I have the very same idea as you but getting the buoys to the bottom in a different way. Thought I had it licked at one time until I sat down and studied about it for a while. I was going to get a tank and get a cylinder and put the spheres in the cylinder and put weight on the end of the cylinder until it took the buoys underneath the water. At the top I was going to have a fixed piston and the cylinder would be the moving part instead of the piston. At the top I was going to make a latch that would grab a sphere each time the cylinder came up and lock it in so when the cylinder went back down it would not be pushed back up to the piston and each time the cylinder came up it would let a sphere out at the bottom of the cylinder and gram another at the top. The spheres would come up into a conveyor that would turn the wheels and gears that would operate the cylinder and other things. The first two spheres would get the machine going because out of the 20 spheres I was going to use in the cylinder. The part I did not think about was when the cylinder came up and hit the piston I would lose the force of the buoys that counters the weight at the bottom. If I could think of some way to counter balance the weight at the bottom I think the idea would work

Another way I thought about was to bore a hole in the tank that would fit tight around the cylinder so the water would not leak out but not so tight that the cylinder would not be able to move back and forth. Have braces and rollers on the inside and out so the pressure of the buoys would not stop the cylinder from going back and forth. It would work the same way as the other but would not need the weight to counter balance the weight. I might be wrong but the way it seems to me is that all the pressure will be on the spheres and not the cylinder. The cylinder will be free to move back and forth. When the cylinder is pulled back where there is a sphere that has been conveyed between the piston and the cylinder. All the pressure is going to be on the fixed piston and the latch that will give way to grab another sphere and lock it into the cylinder that will slide right over the sphere and at the same time releases sphere.

In the eye's of God. All things are possible. It is just a matter of time someone is going to have a working machine.

First I would like to say that perpetual motion is possible and exists as we speak. You can not create nor destroy energy and energy is in a constant state of motion. With that said the universe itself is a perpetual motion machine.

As for making a much smaller working (usable) model it can and has already been done. Johnson's Permanent Magnetic Motor. It's an array of magnets shaped and positioned in such a way to create a constant imbalance. This has been proven with a working model. The energy source is nuclear getting it from the magnetism. Another way using permanet magnets is a way that I have designed and worked out the math to prove it can happen but is currently working on funding for a prototype. Unlike the Johnson's design, mine requires the latest in technology to eliminate friction within the device (or atleast minimize it to a sufficiant level) including the resistance within the wiring itself utilizing HTSC.

Clean, FREE, energy sources do exist but have been suppressed. Can you guess why and by who?

that's funny, precursor562.
i just realised that energy cannot be created or destroyed = nothing stands still = perpetual motion.
so, i agree, it is an essential rule of existance that everything is in perpetual motion.
even if you consider the contraction and expansion of the entire universe, it MUST cycle.

Don't see an edit button anywhere so I'll create a new post. We live in a friction filled world. The biggest failure to perpetual motion machines is energy loss within the system. This loss can be accounted for friction (resistance or ohms if talking about electricity). People always say that perpetual motion breaks the second law of thermal dynamics but the second law in short says that you can't get more out than what you put in. That's great, so what does that have to do with perpetual motion? Nothing. You don't need to get more out than what you put in to create perpetual motion. You only need to get out 100% of what you put in so you can take that 100% and feed it back into the system to keep it going at a constant rate. So perpetual motion doesn't break the second law.

Take a motor and hook it up to a generator and you generate less electricity than what is needed by the motor to maintain the amount of electricity produced. So if you loop it the system will stop. So why doesn't this work? Friction. Ball bearings, drag, ohms etc. All these produce heat. So the energy is lost in the release of heat. The solution isn't refridgerating it because all that does is take the heat being released away from the device so to prevent damage and it takes additional energy to refridgerate the device. If you were able to get the same amount of electricity out of the generator that the motor uses and looped them than the device would continue to funtion in a perpetual state of motion. The only way to do this is to remove the heat producing friction so that 100% of the energy put in finds it's way out the other end just to get sent back in. This is impossible however. You can not create a total friction free environment but you might be able to minimize it enough.

Hook the motor up to two generators and you get twice the output but the motor has to work twice as hard (due to resistance) and the friction of the second generator comes into play. So you double the output making it more than what the motor uses but you then double the friction which means the energy consumption of the motor to maintain the same rpms (which releates to the same energy output per generator) is doubled. This makes hooking a motor up to two generators just as affective as hooking a motor up to one generator. If you can rid the system of friction sources as best as possible than it may be possible to produce more electricity than what the motor requires. How? By reducing the friction than you reduce the work load on the motor. If you can reduce the friction enough than you can reach a state where the work load put on the motor is equal to one generator even though the motor is connected to two. You create twice the output without creating twice the work load.

But isn't that going against the second law? No. Your not creating new energy but merely directing motion that is already there. In a wire left alone the electrons are in a constant state of motion but they drift this way and that. Pass a magnet through a coil of wire and that random motion becomes uniform and there you have an electric current. Your not creating anything new (not creating something from nothing as the second law says is impossible) just giving it direction which doesn't go against any law of thermal dynamics.

