Revisiting the Case for Perpetual Motion in Energy Generation

eco friendly tech blog

If you don’t already know, the fundamental driving force for the creation of the electricity we use in our homes and in industrial settings is indeed that of motion, or kinetic energy, which is simply movement that is typically used to drive the blades of a turbine generator, which in turn then generates an electric current. So since large-scale energy production is deeply rooted in the burning of fossil fuels to heat up steam which then drives the turbine blades, the widespread focus on using renewable energy sources which can achieve the same effect is suitably justified.

I’m talking about the likes of wind turbine generators as well as hydro electric power generators, which harvest kinetic energy that never runs out, but naturally, these types of alternatives are location dependent. There are only a few places in the world primed for the harvesting of wind and moving water, particularly when you consider their location in relation to where the energy they can produce is to be used.

So naturally, the inevitable place to look would indeed be the prospect of perpetual motion. That would solve many problems, wouldn’t it?

Now if you were to conduct a bit of research about perpetual motion, what you’ll find is that it is referred to as something hypothetical, largely due to the fact that it defies the laws of physics as we know them today, so much so that were it officially declared to exist, it would perhaps “break” physics as it exists and require a whole lot of other basic laws of physics to be rewritten.

It is an ongoing argument which seemingly has no resolution, that of whether or not perpetual motion actually exists. Many perpetual motion enthusiasts (for lack of a better word) are eager to demonstrate to the world what they believe to be perfectly functioning perpetual motion machines they’ve developed, some of whom actually have these machines which have proven to be running ever since they were initially set into motion.

The problem though is that scientists who are often roped in to have a look stand firm on their belief that at some point these machines will simply stop running and that subsequently refutes the claims that these are indeed true perpetual motion machines. It really is a problem because what if for example one of these machines actually do have the capacity to run forever (or until the big freeze), in which case there will be nobody around to confirm or refute their legitimacy?

Between all these back and forth arguments, however, I believe most parties involved are missing one huge point, which is the fact that these alleged perpetual motion machines run long enough autonomously to be used to generate electricity. The aim is efficiency, not perfection, so what does it matter if the machine will eventually stop? We can always start it up again and harvest the motion which is approaching perpetual motion while the machine is still in motion!

A machine that requires 5% input energy to output the other 95% in motion which can be harvested to produce electricity sounds like a winner to me!