We all know that perpetual motion of the 1st or 2nd kind is impossible, but this has not deterred inventors from coming up with new ways to attain this dream. The US Patent Office, for instance, has granted several perpetual motion patents in recent history, against its long-standing policy. Perhaps one of the reasons for this is that inventors are getting more sophisticated. Unbalanced wheels and magnets are giving way to holograms, forcing scientists to make connections between fields that would not have been made otherwise. Perpetual motion of the Third Kind, which seeks to produce infinite exergy rather than infinite energy, has made its appearance, and it seems that new laws of Thermodynamics would need to be added in order to forbid it. This paper studies not only the "science" behind perpetual motion, but also the psychological and philosophical underpinnings of a pursuit that would not go away.

A perpetual motion machine is (as the name implies) a machine that moves perpetually; it never stops. Ever.

IEEE Instrumentation & Measurement Magazine, 2004

2013

The discussed experiment demonstrates the preservation of integrity in a prefabricated construction in the absence of visible fastening forces. It is shown that the experiment can be explained by the fact that a flow of electromagnetic energy appears within the construction. We are considering the conditions in which such flow of electromagnetic energy is maintained for an indefinite length of time.

Fairly complete evidence of adequate principles, if Newtonian mechanics is taken into account.

Leonardo da Vinci and Perpetual Motion (ed. A. Bernardoni), 2019

2010

Annotation 1. The threat of mankind's death due to the heat pollution caused by the energy consumption as such. 2. Deceleration of the energy consumption growth is against the evolution vector and therefore is ruinous. 3. The author's scenario: transition to thermocyclic power engineering based on the heat recirculation and perpetual motion engines of the second kind. 4. Invalidity of prohibition of perpetual motion engines of the second kind: four mistakes made by the founders of thermodynamics. 5. Clarification of the Second Law of thermodynamics. 6. Converging flow of ideal gas: compensation of a decrease of the thermal entropy by an increase of the non-thermal entropy. 7. The thermal entropy vs. the total entropy. 8. The definition of the total and thermal entropies in the general irreversible case. 9. Prospects of the transition to the thermocyclic power engineering based on perpetual motion engines of the second kind. Literature Appendix Annotation The paper is grounded on the author's book «"Thermal Death" on the Earth and the scenario how to prevent it. Part 1. Power engineering based on the heat circulation and perpetual motion engines of the second kind. Part 2. Perpetual motion engines of the second kind and invalidity of their prohibition» (Moscow, URSS, 2009, bibl. 571). While consuming energy, we transform one of its forms into another and finally practically all the produced energy is dissipated as heat. When the consumption of energy became 0.1% (one estimation) or 1% (another estimation) of solar radiation reaching the Earth surface, the consequences of overheating would become catastrophic. With presentday rate of the growth of energy consumption, this would happen in 50-80 or 130-200 years. Deceleration of the energy consumption is also ruinous for mankind because it contradicts the evolution laws; or, speaking more precisely, deceleration is against the dichotomy system/medium accelerates the entropy increase A.3.1.8. The fifth direction: the entropy increase can be accompanied by the complexity increase even in an isolated system A.3.1.9. The sixth direction: evolutionary complexity increase is explained by the Prigogine theorem (Galimov's conception) A.3.1.10. The seventh direction: evolutionary complexity increase is explained by pressure of interactions A.3.2. The author solution A.3.2.1. Order out of chaos or chaos out of order: two branches of the tree of knowledge A.

2018

I present and defend several formulations of the Aristotelian argument from motion, according to which the reality of change in the physical world ultimately requires the existence of a sustaining source of all change, a reality which can impart to all things the power to change and to undergo change, but which cannot itself be subject to change or undergo change. Second, I defend the Aristotelian project from a number of objections, including the viability of Aristotle's argument in light of challenges from modern physics, such as the challenge of inertial motion and special relativity. Finally, I show that an unchanging cause of all change must be such as to possess the attributes definitive of the God of classical theism.

The perpetual motion of energy is possible. It is not where he was tried, but where we consume the most energy to overcome the force of gravity. Abstract This publication and deposits patent that preceded it, derive from a simple reflection: "If it is possible to exploit the hydrostatic head to save energy by pumping water up to overcome the force of gravity, it is also possible to transform the hydrostatic energy with the help of atmospheric pressure, not raising but pushing waters static downwards, after intubation of the same " Applying synergistically the continuity equation of Bernoulli, the principle of Pascal on the transmission of the pressure in hydraulic circuits that simultaneously using electric pumps and turbines, we can produce the maximum energy in the descending phase of the water and consume the minimum of energy in the phase of lifting, creating open systems where the geodetic suction and delivery coincide (open vessel). Or, closures pressurized, where inlet and outlet piezometric heights coincide (closed vessel). In the first case, we can make fixed installations that produce energy even while we raise and distribute drinking water, industrial, agricultural, for cleansing and protection against flooding, that at state of the art, are the works that involve the higher power consumption of the planet. In the second case, instead, we can realize hydroelectric plants movable with water tanks pressurized with compressed air, which by means of a circuit partially open, in the phase of descent of the water, by means of a pump used as a turbine, produces energy, discharging the water in a small tank of disconnection, and a pump with a double feed that fits it into a partially closed circuit in the phase of return to the to the pressurized tank. Both in power plants in open vessel than in those hybrids movable using special electric pumps with low prevalence but equipped with double supply in suction side and anti-vortex and backstop devices which allow the insertion and mixing of the water to be lifted in the recycling circuit provided of greater hydrostatic pressure. In these circuits, fixed and mobile, the waters are not raised by the pumps but by hydrostatic pressures, natural or artificial. The mobile circuit, being the volume of water constant, the cushion of compressed air does not expand. Always it exerts the same pressure as the atmospheric pressure acts on those in the open vessel. For low system costs of fixed and mobile versions and high energy performance, which does not require fossil fuels or organic, even bulky, low energy efficiency, such as solar and wind power, we can finally talk about something that resembles the perpetual motion, without nuclear contraindications, although there is the inevitable consumption of machines and materials. But the perpetual motion never promised multiplication (for ten, or percent, or more) of the energy wich serves to run the pump. As happens in these plants, fixed and mobile.

One of the most fundamental concepts of the physical world is the law of energy conservation (). The law sets bounds on the use of energy and the thermodynamic efficiency of processes by excluding the possibility of perpetual motion. The primary goal of this paper is to establish a provable review of the. The paper is inspired by the continuous attempts by humans to resolve the energy crises in the universe. In specific, the paper expresses great concerns regarding the futile attempts by different practitioners aimed at breaking the and the invention of distinct energy sources. While it is believed that the holds, this paper considers such a notion on the contrary. The paper focuses on two viewpoints as the principle integral to the continued attempts in breaking the ; (1) the lacks rigorous proof that establishes its fundamental validity, and (2) the obscure desires by humans to invent alternative energy sources. The paper asserts and establishes that the traditional axiomatic acceptance of the without proof faults the genetic empirical experience of the. It then offers a provable Euclidean geometric proof of the correctness and the empirical limits of the. The proof consummates by objecting to the practical validity of the at a universal scale; fundamentally, refuting the notion of negating the possibility of a perpetual motion machine as valid genetic proof for the. Consequently, the thereof developments are employed as projections to the possibility of reconsidering the .