Perpetual Motion Engine (Mar, 1933)

This seems a bit sketchy, seeing as how it violates the laws of physics.

Cans Lift Up Water Column in Perpetual Motion Engine

THE latest in perpetual motion machines is a fuelless engine devised by a Frenchman of Paris, M. Miralle. The contraption functions on an application of Archimedes’ principle of floating bodies, and consists of a sort of thick set chimney made of sheet iron and equipped with fifteen flywheels.

The machine is set going by turning one of the flywheels about fifteen revolutions, which subsequently sets the remaining wheels in operation. Over these wheels passes an endless chain fixed in the interior of the chimney like a motor, in which is also a series of chambers made of vegetable cans.

The chimney is filled with water so that the chamber and the endless chain are submerged in the liquid. One of the columns of chambers contains water and the other, through a process known only to M. Miralle, is filled with air. The air-filled chambers tend to rise to the surface of the water-filled chimney, thus setting the motor in motion. The photo shows M. Miralle standing beside his invention.

  1. huh says: July 14, 20085:54 am

    Perpetual motion does not exist. I’m guessing they didn’t teach basic physics back then.

  2. Mark says: March 29, 20095:18 pm

    The whole idea of perpetual motion machines is so silly. Even if you could build one, which is impossible, it would be completely pointless. What is the benefit of a machine that can only run itself, and just barely at that? If it can’t do any extra work the machine would be useless.

  3. jayessell says: March 29, 20095:40 pm

    This seems a variation on the selective buoyancy perpetual motion machine.

    Liquid filled cans sink, but air filled cans float.

    (Filling the cans with air at the bottom of the loop takes more energy than the raising cans could produce.)

    My favorite is the wooden wheel perpetual motion machine.
    Wood floats, so if the left side of a wooden wheel was in water and the right side was in air, it would turn perpetually.
    ($#@! waterproof gaskets!)

  4. john says: June 6, 200912:50 am

    Hmmm… It seems someone hasn’t learned their physics too well. Perhaps think logically before you react illogically next time.

    have any of you looked at “clems” perpetual motion? or looked up CEACU perpetual motion engines? it can be done and has been done, nothing new here. Clem’s engine produced over 300 hp for 9 days straight. The CEACU engine produces over 1,100 hp. these engines can run this hp at under 2,500 RPM however to start them to the point where they actually begin to perpetually run requires the use of a stepped (clutched) starter and surprise a battery. Still they are pretty cool and simple. check out… for an illustration and more info. they use spray jets and compressed fluid/air.

    However I am assuming (possibly wrongly) that a perpetual motion machine could also be efficiently made by creating cylinders under heavy vacuum (absence of air) much more closely related to a modern vehicles’ engine. I don’t think that it would work for a rotary engine though as it would be a little harder to create a sufficient constant vacuum on each side of the rotor.

    Also another thing to look into is KERS (Kenetic Energy Recovery System). This is now as of 2009 allowed to be used in F1 racing. During braking the wasted kinetic energy is stored by either mechanical (at the flywheel),electrical,hydraulic, or pneumatic means. At the push of a button extra (built up) hp is released for several seconds. There is no reason that 200-500 extra hp can’t be realized. It may also be more usable if a stepped system is made to reintroduce the power in stages.

    Therefore it seems that a Clems’ engine design used with a KERS would indeed produce quite a usable and interesting machine/vehicle!

  5. Firebrand38 says: June 6, 20092:08 am

    Hmmm…. Nonsense.

  6. -DOUG- says: June 6, 20096:27 pm

    Dang, what happened to the comment I was putting up last night? Did the system wonk? Don’t really want to rewrite that.

    The short version is, no, the Clem with KERS would no longer allow the air chamber to rise, as the additional load would make it no longer lighter than the water. The endless chain would bog down under the additional strain.

    KERS is a failure in the Grand Prix, not a success. Only the Williams team system is considered to have potential. The race in Istanbul will start in hours, most if not all are going WITHOUT the KERS this week. The talk is of banning the technology as an expensive white elephant. It was supposed to be the crowning achievement of this generation of racing engineers, a gift to the world from the fantasy life of Formula One and 9 digit technical budgets. Instead, they’ve backhandedly aided the world in learning that KERS isn’t practical afterall, at least in today’s world. Too large and too heavy for the energy it ‘Recaptures.’

