! Copyright 2001 by Donald E. Simanek. Ken Amis is a pseudonym. This document is a total fraud. Any student caught plagiarizing this material fully deserves to flunk.> <! For the convenience of teachers who wish to use this document as an exercise in critical thinking and as an example of devious, deceptive and fraudulent arguments, I have added many explanatory comments, which can be seen by using the "view source code" option of browsers.>
1. The ProblemNone can deny that earth's energy resources are finite. Many, however, prefer to ignore this fact. Modern technology coupled with the accelerating growth of the human population threatens to exhaust all known sources of energy in the foreseeable future. To make matters worse, present methods of energy use inevitably produce pollution that must be dumped somewhere, degrading the quality of life we desperately seek.
<! Start out gently with some factual material, lulling the reader into complacency.> This situation compels us to seek new and non-polluting energy resources. The direction we must follow has been known for several centuries, but powerful interests in the energy industries don't want you to know about it.
<! Sounding the alarm, and the need for action. Pander to those folks who feel that powerful interests will instinctively oppose any threat to their dominance of the marketplace.>
2. The Path Not TakenLong before the industrial revolution, mankind used energy in benign ways: human power, animal power, water power and even wind power. But with the invention of the steam engine we turned a corner and went down the wrong path, which still continues today. We began to burn fossil fuels to feed the insatiable demands of industry. With that came a period of wanton pollution of the air and water near cities and even in the previously pristine countryside. More recently we found ways to reduce the effects of that pollution, partly by directing it elsewhere where we wouldn't notice it right away. But someone will have to deal with it in the future. And of course, pollution clean-up requires still more energy to accomplish.
<! Lulling the reader again with some well known facts.>
<! Pretty much true history. Setting the stage, we refer to perpetual motion machine seekers as "lonely visionaries", independent thinkers" and "sincere and honest seekers".> Establishment scientists have, throughout history, ridiculed and dismissed such independent thinkers without seriously considering the details of their ideas. We should not dismiss all of this effort as futile or misguided. It may be that these inventors were the true visionaries, following the correct path, undaunted by failures, not allowing themselves to be discouraged by naysayers, and not swallowing the big lies perpetrated by mainstream scientists.
<! The old "They persecuted Galileo, didn't they?" ploy. Use loaded descriptors like "establishment scientists", "naysayers", "big lies" and "perpetrated".> And what has mainstream science and engineering given us? It has given us energy-guzzling machines that must be fed with fossil fuels ripped at great cost from the earth, stoking the fires of industry while spewing out unhealthy waste products that foul our air, water and earth. By contrast, all perpetual machine designs ever conceived have these virtues: (1) No fossil fuels are required, indeed no fuel at all is needed. (2) They do not produce noxious and toxic exhaust gasses or solid pollution, for they produce no exhaust.
<! The only slight drawback is that they don't work. Couldn't resist the "fire, air, water and earth" allusion to Aristotle.>
3. Suppressing The Truth<! Who would dare suppress truth?> We know that perpetual motion machines must be possible. God wouldn't have put us on earth and commanded us to use and exploit its resources if those resources would run out and destroy us prematurely, before God himself destroys us at the final Armageddon. God surely must have provided the means to sustain humanity long enough to ensure its final destruction by His own hand. After all, the first time God wiped out most of mankind, in the great flood, did He not provide miraculous suspensions of laws of physics, to allow the survival of humankind? Surely the laws of physics as we now understand them can likewise be suspended or modified if the need arises. And that need is upon us. With sufficient faith we will find the answer. 
As one perceptive writer has observed, "Any Supreme being worthy of the name must have the power to make an inventor rich." 
<! I really thought that these two paragraphs would give the game away by being "over the top". But already some have swallowed this nonsense for it resonated with their own religious feelings. The notion of God wanting to destroy us himself, not letting us do it, is a fine distinction. This paragraph appeals to those who say "With God anything is possible, if you only have faith."> Perpetual motion machine inventors shouldn't be intimidated by the laws of thermodynamics. The thermodynamic laws were invented by engineers and physicists during the industrial revolution to discourage those restless minds seeking alternatives to those incredibly inefficient coal-burning engines. Then physicists tried to add clout to the laws by cloaking them in an incomprehensible mathematical theory called statistical mechanics. Not one in a hundred degree-holding physicists or engineers really understands where these laws come from. Even the great physicist Maxwell had to enlist the aid of a demon to make sense of it all.
