Almost Perpetual Motion

a no (wishful, but it's gonna be close) emission motor

Similar projects worth following
My idea for the 2017 Hackaday Prize. It's been a "What If" for a while now, and with the Hackaday prize rolling around, why not make it real? Cars suck (from an enviormental pov, personally i think the whole "global warming is one of the biggest scams in history, but getting off topic) they emit fumes, and there are only so many decomposing dinosaurs to make fuel. Other than that, for the backcountry hillbilly's like me, free (or pretty cheap) energy! Okay, here's the idea, and nobody better make copies. If you put a bunch of bar magnets in a circle, with the same side, let's say north, pointing inward in a circle, they'd repel, right? if you contained it, and put a pole with the outside south, all the magnets would try to attract it, and it would spin. All I want to do is make it spin at first. Stopping, starting, and reversing might come later. Think of a permanent magnet DC motor. I'm not sure, but if you upscaled it, i think you could ma

coming soon

  • 1 × a whole lot of magnets

  • Side Experiment

    ActualDragon06/04/2017 at 20:40 0 comments

  • New Direction

    ActualDragon05/08/2017 at 15:59 0 comments

  • Overunity

    ActualDragon04/27/2017 at 01:13 17 comments

    legit, that actually spins. maybe instead of creating something outta nothing, something out of less would be more doable. i dunno, i found that, and he uses clear plastic, so that must go for something.

  • Computer fan

    ActualDragon04/24/2017 at 18:11 10 comments

    okay, lets all admit it. a lot of the computer fan free energy things are fake. here's the most promising one i could find

    if you watch, the speed varies as the big magnet gets closer (a major proof) and he shows the interior (where the batteries are usually kept. the way i see it, if you get magnets like these

    Image result for disk magnet magnetic field

    then there's a good chance of it working. i'll order tonight, let's see

  • Config #1

    ActualDragon04/18/2017 at 12:33 1 comment

    FAIL!!! Turns out the magnets create pockets if one is just a little off. The magnet attached to the rod on the inside will sit in these pockets and won't turn. XD Now begins the search for cylindrical magnets. :( Any feedback would be greatly appreciated! thx

  • Magnets- ordered

    ActualDragon03/22/2017 at 00:11 0 comments

    I ordered my magnets from, 50 cents is really cheap, and i need a lot of them. I decided to go for the blue one in the details. I was going to drill a hole in the middle of 8 magnets, and bolt them to a piece of plastic in a circle. Cut the middle one in half, it won't affect the polarity. Countersink a hole for the rod, and attach it to the magnet. Hold the rod in place and leave it room to spin. I'm pretty certian it should work, now to research waterwheels..

  • Case, Magnet Configuration

    ActualDragon03/21/2017 at 14:59 0 comments

    I would welcome anyone with 3D printing experience who wants to help out with the case. I have one at the local makerspace, but have never used it. Also, I wanted to mention something about the magnet configuration. From what I can see, you can get either bar magnets or ring magnets. There are a lot of different north/south configurations, but only two that i can see as helpful for this.


    Image result for radial magnet ring


    Image result for diametric bar magnet

    (Sorry, couldn't find a bar magnet diagram)

    I'm going for #2, Just put the other ones on there because


    -Bars around Bars (arrange the bars in a ring in the center, a ring on the outside

    -Pros: Bars are REALLY easy to find

    -Cons: Keeping a structure on that would be like REALLY hard

    -Bars around Radial

    -Pros: Bars are easy to find, somewhat easy to setup

    -Cons: Bars need to be held together, Radial hard to find

    -Radial inside radial

    -Pros: Simple, Clean

    -Cons: Radial magnets are hard to find, custom orders take a while

  • "Almost"

    ActualDragon03/20/2017 at 15:15 0 comments

    It's impossible to make a perpetual motion machine with magnets because magnets go bad. A magnet is made of iron, and in the iron the atoms are "relaxed". Don't ask me how, but to make a magnet, you need to "charge" the particles. Eventually, the particles relax again, and the magnet dies. How long depends on the type of magnet and the usage. So, in conclusion, unless you could get enough power to control a "magnet charger" after 100 years or so, you can't do it. you can, however, make a really long lasting motor.