    You cannot realize 200-500hp with KERS because energy cannot be realized, only interpreted. As in you can only convert energy, not create it. Whatever process you use to generate electricity will give you less than the total potential, as some will be lost to heat/friction.

    I remember I mentioned the Father/Son relatives with their ideas that you can generate a huge amount of electricity with small engine driving it if you help that engine bring it to speed and that you can build a never needs charging electric car just by hanging enough generators on it. But one horsepower translates to not quite 750 watts, and you won’t get that full amount from your generator, a 5hp engine will give you about one wall outlet of power if it runs full tilt. Meanwhile, an alternator cannot generate enough electricity to power an engine that will keep it at speed generating that power. The output of an alternator is so small as compared to the power needed to move an electric vehicle, even if it was practical to put enough in the system the weight of the load and the energy required to spin them would be greater than the electricity they could generate.

    As long as people tell themselves ‘It’s spinning anyway, it’s free power’ they’ll make the mistake of thinking there’s no load created in trying to generate power from it. The point is made at the Formula One site, in the statement about slower cars holding back a driver without the KERS. “Christian Horner believes its race performances in both Bahrain and Barcelona were disguised because Sebastian Vettel got trapped behind cars with KERS (Lewis Hamilton’s McLaren and Felipe Massa’s Ferrari respectively).” The Red Bull team didn’t run KERS, and was therefore faster. Vettel has won this year, Massa and Hamilton have not.…

    (Well, that may lack the entertainment value of the other post, but it’s more to the point.)

  7. Kiwi ingenuity says: September 7, 20096:34 pm

    Imagine this:
    A pulley that is part of a side on a container full of water (got that?), there is a can full of air attatched to the pulley. The can (plus pulley) goes through a hole in the side of the container which (by many different possible designs) puts the can into the bottom of the container of water, the acceleration of the can (air in water) launches it around the pulley, down the side (outside the container) and back into the container. Note the mechanism that puts the can back into the container is designed for minimal resistance and minimal (but inevitable) water loss (a larger container is better as there is not much extra pressure to force more water out).

  8. Kouznetsov says: March 1, 20109:43 am

    That perpetual motion claim is not last.
    The most recent perpetual motion machine is called “gravitzapa”(?????????) ;
    it is installed at the Russian satellite “Yubileiny” (?????????):
    Russian scientists test perpetual motion machine in space.
    14.04.2009 Source: Pravda.Ru
    Then, it changes its claim from the ciolation of the conservation of energy to the violation of
    the First Law of newton. The article says:

    The new engine lasts for 15 years and can be started about 300,000 times. It uses solar batteries for its power, engineers at the institute said.

    Some common ideas recur repeatedly in perpetual motion machine designs. Many ideas that continue to appear today were stated as early as 1670 by John Wilkins, Bishop of Chester and an official of the Royal Society. He outlined three potential sources of power for a perpetual motion machine, “Chymical Extractions”, “Magnetical Virtues” and “the Natural Affection of Gravity”.

    The seemingly mysterious ability of magnets to influence motion at a distance without any apparent energy source has long appealed to inventors. One of the earliest examples of a system using magnets was proposed by Wilkins and has been widely copied since: it consists of a ramp with a magnet at the top, which pulled a metal ball up the ramp. Near the magnet was a small hole that was supposed to allow the ball to drop under the ramp and return to the bottom, where a flap allowed it to return to the top again. The device simply could not work: any magnet strong enough to pull the ball up the ramp would necessarily be too powerful to allow it to drop through the hole. Faced with this problem, more modern versions typically use a series of ramps and magnets, positioned so the ball is to be handed off from one magnet to another as it moves. The problem remains the same.

    More generally, magnets can do no net work, although this was not understood until much later. A magnet can accelerate an object, like the metal ball of Wilkins’ device, but this motion will always come to stop when the object reaches the magnet, releasing that work in some other form – typically its mechanical energy being turned into heat. In order for this motion to continue, the magnet would have to be moved, which would require energy.