<! More loaded language, and appeals to mistrust of scientists. Any physicist knows that "Maxwell's demon" was simply a pedagogical image or literary device in a Gedanken experiment to explain entropy.> Instead of making laws about what can't be done, scientists should instead invent laws that show us the ways things can be done. The negative character of thermodynamics laws does nothing but stifle and discourage creative and inventive minds from the quest for perpetual motion machines. Scientists nurtured in this climate of negativity have not, and never will, discover the secret of perpetual motion. They haven't a clue how it might be accomplished.
<! Those negative scientists again. Of course scientists will never discover the secret of perpetual motion, for there's not a single piece of evidence or logic to even hint or suggest that it might be possible. There's not the slightest clue how one might go about it.> By going down the wrong path, science has become more and more complicated, so it's now too difficult for any but a few in the elite scientific priesthood to understand. It's time to say "enough!" and return to the basics of simple things that any basement or backyard inventor can grasp. We can no longer expect narrow-minded and closed-minded scientists, who waste their time mucking around with higher mathematics, to be able to understand simple things. Having lost any firm connection with reality, they have sold their souls to mathematics.
<! Appeal to the average person's feeling that science has become so complicated and mathematical that only a small "priesthood" of scientists can understand it. Appeal to the desire for "simple" solutions to complex problems.>
4. Friction: There's the Rub.<! The "sold their souls" line and this heading were inspired by G. W. Burnside, a late 19th century promoter of the hollow earth idea, who said "Mathematics lacketh a soul, and there's the rub.">
<! So far as we know, an undisturbed atom will persist forever, and whatever is going on inside the atom will continue doing that forever.> Any practical engineer knows that there are ways to reduce friction, and doing so increases the efficiency of machines. Every such improvement in efficiency is inevitably followed by still more improvement. When a machine attains an efficiency of 1, its output equals its input. With just a bit more work and ingenuity one could surely push the efficiency above one, so the machine produces more output energy than input. The final stage of development would redirect part of the output to supply the input. Then the excess output energy could be used for other purposes. The goal of the over-unity perpetual motion machine will have been achieved.
<! Just because one can make small improvements in a machine's efficiency doesn't alter the fact that there's still a limiting value of efficiency, and it's always less than one, sometimes much less. This paragraph appeals to those who think that progress toward a certain goal can continue without limit. Yeah, and someday athletes will run the one-minute mile.>
5. A New ParadigmStill, we must admit that all past efforts to make perpetual motion machines have failed. Ingenious inventors have devised overbalanced wheels and over-unity devices, all with overconfident expectations. This history of total failure should tell us something. It's time to try new approaches.
<! Yes, it should tell us something. New approaches always have appeal.> Instead of re-inventing the square wheel, we should learn from these past failures, avoiding the reasons for them. Friction is the bugaboo of perpetual motion inventors, for it wastes energy wherever a machine has moving parts. Past efforts to entirely eliminate friction have failed. Therefore we must get rid of all moving parts.
<! Sounds logical.> Whenever electrical currents encounter electrical resistance, heat is generated, also wasting energy. So we must eliminate electrical currents.
<! Same reasonable logic.> Real work output requires input energy, and that costs money. So we need a machine that produces only virtual work, which requires no energy input. Virtual work has another advantage for our purpose. Virtual work is the result of virtual displacements, which aren't subject to the usual constraints and limitations of mechanical systems, and are inherently friction-free.
<! Only physicists and engineers are likely to know that virtual work is a computational device--a conceptual tool for analyzing systems, and is not in any sense work that can be done by a real operating system.> By far the majority of past failed perpetual motion machines attempted to extract energy from the force of the gravitational field, or from the buoyant force of liquids. So that's probably not the way to go. Gravitational fields and buoyancy are quite well understood by physicists, so it's unlikely there are loopholes there to be exploited. More recent perpetual motion research focuses on magnetic fields, for they are as yet not completely understood in all their ramifications.
