Is the term Perpetual Motion Machine used wrong?

Many people uses the term Perpetual motion machine with the understanding that it represents a device that can work somehow. This term is a theory only representation of a concept that must run forever, and using no energy to run.
If People are wanting a device that works on its own power source and produces usable power where it needs no outside power to run. Conforms to the laws of thermodynamics. And run for limited time no more than 1000 years lets say. This is not a perpetual motion machine. So the terms should be a different term not the be confused with a perpetual motion machine. Because this technology exist the term I started using Is ( Manufactured Renewable Energy ) or EttCM Energy Technology. Also this is not to be confused with Overunity or Free Energy. Even though the term Free Energy is a close to what it is. Thanks

I’ve actually never heard of these terms.
Who says this stuff?

Google the terms see what happens

I found the first link ;

And I now understand why I haven’t heard of this term before. Because it’s hypothetical.
And since it sounds very unreasonable also explains why it doesn’t get much coverage.

Some day the energy needs are going to be more than can be provided. The term EttCM Energy Technology is a new technology that can replace fossil fuels as it runs out. This is why I present this topic because People need information to be in the know or they are in the dark.

Not much.
Please, couldn’t you simply share some relevant links?
Or offer some searchable terms?

search comes up with nothing but manufacturing renewable energy topics.

That didn’t work out so well either

I’m curious are you Thomas Wlazlak?

In any event, I’m no expert in any way, just a simple layperson, so my judgements are based on consistency and general truthfulness. Meaning that though I have no expertise in this topic, I do notice red flags, such as “Once a Dam is payed for it becomes Free Energy.”
Do you see any problems with that over-simplification ?

The page doesn’t allow copying, which is a shame. You (I mean Wlazlak) talks about the moon’s orbit, but not a word about the moon receding from the Earth and how that fits into the g.k.e…
Moon’s “gravitational kinetic energy” that is non-depleting - “giving back untold amounts of free energy.”
Giving back to whom. Can this energy be tapped?

1 Like

For curious people: The term perpetual motion still remains unworkable, EttCM Energy technology worked out very good for me. in the way that the term perpetual motion was the wrong term for new workable technology the was similar.
As for the moon it can remain called the moon as it would be more confusing to call it lunar receding mass of kinetic free energy thing.
Thank you. it sound like some people are more expert than they admit.

One more Note: The reason there is lack of links to the information on New Terms is because they are new. When God created the Universe there were no links to what the universe was for anyone to link to. Something to think about.
( If you read what the topic is about, it is more understandable, New Term that fit the concept vs. old terms that do not fit, that are used anyway. )
Thanks for being open minded.