View all 8 project logs

Enjoy this project?




[this comment has been deleted]

ActualDragon wrote 03/15/2018 at 15:38 point

communism is great for the dictator and free energy is great for the inventor ;)

  Are you sure? yes | no

ActualDragon wrote 03/15/2018 at 15:44 point

dang bro, why u hating?

  Are you sure? yes | no

Morning.Star wrote 03/15/2018 at 19:01 point

You need to learn the difference between value and worth, Tawan. Energy is free, but capitalism makes you pay for it and communism makes you work for it, either way somebody else benefits.

Thats why it isnt working. Isms...

  Are you sure? yes | no

malvasio wrote 04/12/2018 at 09:41 point

you should check no magnets but better

  Are you sure? yes | no

Matheus Carvalho wrote 06/08/2017 at 03:07 point

The IPCC itself admits their models are off. The Earth is warming, but not as near as often shown by the media. It is highly unlikely that the catastrophic scenarios often shown will ever happen. There are many more important problems that demand our attention.

Still, the project is pretty cool. Only a fool wouldn't love free and infinite energy.

  Are you sure? yes | no

greenaum wrote 06/05/2017 at 04:49 point

>Thinks global warming is a "scam"

>Has invented his own perpetual motion machine

>Using magnets

>Is allowed to vote

  Are you sure? yes | no

ActualDragon wrote 06/05/2017 at 22:40 point

>oh my gosh

>not again

>I feel you @Patrick Van Oosterwijck

>since its here i guess i should respond

>#1, I'm not allowed to vote

>#2, do you know how much money al gore is making?

>If cow burps contributes, how did millions of years of dinosaurs the size of houses not cause it?

>If it's our fault, why are there ice ages every couple of millions of years?

>#3, I haven't invented anything yet, did you even read my logs?

>dont get your panties in a knot yet, if i actualy come up with something, then you can criticise.

  Are you sure? yes | no

Ricardo Ferro wrote 06/05/2017 at 23:24 point

lol sombody jelly of ActualDragon

  Are you sure? yes | no

ActualDragon wrote 06/06/2017 at 00:35 point

geez man, chill. a bit amped, don't ya think? check out his comment below XD

  Are you sure? yes | no

Clara Hobbs wrote 06/06/2017 at 03:15 point

>If it's our fault, why are there ice ages every couple of millions of years?
What are you getting at here?  I genuinely cannot tell what you're trying to say.  We've only been spewing greenhouse gases into the air at an alarming rate for a couple hundred years, I have no clue how that relates to ice ages on the scale of millions of years.

  Are you sure? yes | no

ActualDragon wrote 06/06/2017 at 10:57 point

i was just defending my view on global warming. the earths temperature is cyclical. hotter, colder, it happens. If we raise it 2-3 degrees, the enviorment changes. nothing we can do will stop it. al gore knows this, and hes making a boatload off of our ignorance. He has 2-3 houses ill bet pump fossil fuels 24/7

  Are you sure? yes | no

Arya wrote 06/06/2017 at 23:35 point

Oh, would you look at that - commenters leaking to!

  Are you sure? yes | no

lantramnamcodon wrote 05/17/2017 at 09:24 point

hello buddy,i want to share the perpetual engine to you.