<! Perpetual motion machine enthusiasts generally try to use physics that they don't understand very well, like hydraulics and magnetism. Few have been ambitious enough to use quantum mechanics, though some use misunderstood versions of it as inspiration, since it seems that quantum mechanics suggests anything is possible, even things that don't happen in classical physics.> Our goal should be a machine with no moving parts, and no electrical currents. It would operate by unwinding the curl of magnetic fields, thereby tapping the enormous energy that all modern perpetual motion machine inventors know is contained in the field of every magnet. Previous motors and generators operated by cutting field lines, a destructive process. We exploit the fact that the curl of a magnetic field is much like a tightly wound spring. Our process doesn't cut field lines; it only takes out their kinks.
<! "Cutting field lines" is a term meaning only that some part of a motor or generator moves through a field. Field lines aren't real. They are a mathematical description of the field. The curl of a field is likewise a mathematical description, and is certainly nothing like a wound spring.> <! This paragraph had an even more subtle allusion that no one seems to appreciate. A current fad amongst perpetual motionists is to find a way to extract zero point energy (ZPG) for useful work. Of course they have no idea how to do this. While ZPG is an accepted entity in quantum mechanics, and can be experimentally verified, the idea of extracting work from ZPG through a closed cycle engine is as futile as trying to extract the curl from a magnetic field.> In case you doubt that magnets have unlimited stored energy, consider the lowly refrigerator magnet. It can hold itself in place forever on the refrigerator against the constant pull of gravity. Therefore the magnet must have an inexhaustible source of energy, which we can tap if we are clever enough, and have sufficient faith in our noble goals.
<! A perpetual motion machine investor actually used the refrigerator magnet argument as an example of the "obvious" facts that stupid physicists can't grasp. Actually, work requires motion. The magnet stuck to the refrigerator does not move and therefore does no work. This argument is as absurd as saying that a table must have unlimited energy because it can support objects sitting on it forever, against the constant pull of gravity.>
6. Geometry Points the WayMainstream scientists scoff at the notion of unwinding the curl of a magnetic field. They forget that one of the synonyms for the technical term "curl" is "rotation", a term dating back to the early history of field theory when scientists still had a tenuous grip on reality. Indeed fields without curl, such as electric and gravitational fields, are called "irrotational", which means they can't produce rotation, and would be useless for achieving our goals.
<! The technical term "curl" was (and still is) called "rotation", symbolized "rot", in engineering. It originated from studies of fluids and the motion of fluids in vortex behavior, as when water draining from a sink causes physical rotation of the fluid. Gravitational and electric fields are called "irrotational" because their curl is zero. We have included a few correct facts in these essays, to maintain our credibility. Still we couldn't resist interjecting a swipe at theoretical physicists with a tenuous grip on reality.> But how can this fact be harnessed to extract the curl of a field and produce rotary motion? For insight we only need look at the history of failed attempts to achieve perpetual motion. In every case the fundamental fact of nature that thwarted inventors was geometry. The geometry of space and time was the roadblock to success. Inventors tried to make a wheel turn forever by "overbalancing" itkeeping greater mass continually on one side. Imbalance can cause motion of a machine, but a wheel is (geometrically) a cyclic device, which must return to its initial position every cycle. That means that the boost you get from weight overbalance is lost when the weights must complete their cycle by moving back to the other side. You gain from the overbalance only temporarily, then you must lose what you gained. Geometry defeats one's aspirations at every turn.
<! The geometry of space and time is indeed fundamental in determining what nature can and cannot do. It is the downfall of all perpetual motion machines. This paragraph (except for the first two sentences) is a correct analysis of the futility of this quest. We strive to educate as well as amuse.> But in this failure lies hope. We must alter the geometry. We must warp space itself to our purposes. That's what our device will do. It is a reverse curling-iron for the matrix of space.
<! Maybe. But can that be done, and how can one do it? And what OTHER consequences might result if we did?> So our machine shall be in a box (black if you like) that contains no moving parts and no electrical circuits. It takes the curl out of any magnetic field in the vicinity (the earth's field, if you like). This process induces a torque in any nearby ferrous material, such as a wheel, causing it to turn.  Our machine need not touch the wheel, but it should be bolted down so that it exerts only reactionless forces on the wheel.
