The relevant claim concerns a machine that repeats its complete operating cycle while delivering a continuing net output of work without a corresponding supply of energy. A machine cannot supply net work in a cycle without taking in energy or depleting an energy store. This follows from conservation of energy, an experimentally supported physical law rather than a theorem of pure logic.
Let include the machine's internal energy, kinetic energy and potential energy. With the net heat received and the net work delivered, the first law of thermodynamics givesFor a complete cycle all stores return to their initial values, so and . If there is neither heat input nor another energy input, . A descending mass, unwinding spring, consumed fuel or discharged battery supplies energy, but it cannot be omitted from the accounting while calling the result perpetual motion.
Changing an overbalanced wheel's geometry does not evade the argument. A conservative force gives zero net work around a closed configuration cycle, while friction dissipates usable mechanical energy. Resetting a mechanism or returning a raised weight costs work that must be included.
Indefinitely continuing motion without useful output is a different possibility: an ideal frictionless oscillator or freely moving body need not stop. Connecting a load removes energy and changes that situation. A cyclic machine supplied with heat from only one reservoir and converting all that heat into work is excluded instead by the Kelvin-Planck statement of the Second law of thermodynamics. The first-law and second-law objections address different proposed energy balances.
Perpetual motion 2026-10-31
A proposed cyclic machine that continuously delivers useful work without the corresponding permitted energy input. A first-kind machine violates conservation of energy; a second-kind machine would turn heat from a single reservoir completely into work in a cycle, contrary to the Kelvin-Planck statement. Continuing ideal motion without withdrawing work is a different claim.