Will Someone Build a Perpetual Motion Machine?
Getting something for nothing may violate fundamental laws of physicsbut that won't keep inventors from trying
By MICHAEL D. LEMONICK
Human nature stays constant enough that it's easy to answer this
one. Yes, someone will build a perpetual-motion machine in the
next few years. Or, more likely, dozens of perpetual-motion
machines, as starry-eyed inventors have been doing since
medieval times. Not a single one will work, but they'll keep
trying. Nothing is more seductive, after all, than the idea of a
free lunch.
That, in essence, is all a perpetual-motion machine amounts to:
a device that operates without any external power source. Or,
rather, doesn't operatefor perpetual-motion devices are
mechanical impossibilitiesand unless someone finds a way to
repeal two fundamental laws of physics, they always will be. The
regulations in question are the first and second laws of
thermodynamics. They say, respectively, that energy can be
neither created nor destroyed but only changed in form and that
it's impossible to make a machine that doesn't waste at least a
little energy. In short, you can't win, and you can't even break
even where energy is concerned.
Physicists didn't figure this out until the 1800s, so at least
the early advocates of perpetual motion had the excuse of
ignorance. In 1618, for example, a London doctor named Robert
Fludd invented a waterwheel that needed no river to drive it.
Water poured into his system would, in theory, turn a wheel that
would power a pump that would cause the water to flow back over
the wheel that would power the pump, and so on. But the second
law means that any friction created by wheel and pump would turn
into heat and noise; reconverting that into mechanical energy
would take an external power source. Even if the machine were
friction-free, the wheel couldn't grind grain. That would
require energy beyond what it took to keep the wheel itself
going. No good, says the first law, and Fludd's invention was a
dud.
Once thermodynamics was codified, it was clear that Fludd and
the hundreds who followed him had been doomed to failure before
they began. Yet if anything, learning that their task was
impossible spurred perpetual-motion fanatics on to even greater
efforts. So many hopefuls continued to apply for
perpetual-motion patents that in 1911 the U.S. Patent Office
decreed it would henceforth accept working models onlyand they
had to work for a year to qualify. No one has pulled it off so
far.
Instead, the perpetuals have become more sophisticated. Most
(though not all) now admit their machines are using outside
energyusually via new theories of physics that physicists
don't grasp yet. Joseph Newman, for example, a Mississippi
inventor, promoted an "Energy Machine" in the 1980s that
operated via "gyroscopic particles." More recently, New Jersey
inventor Randell Mills has been pushing power from "hydrinos."
Still others claim they're tapping the "zero-point energy" that
fills all space. The first two are considered nonsensical, and
while zero-point energy has a basis in science, using it to run
a machine does not.
Denied a fair hearing by other scientists (so they always
insist), these outsiders promote their work as best they
canthrough press releases, lectures and, in one gutsy case, a
full-page ad in the journal Physics Today. Maybe someday a
latter-day Einstein will overrule the energy laws we know. Until
then, perpetual motion will be an impossible dream that's
impossible to resist.