    Gravity also acts at a distance, without an apparent energy source. But to get energy out of a gravitational field (for instance, by dropping a heavy object, producing kinetic energy as it falls) you have to put energy in (for instance, by lifting the object up), and some energy is always dissipated in the process. A typical application of gravity in a perpetual motion machine is Bhaskara’s wheel in the 12th century, whose key idea is itself a recurring theme, often called the overbalanced wheel: Moving weights are attached to a wheel in such a way that they fall to a position further from the wheel’s center for one half of the wheel’s rotation, and closer to the center for the other half. Since weights further from the center apply a greater torque, the result is (or would be, if such a device worked) that the wheel rotates forever. The moving weights may be hammers on pivoted arms, or rolling balls, or mercury in tubes; the principle is the same.

  9. James B. Johnson says: September 14, 20105:43 pm

    Never say Never. Flight by man was once impossible. The use of such a device would be, not to drive other devices, but to produce very tiny amounts of energy that, once accumulated, could be implemented to use as electricity.
    Because temperature and other atmospheric “pressures” are constantly changing, no matter how slightly, those natural “pressures” might be used to produce very small amounts of energy (even played one against the other)(?). Constructed on a great level, lots of useful energy could be realized.

  10. Firebrand38 says: September 14, 20106:08 pm

    James B. Johnson: Sound horn! Non sequitur alert. “Flight by man”? As long as he obeyed the same laws of aerodynamics and physics as everything else it wasn’t “impossible” just for a time “impractical”. I love it when folks wax philosophic and don’t know what they’re talking about. Tell you what, devote that intellectual energy to actually building something rather than pining about things that used to be impossible.

  11. jayessell says: September 14, 20106:16 pm

    Decades ago Edmund Scientific sold a clock that was wound by the expansion and compression of a can due to atmospheric pressure fluctuations.

    This is an extremely inefficient heat engine, not a perpetual motion machine.
    The sun drives earth’s weather.
    No sun = no weather = clock stops = not perpetual motion.

    *MY* idea for a Perpetual Motion machine is gyroscopes at the equator stealing power
    from the earth’s rotation!!!

  12. Firebrand38 says: September 14, 20106:20 pm

    jayessell: Quiet! You’ve said too much!

    Actually JBJ makes the same mistake that a lot of the Great Unwashed make as in the example of the “sound barrier’ and the myth perpetuated in the movie The Right Stuff. It’s not that anyone doubted that the so called “barrier” could be broken or that it was ever “impossible”. The Bell X-1 (nee Glamorous Glennis) was shaped like a .50 caliber machine gun bullet which had been breaking the “sound barrier” for a long time (leave us not forget the German V-2 rocket). The trick was whether a plane with a human pilot could fly faster than the speed of sound and maneuver. The fact that it was done kind of renders the whole impossible thing moot.

  13. jayessell says: September 14, 20106:29 pm

    About the clock I mentioned:…

  14. Jari says: September 15, 20104:47 pm

    Someone has actually done some math about equatorial gyroscopes, see the link. In a way, I’d like to see a 1 >Million< metric ton flywheel going around 120 rpm, but that behemoth would be only capable of delivering a whopping ~600 Watts energy output from an axle which turns around once in a day. And all that with no-loss gearboxes and bearings… Nice idea though, as Earths rotational energy is really, really tremendous. Well, I got an artificial horizon gyro from boot sale for 1 euro, which takes about 15 W after the spun up, and the flywheel weights only about 1 kilo, But boy, does it resists trying to turn it against the remaining gimbals joint….…

  15. Amanbrauto says: March 14, 20124:13 am

    Perpectual motion machines cannot exist.But Real Gravity Non-Perpectual Engines are actually!
    Please see:



  16. Amanbrauto says: March 14, 20124:15 am
  17. Amanbrauto says: March 14, 20124:17 am

    Perpectual motion machines cannot exist!But Real Non Perpectual Gravity engines are possible.
    Please see,


    For more details about real Non-Perpectual Gravity engines.