  Are you sure? yes | no

ActualDragon wrote 05/17/2017 at 10:46 point

sure, pm me

  Are you sure? yes | no

Dr. Cockroach wrote 04/26/2017 at 18:21 point

Good afternoon AD, I have worked with my Bedini SSG energizer for many years now and can say that I have recorded COP well over 5 and can repeat the results anytime :-) However this only works for me using a small lead acid battery, when scaling up then I start to lose those results. People will say there is no free energy. That depends on how you look at it. A PV panel gives you a cop way up there because once hooked up, YOU do not put anything into it. Same with the Bedini devices, the energy is coming from outside the system but we just can not agree on a name for the source. The discovery of perpetual motion might not be possible but the "Almost" part opens a window to see how far you can go. I say continue to build, experiment and learn new things. Who knows what you might discover :-)

  Are you sure? yes | no

davedarko wrote 04/26/2017 at 18:03 point

Don't take it too personal, when you get shit for that - you'll experiment, find flaws (or not) and present it here. Even if everyone think it's a brain-fart, for me it's important to sometimes not listen, but try for yourself. Have a good learning experience, mate! Yes you can research stuff, but sometimes it's just fun to actually do it - worst case you get some magnets for other projects :) 

  Are you sure? yes | no

Thomas wrote 04/26/2017 at 17:35 point

I had been waiting for it. I was 8 or 9 years old when I made this "invention". What should I say, I was a very proud inventor until my dad told me about "conservation of energy".

By the way, you're a fine one to talk about hoaxes. That's really a good joke :-)

  Are you sure? yes | no

ActualDragon wrote 04/26/2017 at 17:41 point

people keep talking about conservation of energy. i read the definition 2 or 3 times. all i'm doing is changing the form of energy. and what about the hoaxes? did i say something?

  Are you sure? yes | no

Thomas wrote 04/26/2017 at 18:02 point

Well, if you're changing the form of energy it might work. Here is a hint on how to find out if you're actually doing that: measure the magnetization of the magnets in your machine. If it drops while it rotates then it's changing the form of energy. If it stays the same, please check which other form of energy it's transforming into very-low-frequency electromagnetic, and accustic waves :-) Energy harvesting is a thing.

About the 2nd question: yes, you did (in the summary of the project page).

  Are you sure? yes | no

ActualDragon wrote 04/26/2017 at 18:07 point

ah ok

  Are you sure? yes | no

Yann Guidon / YGDES wrote 04/26/2017 at 18:08 point

The problem is : to change a magnetic field, you have to *put* energy, even to reduce it, because the magnetic field that you observe is just a combine alignment of the spins of all the atoms. Magnetism is not "energy", it's "a state".
When you de-magnetize a material, you just scramble the countless individual spins of the constituting particles.

  Are you sure? yes | no

Thomas wrote 04/26/2017 at 18:44 point

Salut Ygdes, of course, that's right. However, one can still use thermal energy to demagnetize a substance :-)

  Are you sure? yes | no

lantramnamcodon wrote 05/17/2017 at 09:25 point

yes,conversation of energy,time,space are all stupid illusion of human mind.this universe is pure idealistic.

  Are you sure? yes | no

Mohsen Abbasi wrote 04/26/2017 at 15:09 point

Should I laugh now or what? All this and all oher videos are JUST and ALWAYS without loads. I is totally normal that thay rotate, because the starting impuls. But this is useless, because when you put a load, the impuls will go lost very quickly and you will need a new impuls. 

You don't believe?... more

  Are you sure? yes | no

ActualDragon wrote 04/26/2017 at 15:32 point

lough? laugh? first, i haven't tried the fan yet, i still need to order parts. second, you have your facts wrong. a led is a load, and any free energy device, fake or not has at least a led. did you mean a high amperage load? please specify. lastly, it's just, not jsut.

  Are you sure? yes | no

Yann Guidon / YGDES wrote 04/26/2017 at 17:16 point

@mohsenabbasiarbeit:  just chill, grab popcorn and enjoy the show, like most people here ;-)