<! "Black box" is a term scientists use to describe any machine in which the internal workings aren't visible or accessible, and therefore you don't know exactly what's inside or how it works. One mistake perpetual motion enthusiasts often make is to ignore reaction forces in the machines. "Reactionless forces" are impossible according to Newton's third law, but some PMM inventors seek them anyway.> Unwinding the curl of the magnetic field tends to linearize magnetic field lines, making the mathematics considerably simpler. Therefore engineers will find these machines much easier to understand and to exploit for useful purposes. There may no longer be a need for engineers to study calculus, thereby reducing the cost of their education. Lagrange equations need never again give grief to budding engineers.
<! Appeal to general feeling that math is too difficult for ordinary people to understand, and that if we were insightful enough we ought to be able to describe nature without use of complicated math.> Lest someone worry that use of such machines worldwide might "deplete" the earth's magnetic field, remember the refrigerator magnet example, which conclusively shows that the energy of magnetic fields is inexhaustible.
<! Not to worry, magnetic compasses will still work.>
7. The Quantum-Mechanical ApproachWe are pursuing several paths to this goal. Of course we can only give general descriptions, without revealing anything useful to competitors.
<! That's also why we haven't patented it.> One method we hope to exploit is based on a radical re-interpretation of the uncertainty principle. In its usual form, that principle says that the measured position of a particle in space can have considerable uncertainty. That is, we cannot say precisely where it is, or when. But is the particle uncertain about where it is? Could it be that the matrix of space and time is a bit "fuzzy" in the vicinity of a particle? We are building a prototype to explore this idea. If this works, we may be able to extract the curl of the magnetic fields of the fundamental particles themselves. Perhaps this method can even be used to extract the field of magnetic monopoles.
<! Hmm... Maybe there's something to this idea. As for magnetic monopoles, we have no evidence that they exist, and there are many reasons to conclude that they can't exist.> Another one of our research groups pursues a different method. We have found a way to control the fundamental particles in solids so that electron-positron orbiting pairs are temporarily "parked" in quantum-mechanical forbidden states for infinitesimal time intervals. This process takes advantage of a newly-discovered loophole in the uncertainty principle.  The solid's angular momentum is altered, causing the remaining charges to move in synchronism in near-circular orbits to compensate for the change. Their combined fields act to remove the curl of any other fields in the solid.
<! This is pure gobbledygook, of the sort they use on "Star Trek".> What's in our black boxes? Of course we cannot reveal all of the details at this time, for if these became known, anyone could build the machine. Once you build a few, they could power the factory to turn out still more. While this machine could be the salvation of the world, it's only fair that the inventor be allowed to get filthy rich before every third world country begins turning them out in sweatshops at low cost.
<! They'd steal our ideas if they could. Appeal to those who think it's our God-given right to become rich, no matter who or what it hurts. We were put here to exploit nature. Concern about the future is foolish, for Armageddon is coming "soon".> Besides, certain details still need to be tweaked and refined before we can demonstrate a working model, but we assure you that we are very near reaching our goal.
<! Yeah, we've heard that one before. Whenever the machines don't work there's always the hope that with just a bit more tinkering and tweaking, they will.> Of course we expect that greedy big energy companies will try to suppress this invention. Physicists and engineers will declare it can't work because of their sacred laws of thermodynamics. To this we say, with all due respect, "poppycock!" These laws were invented to discourage independent thinkers who believe that "nothing is impossible".  We are confident our machine will free us totally from dependence on fossil fuels forever. No longer will we have to worry about a future of human deprivation, or face the prospect of compromising our lifestyle due to the inconvenience of energy sources running out.
<! Those greedy corporate giants again. Those nay-saying scientists. They would jeopardize the future of mankind to satisfy their own egos and their greed.>
8. A Warning and DisclaimerAny technology can have unwanted side effects, and perpetual motion is no exception. Basement tinkerers should be aware of these dangers. No one should undertake building a perpetual motion machine without a solid background in physics and engineering.
