "Perpetual motion is the motion of bodies that continues forever in an unperturbed system. A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work infinitely without an external energy source" which is what I said. The article is about the machine, not perpetual motion per se. So I don't know what you're talking about. This opening implies my original post is correct. The article itself strongly implies it has the wrong title! Betaneptune (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not aware of any common use of the phrase "perpetual motion" except in the context of perpetual motion machines. Nobody uses the phrase for electrons, except you just now. So, one could rename the article into perpetual motion machine, but there is no need. Certainly, the fact there are motions which are perpetual but have nothing to do with the subject is not a valid reason. We do not rename the article United States into "United States of America" either just because other states have also been united.

So, there is no problem with keeping the old name, but I can see no problem with the other name either. To avoid daily back-and-forth name changes, we should not make any such change without a good reason. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

"Perpetual motion is the motion of bodies that continues forever in an unperturbed system. A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work infinitely without an external energy source."

I quoted the first two sentences of the article above. "Perpetual motion" is indeed used in the context I said, NOT in the context of a perpetual motion machine, which you said. "Perpetual motion" is not an "idiom". It is just a phrase consisting of two words, each of which has a clearly defined meaning. The phrase then takes up the meaning of the two words. You have an adjective followed by a noun. It's just the putting together of two words to make a perfectly fine phrase that is not an idiom and not a machine. This is important: The phrase is not a machine. In the present context it is being used as an adjective for the word machine. It is a compound noun being used as a modifier for the noun "machine", resulting in a highly misleading term. So it's a bad term to begin with, which the title of this article makes even worse. It should be called something like "energy-generation machine" or "free-energy machine". The fact there is perpetual motion is not the point, as everything is always in motion. So it's a bad name to begin with, now made worse with an even worse name for the title of this article.

It is quite clear that the article itself contradicts what you say. Therefore the article is not self-consistent. If you change the name to what it should be, "Perpetual Motion Machine", all will be well. It doesn't matter what the "common use" is. Let me give a further example: Daylight Saving Time. Many say "Daylight Savings Time". That is wrong. Regardless, you don't hear the term "Daylight Saving" in any other context. Still, it would be wrong to title the article "Daylight Saving", wouldn't it, now?

Why would anyone want to change it back? What is gained by putting back to something that is clearly wrong? Is this clear now?

BTW, it is things like this that has made me stop donating money to Wikipedia. My favorite example is planetary system, a term whose justification suffers from the very same bad logic used to dispense with the correct term, solar system. Solar system, they say, is bad because it contains "solar", which contains "Sol", the name of our sun. So it cannot apply to other solar systems. With the same bad logic, the term planetary system contains the word "planetary", which means planets, which therefore doesn't include all the other objects, esp. their sun. So each term is "bad" for exactly the same reason. (When I hear the term I can't help but think of a bunch of planets orbiting an empty space. It implies a big hole where the star should be.) The only reason the term "planetary system" even exists is because of the new discovery of exoplanets (and why isn't it called an exoplanetary system then?). Stars have been known since ancient times, whereas the exoplanets are relatively new. So astronomers were focusing on the exoplanets and the systems they make up. So the term planetary system was born, which clearly means only the planets. Therefore, solar system is actually a much better term. We had a chance to get it right this time (unlike "planetary nebula" which has nothing whatsoever to do with planets) and blew it.

It is because of bad names and the lack of sensible pronunciation symbols for Americans that I have stopped donating to Wikipedia. Oh, and there's the original 12-hour clock article. Maybe that's in better shape now. I'm afraid to look. Betaneptune (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I stopped reading when you started talking about donations, drifting away from the subject, so this is only about the part above that TL;DR. Your reasoning makes even less sense to me than before. For example, you don't hear the term "Daylight Saving" in any other context - yes, but you don't even hear it in this context unless followed by "Time", so nobody would even consider dropping the "Time" part from the article title. I am not convinced, but maybe others can say something? I have no problem with renaming the article, only with renaming it for no good reason. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Note that there is a redirect that send readers searching for "Perpetual Motion Machine" to this page. -Roxy the dog. wooF 14:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

So there is a redirect of the right name to an article with the wrong name, which I already knew and is in fact part of the problem. It should be the other way around, if there is to be such a redirect to begin with. Betaneptune (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Perpetual motion and Perpetual motion machine are only used in the same contexts so both terms should target the same article. My feeling is that Perpetual motion is a broader and more fundamental concept. The article has to explain things like why time invariance symmetry rules out endless sources of energy, and why thermal motion of a single heat bath cannot be converted to mechanical energy. --Chetvorno^TALK 21:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with both titles pointing the same article. I've never said otherwise.