  18. Amanbrauto says: March 14, 20124:18 am

    Analogous Principle of working of my Non Perpectual gravity engine:

    (analogous principle of working means a principle of working Similar to that of the original principle of working)
    This is “Gravity-Piston Impulse Kinetic Power Technology”. 
    Let’s assume that,you spent energy to take object up,and regain supplied energy when object comes down PLUS gravitational amplification occurs when that object (Lets take example of basket ball)hits a basket ball net with small hole at bottom.When the basket ball hits the net,the net sets in vibration due to IMPULSIVE energy(gravitational amplification) .Assume that the net is piezo electric elastic material which converts impulsive energy to electrical energy!The basket ball net  is analogous to 4 flywheels I used in my original engine design.(I use pusher rods to transmit energy to flywheels in my original design).
    Instead of heavy ball,I use heavy pistons and special force distribution technique,not disclosed here.
    I can’t disclose the whole concept to general public because I am applying for patent:There are ready diagrams relating to my idea,but i fear some one could copy.Hence,I am explaining my invention through an analogous Example!
    My engine design is inspired from nature,hence there are no chances of failure of my Non Perpectual gravity engine.

    So what’s according to me  is gravity amplification : Additional gravitational energy stored in a descending body when gravity acts on it!

    This leads to Impulsive energy transfer!

    To be more elaborate,
    gravitational energy which has two components:
    1) energy required to bring heavy object down 2) excessive potential energy
    Applied by gravity which then is converted in to Impulsive energy.

    Let’s put it this way:take an other example not related to gravity
    engine.Whenever you push door,the door moves further than you intend
    to!Why?because of excess energy stored!Now,if u keep any ball in front of
    door on the floor,due to opening/pushing of door,the ball will get impulsive
    energy to move forward!

    Yes,that means gravitational energy utilised to pull the ball towards earth
    by the earth’s magnetic field is much much more than energy required to lift

    So gravitational amplification is basically the excess energy gravity stores in a falling body like heavy ball!This can be used as impulsive energy by special and simple technique!Well ifyou are not aware,Impulsive energy is very high integral of sudden energies in a short time! 
    At first, I intend to produce products only for domestic use and as a camping accessory. I am doing more research for increasing power output so that it can be used in the future in cars. A single cylinder arrangement with 4 flywheels arrangement can produce enough power to power a tube light.

    Just wanted to share this,Please share the below very very important article with as many people as possible:

    A real gravity /magnetic engine is not a Perpectual motion machine!I am myself inventing a non -Perpectual gravity engine!People think falsely that gravity and magnetic engines are impossible but it is not true!They are mostly mislead by cheaters claiming to invent Perpectual machines or claiming to invent such engine that are Perpectual for us!These cheaters and non intelluctual conventional minded people have made our scientists life miserable.Very little people believe in us real scientists because of the psycological thinking that gravity / magnetic engines are Perpectual!It seems these people including most professors have stopped thinking the reality and are only bookish.Though complex,the most simplest principle/way to make use of gravity is impulsive energy when a heavy ball falls over a light weight object(Example : basket ball net) in between.I am inventing my own gravity engine based on this impulsive energy concept using proper force distribution and gravitaitional amplification,inspired from nature and flywheels 
    Reminding once again:My engine is not Perpectual!   
    Don’t be dump:Spread awareness about real gravity engines which are not Perpectual!Ask people never get mislead by cheaters claiming to invent Perpectual motion machines!Let me tell you that there might be only 20 real gravity/magnetic engines inventors,all others are cheaters!   
    I am not posting spam,those cheaters are posting spams!   
    The internet community should explain the reality to other people!Dont simply tell people that fuel less engines exist:Unless you explain them that these engines are not Perpectual and you can use impulsive energy concept intelligently,no one will believe in us!And try to spread my message to atleast 20 famous websites each of you!Be aware of spams and cheaters like this:…  
    and tell people that they are been mislead by such spams!Encourage only real authentic inventors like me!And I wil like to know whether most of you really know what is meant by a”Perpectual motion machine”.Please understand the concepts of physics!   
    My Non Perpectual engine does not violate any laws of thermaodynamics!Since its not a Perpectual machine! 
    If you all will do what I say,the day is not far when your children will see IC engines in museums,and will never go to any fuel filling station!But we only need your effort in right direction,not just some statements which don’t explain the reality!A magnetic engine is also possible.Photons compress atomic particles to store compressed energy in them as nuclear energy,but it’s not easy to make such engines.It requires a highly intellectual brain!

  19. Buoyancy Conveyor Link – Eagle-Research says: September 3, 20194:05 pm

    […] 1933 article about bouyancy invention. […]

Submit comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.