Since the laws of thermodynamics are crucially dependent on the fact that certain physical processes are irreversible, <! This is correct.> then a perpetual motion machine, which would necessarily violate the laws of thermodynamics, <! This is correct.> must also be reversing some process previously thought irreversible. <! Also correct.> In that case, someone with evil intent could re-engineer the process to reverse the machine itself. <! Here's the broken logical link.> This would give it the capability to consume energy without outputting any. <! Yes, you could feed some of the excess energy of the output back to drive the input, and you'd still have excess energy out, with no other input.> Such a weapon could suck all the energy out of a city or small country in one fell swoop. Basement tinkerers who are ignorant of physics are playing with dangerous stuff. They may desire the salvation of the world, but they could inadvertently cause its total destruction.
<! Sounds logical, doesn't it? But here Amis is engaging in a bit of fear-mongering. One reader who liked everything else in this article complained bitterly that this last section was inappropriate, for it would discourage inventors.>
Endnotes1. Verance, Percy. Perpetual Motion 20th Century Enlightenment Specialty Company, 1916.
<! This book actually exists. I own a copy.> 2. Jeremiah 33:3, Ezekiel 1: 4-21.
<! And what has the Bible to do with science? Perpetual motion machine inventor Arnold Burke used to quote these two verses, back in the 1970s. > 3. Tierney, John. "Perpetual Commotion." Science 83, May 1983, p. 34-39.
<! This is a genuine article, a good overview of perpetual motion. I liked the title. I hope John won't mind.> 4. Pfumbler and Goufhoff. "Cross-Coupled Backlash and Whiplash in Magnetic Fields." Applied Speculative Science, 15, 6 (June 99) pp. 2352-64.
<! Fictitious names, title, and journal.> 5. Swartzengruber J. A. et. al. "A Hitherto Overlooked Consequence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle." Journal of Alternative Physics, 7, 3 (Fall 02) pp. 1564-8.
<! Also fictitious.> 6. Brush, Stephen G. The Temperature of History: Phases of Science and Culture in the 19th Century. New York, B. Franklin, 1978.
<! A genuine book, and a good one, about the history of thermodynamics. I like the clever title. Stephen graciously permitted me to use it here.>
Watch for this new book by Ken Amis, due to be released early next year, available in fine bookstores worldwide. This long-awaited comprehensive look at perpetual motion includes its history, theory and application. Drawing on his many years of experience in the field, Ken Amis covers everything you need to know to avoid the mistakes of the past, anticipate the needs of the future, and achieve the holy grail of an over-unity machine.
Publisher: The 21st Century Enlightenment Company. Hardbound, $54.95. 9" by 10", 516 pages, 12 plates, many graphs and diagrams.
<! This book does not exist. Do not ask for it at your bookstore or library. Someone already told me he had checked bookstores and online booksellers, but none had any knowledge of this book. So he asked me for the ISBN. I replied that the book was delayed. In the final stages of production design, the publisher lost the computer files. But of course we had backups. Ken Amis, always the tinkerer, took advantage of the setbak and is now rewriting and expanding several parts of the book to enhance its obscurity.>
Ken Amis is the founder and CEO of Entropy Innovations. He has devoted his life to the quest for perpetual motion and holds several patents for key ideas and mechanisms that could contribute to this goal. He has worked apart from the more visible proponents of over-unity devices, free energy, anti-gravity and reactionless drives, for he doesn't want to be bothered with publicity or take the time required to respond to "clueless critics" of perpetual motion. Mr Amis does not have a web site, but has generously shared this and a few other documents for use on this site, granting us permission to edit and polish them into appropriate format. Serious inquires and questions may be directed to the address shown at the right. Important: Put Entropy Innovations on the subject line of your email to ensure that it reaches the correct department. Ken has asked us to screen these to weed out frivolous or abusive email. We will forward interesting or original queries to Mr. Amis for possible reply.
Some visitors to The Museum of Unworkable Devices have complained that the whole tenor of this site is negativediscouraging to folks who might wish to pursue the holy grail of perpetual motion. Therefore we have added Ken's document to represent another side of this issue, or as Ken puts it, "to give equal time to the lunatic fringe". With Ken's permission we have edited this document to fit the dimensions of reader's minds and attention span.
© 2002 by Ken Amis and Donald E. Simanek. Permission for reproduction
and use of this entire document is granted for educational non-profit
Return to front page.
Return to front page.