Perpetual motion: Everything is always in motion. Yes, it's more general. Far, far, far too general. The article is about a machine that generates energy out of nothing. Still, both titles are bad.

I still think "perpetual motion machine" is a much more accurate term, bad as it is. It includes an essential component of the whole thing: a machine. Without that part, the whole thing is meaningless. Yet y'all actually prefer to omit it, indispensable as it is, and the only one of the three words that actually applies. (Actually, perpetual also applies, more or less.) As far as the article being "more general," it is focused on the machine, and discusses only those "more general principles" that actually apply to the machine. This means the article is about the machine and why it's impossible to build one. So it should include "machine" in the title. In fact, the whole discipline of thermodynamics started with trying to make the steam engine, a machine, more efficient.

As for "Perpetual Motion" being a more general thing, that's exactly a reason not to use it. The article focuses on the specific. There are other articles for the general. This is an article about a machine, not a course in thermodynamics and statistical physics.

As far as being more "fundamental", the fundamental particles and the four fundamental forces are the most fundamental things there are. So by that logic we don't need any other articles focusing on more specific things.

You didn't address any of my points. I shan't repeat them. (Well, maybe one.)

Fine, call it perpetual motion. Call it Fred Flintstone, flying petunias, planetary system, Bugs Bunny, solar plexus, Yosemite Sam, brain drain, Wilma, planetary nebula, Foghorn Leghorn. I've lost interest.

Illogic rules the day. So be it. <A sigh of exasperation> Betaneptune (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe the title is disingenuous and misleading. We cannot label something and then ramble on about an entirely different subject. In the english language "Perpetual motion" means motion which theoretically lasts forever not some imaginary machine. Theenergyengineer (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree – motion and work are two different things.  I specifically went to this page to learn the particulars that define these distinctions and was dismayed that everything was about work. Aaron E-J (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Currently, WP:FRINGE/PS declares: the universal scientific view is that perpetual motion is impossible. This appears to conflate the motion with the machines that are purported to exploit it. As a result, it seems to declare "fringe" such concepts as inertia (aka Newton's First Law of Motion), the eternal inflation of the universe, and time crystals. This is as ridiculous a claim as the fabled rockets can't fly in space because there's nothing to push against. That terrible misunderstanding of physics is only encouraged by this article's conflation of topics. – .Raven  .talk 06:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you intend to start the same discussion in two places now?

It is not a misunderstanding, it is a commonly used shorthand. Nobody uses the phrase "perpetual motion" except for perpetual motion machines. I have a 1977 book called "Perpetual Motion. The History of an Obsession" by Arthur W.J.G. Ord-Hume, and he talks about perpetual motion machines exclusively, except on a few pages on astronomical subjects in the chapter "What is Perpetual Motion?"

This is like complaining that people are called "climate deniers" although they do not deny there is a climate, or complaining that sealions are not lions.

Why don't you read the discussion above and the ones in the archives? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

(1) You referred me here yourself.
(2) This article begins with the sentence "Perpetual motion is the motion of bodies that continues forever in an unperturbed system." [emphasis in original] That would, as I indicated earlier, include such mainstream concepts as inertia (aka Newton's First Law of Motion), the eternal inflation of the universe, and time crystals. It by no means refers to machines which (by drawing energy out of such a system) would slow it down and eventually stop it, making it non-perpetual.
(3) Just as it is fallacious to categorize a machine as a "perpetual-motion machine" if it relies on energy from outside the machine itself – the argument that perpetual motion itself can't exist, because of perturbations like space dust, falls afoul of the specification "in an unperturbed system", e.g., we could look at vacuums free of dust (perhaps the intergalactic void? or at the front of the universe's expanding edge?) for our inertial or orbital thought-experiments. Motion is not the same as work, remember?
(4) My reply to you at WT:FRINGE named participants in the above thread; here you ask me "Why don't you read the discussion above...?", as if I hadn't demonstrated having done so! – .Raven  .talk 11:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

You referred me here yourself Not with the goal of having the same discussion twice.

here you ask me "Why don't you read the discussion above...?", as if I hadn't demonstrated having done so You assume that I am omniscient, or at least that I have already read everything you wrote, or everything you wrote today, or something like that. Well, I am not, and I did not. My watchlist has many thousands of entries. I checked the FT talk page just now, after I read this, and found that contribution.