  Are you sure? yes | no

Mohsen Abbasi wrote 04/26/2017 at 17:31 point

good idea :D

  Are you sure? yes | no

XSK5 wrote 04/24/2017 at 22:01 point

I had the idea as a kid that someone should put magnets around a rotor, with one pole facing outward, all the same pole. The housing (stator) would have magnets with opposite poles facing inward towards the rotor. Even if it required a little push, maybe it would be perpetual motion!? Eventually as I thought about it through the years I realized the system would always maintain equillibrium. If you gained some momentum as magnets approached the attracting pole, you would lose it as they continued past, still being pulled backward towards the stator magnets. But just for fun, about a year ago, I built the "device" and tried her out. She tends to stay in one position. If you spin the rotor, the first rotor magnet to find its way to a stator magnet will lock it in place. So I turned the stator magnets 90 degrees so that as the rotor magnets approach, they are attracted by the opposite pole, and after they pass, pushed along by the similiar pole. Same shit. The first rotor magnet to approach a stator magnet gets stuck in position. I still have the designs on Tinkercad. You cannot gain energy from the system. There will never be a net gain. Adding a motor wont help "reclaim" any energy because there is none to gain... you just make a wobbly motor that has to sometimes push against a magnet slowing it down, sometimes gets pushed along by one speeding up, but the net is still zero.

  Are you sure? yes | no

ActualDragon wrote 04/24/2017 at 22:11 point

Isn't there energy put into the magnets when they're magnetized? From there it's only common sense that there is some way to reclaim it. a magnet motor is just the esieast way.

  Are you sure? yes | no

Yann Guidon / YGDES wrote 04/24/2017 at 22:46 point

The magnetic field requires energy to be modified.

Either heat (above the Curie temperature) or another moving magnetic field.

  Are you sure? yes | no

Yann Guidon / YGDES wrote 04/25/2017 at 00:24 point

And don't forget "magnetic hysteresis" either, it's a dissipative process...

  Are you sure? yes | no

greenaum wrote 06/05/2017 at 04:56 point

>Misunderstands difference between force and energy

You're really going for 10 / 10 here, aren't you? I don't suppose you'd just believe this is impossible? You're really gonna go all the way?

It's annoying that someone thinks they can beat the laws of thermodynamics when they don't even understand basic magnetism. Of course that's *why* they think this'll work, but still...

What I recommend is get the biggest magnets you can possibly afford, to defeat the friction, that's the important part. And expensive Teflon bearings. Or better, *magnetic* bearings. If anyone calls you a fool, re-mortgage your house then call them a BIGGER fool. Since you haven't read up on basic magnetism, you may as well drag poor Tesla into this. Don't read about his work either, of course. 

  Are you sure? yes | no

ActualDragon wrote 06/05/2017 at 22:33 point

honestly, it's disappointing when people clog up my comments section thinking they know everything about energy. The world's top scientists don't even understand it fully. In an infinite universe, there are infinite possibilities. I was talking to @Morning.Star, 100 years ago we thought heavier than air flight was impossible! Imagine that. The wright brothers took a lot of shit, they didn't give up. Look what we have now because of them. Laws were made to be broken. Fuck you laws of thermodynamics. Besides, dont follow my project and you dont have to think about it ever again.

  Are you sure? yes | no

Yann Guidon / YGDES wrote 06/06/2017 at 03:10 point

> The world's top scientists don't even understand it fully.

Oh, the old "their ignorance justifies mine" argument :-)

We're here to learn, so stop comparing :-)

Now it you have a new theory that defies Maxwell's equations, I'm interested.

  Are you sure? yes | no

Morning.Star wrote 06/06/2017 at 11:14 point

@greenaum, name-dropping Tesla wont help you, are you telling us you understand his work better than anyone? One thing you may have noticed about it then, is he showed a distinct disregard for the theories de jour and as a result, his discoveries drive a significant portion of today's technology. A fact that only came to light after his detractors and competitors were exposed as fraudsters as well.

@ActualDragon is proving to himself where the edge of his universe is, you would be encouraging him if you had any clue about what science is for.

Here's a thought. Instead of berating him, why dont you donate some of your obviously superior research. Hackaday is a collaborative platform created specifically for us to share our ideas and theories, teach, and learn... Only idiots think they know better than everyone, proving it is the pivotal part of genius...

  Are you sure? yes | no

Morning.Star wrote 04/24/2017 at 06:37 point

Can I point out a few flaws, AD?

