It’s the attitude of most intellectuals that the law of thermodynamics can’t be broken so don’t even bother trying to create a perpetual motion machine!
As an intellectual (and a scientist), my attitude is you certainly should try, I just don’t expect you to succeed. Like any scientific theory or law, thermodynamics is only as strong as the evidence supporting it; one “ugly fact” can shoot it down in a heartbeat.
But (here it comes), to have circumvented the laws of thermodynamics is an extraordinary claim, as such it requires extraordinary evidence to back it up.
An inventor by the name of Bessler created a wheel in the 18th century which was powered by weights & gravity. It was very well tested & documented. This machine apparantly worked and it could do work. References can be found on the web. Just google “Bessler wheel”. Although his trade secret went with him to his grave, the amount of people who witnessed and verified the machine cannot be dismissed.
This is a nice example of non-extraordinary evidence. A perpetual motion machine"powered by weights and gravity” whose secrets are now lost. You have no evidence how Bessler’s wheel was powered, it could have been clockwork, or a heat engine, or a well-fed ferret in a wheel. Bessler is an interesting piece of historical arcana, but it no more proves perpetual motion is possible than it proves it isn’t.
What I am saying is that If you think & believe that something is impossible then.. IT IS! But most and nearly all laws of motion, thermodynamics have been derived by experimentation, trials, and THEORY!
And as such they are tested again, and again, and again. Your emphasis on theory implies this is a bad thing, when in fact it is the opposite. A law describes, a theory explains. Hence theories are much richer areas of science, and more vulnerable. Theories need to be complete (internally, no “at this point a miracle occurs” in the workings), consistent and accessible (at least to others in the field). That way the assumptions can be challenged, the logic picked apart and the conclusions argued over. Anything a theory should explain but doesn’t is potentially fatal to it. Anything a law predicts which isn’t is definitely fatal to it.
Open your mind to the possibilities and challenge the norm. This is the only way new theories & laws can be explored. Don’t say it’s impossible. Say it could be. You just have to find the right methods!
Good science does this. The idea of a scientific orthodoxy shutting down heresies is an impossible myth. There are just too many scientists willing to “give it a go” for even the most heretical idea to be silenced (ESP is a case in point). Anyone who recreated Bessler’s wheel would have scientists queuing round the block to explain why it’s (a) a hoax or (b) a mistake. And if they can’t, there’s a Nobel prize waiting for the first one to explain how it works.
A quick look at the history of cold fusion (try wikipedia) demonstrates this. Despite numerous failed attempts to create (or replicate) fusion in Fleischmann/Pons style apparatus, and the widespread view that this approach is unlikely to amount to squat, there are still several active teams of experimenters. Most scientists would just shrug at this and think, “It’s their time and money. Fair does to ‘em!”