I think I should stop discussing you. You exhibit a combination of righteous anger, ignoring my reasoning, unnecessarily repeating earlier reasoning, and using reasoning that does not make a lot of sense, which I am allergic to. I will let others handle this. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

> "not make a lot of sense" – Let's look at a couple of other places these terms are defined:

• Perpetual motion (disambiguation): "Perpetual motion is motion that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy." [Note that the only mention of 'machine' is in the last line, in the 'See also' section]:
• Perpetual Motion Machine (disambiguation): "A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work indefinitely without an energy source."

Once again, the motion and the machine are two different concepts. The latter, by drawing energy from the motion to do its "work", ensures that it cannot remain "perpetual". – .Raven  .talk 23:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

In the section of Patent: The filing of a patent application is a clerical task, and the USPTO will not 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.[32] Even if a patent is granted, it does not mean that the invention actually works, it just means that the examiner believes that it works, or was unable to figure out why it would not work.[32] The USPTO maintains a collection of Perpetual Motion Gimmicks.

I also request to delete above section. The reason is that the articles on patents contradict scientific theories and facts. These statements are detrimental to the interests of the patentee.CAIVY (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)CAIVY

On Wikipedia we summarize what reliable sources WP:RS say. If you have other reliable sources that contradict what the existing sources say, please post them here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

In the Patent Section:

“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.[30]

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.[31]

The filing of a patent application is a clerical task, and the USPTO will not 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.[32] Even if a patent is granted, it does not mean that the invention actually works, it just means that the examiner believes that it works, or was unable to figure out why it would not work.[32]

The USPTO maintains a collection of Perpetual Motion Gimmicks.”

The above article is not a trusted source.

First, U.S. Patent Rules 37 CFR 1.91 states that models or exhibits not generally admitted as part of application or patent.

Reference: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s608.html

Second, regarding the citation [32], this is a book written by attorney David Pressman to help with patent applications. Among them, he said that " Even if a patent is granted, it does not mean that the invention actually works, it just means that the examiner believes that it works, or was unable to figure out why it would not work".

This expression is his personal opinion and has not been proven correct or endorsed by the scientific community and industry consensus, therefore it is not a trusted source. It is inappropriate for the Wiki to cite it.

In the view of the utility of patent application, a patent can be granted if the applicant proves the practical utility of the invention.

Examiners will identify the utility of patent applications based on law, scientific theories, facts, and experimental evidence.

With regard to utility of invention, U.S. patent law states:

35 U.S.C. 101   Inventions patentable.

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

Reference: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302376

To satisfy 35 U.S.C. 101, an invention must be "useful."

Nelson 诉 Bowler， 626 F.2d 853、856、206 USPQ 881、883（CCPA 1980）。

The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals has stated:

Practical utility is a shorthand way of attributing "real-world" value to claimed subject matter. In other words, one skilled in the art can use a claimed discovery in a manner which provides some immediate benefit to the public.

Nelson v. Bowler, 626 F.2d 853, 856, 206 USPQ 881, 883 (CCPA 1980).

Reference: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2107.html

l  Patent applications that violate scientific principles has not practical utility.

U.S. paten law states:

Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a lack of credible utility have been sustained by federal courts when, for example, the applicant failed to disclose any utility for the invention or asserted a utility that could only be true if it violated a scientific principle, such as the second law of thermodynamics, or a law of nature, or was wholly inconsistent with contemporary knowledge in the art.

Reference: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2107.html

"Incredible utility" is a conclusion, not a starting point for analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101. A conclusion that an asserted utility is incredible can be reached only after the Office has evaluated both the assertion of the applicant regarding utility and any evidentiary basis of that assertion. The Office should be particularly careful not to start with a presumption that an asserted utility is, per se, "incredible" and then proceed to base a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 on that presumption.

Reference: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2107.html

l How to identify whether an invention is a perpetual motion machine:

Perpetual motion machine is an isolated system that does not require an external energy.

perpetual motion, the action of a device that, once set in motion, would continue in motion forever, with no additional energy required to maintain it. Such devices are impossible on grounds stated by the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

Reference: https://www.britannica.com/science/perpetual-motion

Perpetual motion machines violate scientific theory

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 a version of the law of conservation of energy.