This goes for Johnson's PMM. Not only do electrons move constantly (within each energy level, jumping energy levels and traveling back and forth between atoms) but atoms themselves are in constant motion. They vibrate. Magnetism is an energy source and manipulating magnetic lines of flux to create a constant imbalance may be feasable. My design is in removing the friction and hooking a single motor up to two generators as I already described. It runs on a simple concept. Take a spintop and spin it on a table top. What causes the top to stop? Friction. Friction between the top and table as well as the top and surrounding air. So take the top and levetate it using magnets and put the whole thing in a vacuum chamber. What is there to stop it then? Flux drag and free particles than don't leave the vacuum. How much friction do these two things cause? Very, very, very, very little.

My specific design is the use of a brushless motor using rare earth magnets. The magnets are on the shaft that run through the center of the motor and that shaft can be protruded out either side. The bearings are permanent magnetic bearings (new technology) that will float this shaft. Both ends of the shaft then enter the generators on either side of the motor. So the two generators and the motor share the same shaft. There energy can be transmitted from the motor to the generators undeminished. The magnets in the generators will also be rare earth (for their flux density). The wiring will be of little resistance as possible. I've been looking at high temperature super conductors. This well then be placed in a capsule where a vacuum will be created. I will then cryogenerate the wall of the capsule which will in turn cause the inside to become the same temperature. This will allow the HTSC to funtion as a super conductor. The most energy loss I see losing is in the electronic switch in the brushless motor. The goal is to reduce the load on the motor enough to be able to sustain motion using 100% of the output of one generator and no more than 20% of the output of the second. I then use another 30% of the second generator output to power the refridgeration leaving 50% of the second generator output free to be used in applications.

I hate double posting but now that I'm registered there should be an edit button from now on (I hope).

I looked at your buoyancy design NCoppedge and I'm not sure but you might want to look into balloon type spheres. The idea is that when the balloon (containing nitrogen) enters at the bottom where the pressures are high. The pressures compress the nitrogen filled balloons to a smaller size giving off a certain amount of lift at that size. As the balloon rises to the surface, the nitrogen is allowed to expand causing the balloon to become larger and more buoyant. This should give you a cumulative buoyancy but in the opposite of what you were looking at. Now if the buoyancy of a bubble increases with depth (pressure) then what effect this will have is create a constant buoyancy despite depth. The only complication I see is getting the buoys into the bottom of the tank.

If the buoyancy doesn't change from depth than getting the buoy to enter the water at the increased pressure (depth) is the same as getting it to submerge at the surface. Either way there will be a minimum to the number of buoys required submerged at one time to provide enough buoyancy to pull the next buoy through what ever water tight opening you decide to implement and over come the resistance to being submerged. Increasing the number of buoys further will add lift. Remember, permanent magnetic bearings are your friend. I notice you will have turning wheels in your design and having these bearings will eliminate friction in that specific location of the machine. Don't forget to add a brake too.

In my design I wondered if it works and I then loop 100% of the energy from both generators back to the motor what would happen? My theory is that it will reach a limit where whatever friction that does exist would produce such an amount of heat that the HTSC wiring will lose it's super conductivity and the machine would cease to function. The brake I intend to use is a variable resistor to control the amount of electricity the motor receives from the second generator as I'm sure the electricity from the first one will not be completely enough. With this I can increase, decrease or maintain rpm. I also intend to have a titanium rotor with performance pads in case of emergency.

But what if the cryo works and the 2G HTSC? That, despite whatever friction remains, can't ever produce enough heat to cause such failure? Energy is force (or movement) not matter. Vibrating atoms; the atoms are matter and the vibration is energy. Light is a photon particle. That makes light a form of matter but it contains an infinite amount of energy within itself giving it the energy required to travel at the speed of light. So if all particles are matter and energy is force or movement (heat causes molecular *movement* (vibration=energy)) than would this machine of mine continue to speed up? Of course not, even if it did the materials would give under the immense stresses of centrifugal force (explode/shatter).

But what if it didn't what would happen? At a low speed the driving super conductive coils within the motor (powered by the two generators) has no physical contact with the driving shaft (Axel) which is suspended using permanent magnetic bearings. The shaft spins with no resistance other than it's own mass (a nylon shaft with aluminum anchors that anchor the rare earth magnets to the shaft means the magnets are the only thing with any real mass but are balanced in weight and distribution around the Axel) and that when it is spinning, requires little to no effort to keep spinning. There would be no friction to slow it down or very little that it would take weeks for it to stop spinning on it's own. That Axel then protrudes out both ends of the motor into two generators (one on either end). The turning Axel will then produce electricity in the generators (the Axel within each generator would have another balanced set of magnets each that would spin in the surrounding coil of wire. The rare earth magnets used will have a high Tesla (therefore a high flux density) to ensure that as much electric flow is created per revolution. All wiring within the unit will be second generation high temperature super conductor (or better when invented) which ensures little to no energy is lost through resistance within the electrical work.

So if 100% of the electricity created by both generators is enough to speed up the motor which in turn will create more RPM equaling more electricity produced by the generators to further increase the speed of the motor and the machine can't overheat or tear itself apart (which I think it would) what would happen? Would it reach the speed of light? Would it stop increasing in speed if it did reach the speed of light or would it continue beyond?