One, fields are laminar - that is they enclose each other like onion skins. This means that the magnet in the centre is simply sitting in a 'donut shaped' radial magnet with N in the centre. Because the magnets forming it are not equally made, and cannot be because of the vagaries of atomic alignment, It will also be lop-sided, and the central magnet will latch onto the strongest part of the field. You will need to adjust the ring of magnets for position to equalise the field and allow the magnet to spin freely.

If you manage that down to almost immeasurable accuracy, then the centre magnet will spin freely in the middle as if it had no magnets around it, bringing you back to air friction and bearing friction in a flywheel. The magnets each repel exactly as strongly as they attract and cancel each other out.

Two, fields are compound - a magnet is made of billions of mini-magnets all stuck together in a block. Stacking magnets together makes a macro copy of the mini-field arrangement - a single magnet behaves the same as its components. This is why, when you break a magnet in half, it makes two smaller magnets. You are simply dividing the compound field. Both sub-magnets are the same strengths, but they are physically smaller and therefore weaker. The strength of a magnet depends on how closely the domains are aligned with each other and how dense they are. If you heat a strong magnet it demagnetises, yes? Where does the energy go when this happens, does it rush out like in a coil or cap? Nope, its self-contained. All the domains are free to move once past the Curie Point, so fall into a random pattern that exerts no net force in any direction on any other.

Three, fields are amorphous - when you bring a magnet close to piece of iron, the domians in the iron line up like the ones in the magnet because they are 'loose'. Thats why iron is magnetic and copper is not. In copper the domains are 'tight' and cannot move to realign and thus contain the magnet field in opposition, which is why iron sticks to the magnet. Option two, with the iron bar will not work for this reason. Yes, the magnets are attracted to the bar but also equally stick to it and wont pull away - the same force in both directions cancels so that machine wont even spin. Plus the belt friction is excessive, it takes a fair amount of energy to bend rubber and thats lost each end of the belt on the hubs.

Some advice on making a perpetual-motion machine - it isnt possible. What IS possible is a nearly frictionless environment that preserves the initial run energy for a looong time by utilising sinks, like gravity, capacitance, inductance etc to store it.

If you'd like help proving this to yourself, I'm happy to pitch in. I've already done a lot of this research myself and drawn the conclusion that I'd need to be in a vacuum, away from Earth's fields where they cant affect the outcome. One thing that is definite is an unconstrained magnet will always align N-S on the planet with good bearings, ruining your experiment.

  Are you sure? yes | no

ActualDragon wrote 04/24/2017 at 13:06 point

it's not supposed to be a perpetual motion machine- hence the almost. all i want to do is get the energy from magnetizing the magnets back. i'd tell you to look up a "magnet free energy generator" but those are some weird people. XD that was helpful though, thanks

  Are you sure? yes | no

ActualDragon wrote 03/21/2017 at 15:49 point

umm, a lot i guess, it depends on the magnets. i read somewhere they should last for 75 years or so

  Are you sure? yes | no

haydn jones wrote 03/21/2017 at 16:19 point

I'm not sure it is a lot in a normal magnet, because when you use a magnet, generally you apply just as much energy as it gave to remove it. But i doubt many magnets are made to the highest potential power. I think the longevity isn't related to capacity, but it is a great testament to the long term power storage potential.

  Are you sure? yes | no

haydn jones wrote 03/21/2017 at 00:35 point

So looking at the top image in your project details, the motion produces energy while the magnets, demagnetise. So in actual fact it is a magnetism based battery?

  Are you sure? yes | no

ActualDragon wrote 03/21/2017 at 15:39 point

ah, i didn't think of it that way, yeah definitely. that's really cool!

  Are you sure? yes | no

haydn jones wrote 03/21/2017 at 15:43 point

Whats the potential energy density of magnetism?

  Are you sure? yes | no

Similar Projects

Does this project spark your interest?

Become a member to follow this project and never miss any updates