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

The examiner will use the laws of thermodynamics to determine whether an invention is a perpetual motion machine.

Scientific Theory:

Thermodynamic systems are generally regarded as being open, closed or isolated. According to the University of Calgary, an open system freely exchanges energy and matter with its surroundings; a closed system exchanges energy, but not matter, with its surroundings; and an isolated system does not exchange energy or matter with its surroundings.

An open system can exchange both energy and matter.

A closed system can exchange only energy.

An isolated system cannot exchange anything.

Reference: https://www.livescience.com/50881-first-law-thermodynamics.html

Energy conversion machine is a non-isolated system that requires an external energy source.

Energy conversion, the transformation of energy from forms provided by nature to forms that can be used by humans.

Reference: https://www.britannica.com/technology/energy-conversion

Pressure is an energy form provided by nature.

Hydrostatic pressure, the pressure exerted by a fluid at equilibrium at a given point within

the fluid, due to the force of gravity.

Water, like all things on Earth, is pulled downward by the force of gravity. Every body of water has a certain weight, and this weight pushes downward on whatever is below it. Water pressure is the result of the weight of all the water above pushing down on the water below.

Reference: https://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/hydrostatic_pressure.htm

The reason for the pressure in the water is due to the action of the gravity field and is given by the expression：

P static fluid = ρgh 

where, ρ = m/V = fluid density, g =acceleration of gravity (g= 9.8 m/s²), h = depth of fluid

Accepted theory and fact:

The value of g depends on the location, pressure varies with location, therefore pressure is not internal energy.

Reference:https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-3/The-Value-of-g

Experiments in space demonstrate that g ≈ 0 m/s2 and P ≈ 0. Only when the water is infinitely far away from the earth, g ≈ 0.

Human activities cannot reduce the mass of the earth. At the Earth's surface, the distance between the body of water and the Earth's center is nearly constant, so that the gravitational field keeps the value of g at g=9.8 m/s2. As per P=ρgh, the pressure in the water will remain constant.

As per the above scientific theories, pressure comes from gravity, and gravity comes from the gravitational field of the earth. Pressure is the result of the Earth's gravitational field acting on water through universal gravitation. Pressure and gravitational field have a conservation relationship, and therefore pressure is a non-isolated system according to thermodynamic system theory.

The value of g varies with position and pressure varies with the value of g, thus pressure is not internal energy.

It is clear that it would not be consistent with scientific theory if the examiner regards an energy conversion machine that converts or extracts the energy of the gravitational field in water or fluids as a perpetual motion machine.

l Hydropower and tidal power both convert gravitational field energy，which are not considered as perpetual motion machines.

Hydropower (from Greek: ὕδωρ, "water"), also known as water power, is the use of falling or fast-running water to produce electricity or to power machines. This is achieved by converting the gravitational potential or kinetic energy of a water source to produce power.

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydropower

Tidal energy is a form of power produced by the natural rise and fall of tides caused by the gravitational interaction between Earth, the sun, and the moon.

Reference: https://www.pnnl.gov/explainer-articles/tidal-energy

The advantages of gravitational field energy

On Earth, water is inextricably linked to pressure. water is ubiquitous, clean, readily accessible, a widespread and enduring source of energy. The total storage capacity of water pressure as an energy source will be far greater than that of other petrochemical energy sources, and the utility of water pressure is certain and credible.

When Emissions Stop, Warming Stops

Graphic: When Emissions Stop, Warming Stops

Decades of research show that global warming is tied primarily to fossil fuel-derived greenhouse gas emissions, and when those stop, warming stops within a few years.

Reference:https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/305/graphic-when-emissions-stop-warmingstops/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=monthly+newsletter

As per above, a patent right granted by the examiner must be based on scientific theories and facts. No matter what technical means are used, the transformation energy from a form provided by gravitational field into a form that can be used by humans should not be regarded as a perpetual motion machine. CAIVY (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

We know what physicists think. But politicians who drafted the patent laws were not necessarily physicists. So, it is non-sequitur to claim that since physicists consider it impossible, politicians also consider it impossible. Politicians consider it highly improbable, but made an allowance that the proof is in the pudding. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)