Well if it requires an infinite amount of energy (fuel in the case of a rocket) to accelerate anything with mass (all matter has mass) to the speed of light than this machine would provide the infinite amount causing the components to travel at the speed of light. To go beyond the speed of light you would need to either have more than an infinite amount of energy (it's physically impossible to have more than an infinite amount of something) or be energy itself. So I believe (if it didn't over heat or tear itself apart) that it would reach and be limited to the speed of light.

Edit: Ha-ha An edit button.



Wrong. It will take a specific amount of energy to get the ball into the system through the bottom and that amount depends on the resistance. I think people sit on the solution..literally. The anus (*pauses to wait for laughter to stop*) opens to allow spheres (of sorts) to travel through then closes back up to a water tight seal. What you need is a flexible opening that opens to allow the buoys through but then closes up to keep the water in and has to be sturdy enough to withstand the water pressure above it. It would almost have to be a rubber opening that would always create a seal with the wall of the buoys and connecting line. This would mean that you would need a set number of buoys submerged depending on the force required to push one or two buoys through such a tight flexible opening. Rather than water I suggest a light oil of some kind. This way whatever seepage you do get and the coating put on the buoys and connecting line will act as a lube to reduce the friction and therefore the amount of force required to pass through the opening and into the system.

Since there is a set amount of force required to send a sphere of specific size through this opening depending on the resistance that the opening and pressure produce (both of which wouldn't increase with the number of buoys in the tank) then if you have enough buoys in the tank the combined buoyancy can be enough to overcome this resistance. Add more to cause the machine to not only over come the resistance but create acceleration.

The opening you are most likely looking for would be a rubber donut whose center is tight but flexible. This would be fixed to and plug the round opening put into the tank. The seal would be fixed to the inside bottom of the tank so the outer half of the ring is connected to the tank while the inner half will be visible if viewed from underneath. Completely over this rubber donut would be a rubber cone upside down with the wide opening connected to the bottom of the tank surrounding the donut and whose point (pointing upward) will have a small hole equal in size to the connecting line between buoys. The cone would utilize the pressure to push in on itself creating and ensuring a seal. The cone combined with the donut would ensure a complete seal. The lower wheel should be partially submerged in an open bin of the same light oil to ensure the buoys and line are lubricated to reduce entry drag.

As for the part I quoted what that refers to is that if you take a buoy to a depth of 10 feet in a fix volume of water and release it that buoy will quickly make it's way to the surface. The amount of energy (work) that this creates is equal to (or rather less than since some energy is lost through other means) the amount of energy (work) required to send it down to that depth from the surface. What he is doing is taking a shortcut by passing it through an opening at the bottom.

Another way to make a watertight seal is to have the lower wheel positioned in such a way that it is partially into the tank and partially out of the tank. Then all you would need is a very narrow gap between the sides of the lower wheel and the opening in the lower tank, with some kind of slippery nearly watertight material, and also some sort of rubber cushioning cup to receive each buoy and provide a watertight seal through the center of the width of the wheel.

Provided that more than one buoy is held by the lower wheel at a given time, as soon as there is a gap from the first buoy, a second buoy would stopper it up. Then there would still only need to be enough force to pull approximately one buoy through the lower wheel into the lower tank. Most of the rest of the buoys contribute to force (the exception being a few at the top that are not buoyant and need to be pulled over the top wheel, or a few on the falling line at the bottom, that may be pulling, but are also to some degree resisting the force of the upward bound buoys).

I have sent a more updated design of my continuous motion concept, which I am more hopeful about, to the Big Idea Group. So if this thing amounts to anything, hopefully I'll reap the rewards. Although their policy of the inventor getting 5% of sales might not amount to as much as it might otherwise. Still, I seem to have few alternatives.

Its a good feeling to have someone who actually thinks this thing might have some merit. A lot of the time people seem to take scientific theories on faith (not that I'm an expert, but I think I have good ideas).

Admittedly, however, I have little faith in most perpetual motion designs, in part because I don't have a strong knowledge of electricity or magnetism. What I do know, is that if a machine produces significantly more kilograms than there are kg of resistance, it is making strong use of the energy inherent in the materials (in this case by use of gravity and buoyancy) and has the potential to generate power.

False, depth resistance is at least equal to the weight of the column of water above. That's the problem I've been struggling with, which I think I solved in my latest design, which will become very public only if the Big Idea Group sees that it has validity.

Really? Makes sense but wouldn't this increase the buoyancy at that pressure as well?

Just something that I can visualize happening if/when you get it working is a current in the water that may work in your favor. If you surround the outside of the drum with the rig than having so many buoys traveling in the same direction will create a current in the container. I think that this would ease the travel of the buoys by reducing the drag around the buoy with the water traveling in the same direction as them. Also too, (don't know if it applies to hydraulics) is what race cars experience. Get one car close enough behind another going as fast as they do then the car behind experiences less drag than the car in front. Would this apply to your design? You probably factored it in already but in case you haven't and it applies there it is.