Perpetual Motion

[Slybacon]

Is perpetual motion possible?

If you follow the fundamental law of energy. You cannot get more out of a system then what you put in, then the answer is no. However can we come close to perpetual motion? If we use combinations of technology to access energy stored in varias natuaral systems could we come up with a method to keep something in motion for "essentially" ever. Whilst pondering this idea I believe I have come up with some really elegant simple solutions. At this stage my designs (line drawings on a beer coaster) suggest that it may be possible we just need to think about how we tap into the energy. I believe I have come up with a way of charging a weight with energy from magnets and discharging the weight using gravity. Are there any budding inventors that have played around with this type of device. I think it would be a really interesting topic to start. As soon as I draw up a basic sketch I'll post my designs and you can tear them apart for me.

[Foo]

Apparently electrons at super zero temps are capable of Perpetual something.

[ThunderIdeal]

i designed a machine using magnets and gravity when i was about ten.

obviously the implication of a perpetual motion machine, if it can draw enough energy to overcome attempts by friction to slow it down, then it can be used to generate electricity. zero point energy or something, maybe, but i give physicists enough credit that if it were possible using more well understood forces, then it would already exist. still i'm interested in your design!

[Thelema]

nevertheless, the whirling of whatever it is between G and M forces will agitate air molecules, and will thereby lose heat...so you better start off in a total vacuum!

[ballzac]

There's no reason why you can't have 'almost' perpetual motion. But for what purpose? Probably the best you could do on Earth would be a wheel on magnetic bearings in a vacuum. But as soon as you applied a load to it, it would stop spinning. So what's the point in 'perpetual' motion if you can't use it to do any work?

[zelly]

Is perpetual motion possible?

If you follow the fundamental law of energy. You cannot get more out of a system then what you put in, then the answer is no.

What if the fundamental law of energy is flawed, & has been since its inception. What if its been easier to teach & perpetuate a lie, than to undo everything that has followed since then?

 

is getting free electricity.

Then add in a jet pump with magnetic bearings and magnetic bearings for the pulley shaft.

How about a motionless electromagnetic generator? pdf

[Slybacon]

There's no reason why you can't have 'almost' perpetual motion. But for what purpose?

 

I would propose that once an idea is formed (ie - keep something going for ever) then you can change and use the design to try and improve efficiency and achieve over unity.

Probably the best you could do on Earth would be a wheel on magnetic bearings in a vacuum. But as soon as you applied a load to it, it would stop spinning. So what's the point in 'perpetual' motion if you can't use it to do any work?

 

Not entirely. You would only need a vacum if the friction of airpressure on the moving componenets applies more force then the energy required to move them. Nearly all designs I have seen involve the movement of the magnets, meaning you would need magnets that weigh less then the energy they are capable of generating. What if you were to move a shield that blocks the magnetic field allowing gravity to pull the device back to it resting position. Then move the shield and allow the magnetic field to move a piston that is hooked upto the shield itself. In a system like this gravity removes the shield the magnet pushes the shield and the only moving part is the shield and the drive mechinism for it.

So what's the point in 'perpetual' motion if you can't use it to do any work?

 

You would achieve something that is in "theory" impossible. That is itself very cool even if it serves no other purpose.

[Alice]

If you honestly believe your idea will amount to anything then when you post your diagrams, take a photo of them with a newspaper showing the date and headlines etc. Important should someone want to claim your idea as their own down the track.

Edit: Hmm that might not be enough, what if the idea stealers also collected newspapers...

Ah well, we'll all back you up.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Alice

[ThunderIdeal]

yep. i've got a patent application half-filled out already, with my.... err....your.... with your name on it.

[ballzac]

Not entirely. You would only need a vacum if the friction of airpressure on the moving componenets applies more force then the energy required to move them. Nearly all designs I have seen involve the movement of the magnets, meaning you would need magnets that weigh less then the energy they are capable of generating. What if you were to move a shield that blocks the magnetic field allowing gravity to pull the device back to it resting position. Then move the shield and allow the magnetic field to move a piston that is hooked upto the shield itself. In a system like this gravity removes the shield the magnet pushes the shield and the only moving part is the shield and the drive mechinism for it.

 

The problem with this idea is that the magnetic field lines have to go somewhere. Sure, you can shield one magnetic material from the field of another, but only if you use a material that forces the magnetic field lines to pass through the shield. This will cause a force between the shield and the magnet you are shielding, which will require an input of energy in order to remove the shield.

You would achieve something that is in "theory" impossible. That is itself very cool even if it serves no other purpose.

 

In fact, Newton's first law states that "every body continues in its state of rest or of uniform motion unless it is compelled to change its state by forces impressed upon it". So there is nothing theoretically impossible about perpetual motion.

Edited May 11, 2011 by ballzac

[ThunderIdeal]

except i think sly is talking about one of these

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy0UBpagsu8

[ballzac]

You would only need a vacum if the friction of airpressure on the moving componenets applies more force then the energy required to move them.

 

I'm not sure I follow this, but the energy required keep them moving at the same speed is the required torque multiplied by the angle you rotate them through. It's probably better to think of the required power rather than the energy. That is, the power required is the torque multiplied by the angular velocity. If there is friction, then a torque is required to overcome the friction. Unless they are stationary, the angular velocity is also non-zero. Therefore, an input of power is required to keep them rotating at the same angular velocity.

you would need magnets that weigh less than the energy they are capable of generating

 

I don't really follow this either, I assume that you are saying "not much energy is required to get them moving if they do not weigh much". We are talking about rotational dynamics here, so what is really important is the moment of inertia, not the mass. You can reduce the moment of inertia by using low mass magnets (neodymium for instance), or alternatively by putting the magnets very close to the axis of rotation. The problem is, not only do you reduce the amount of energy required to get them going if you use a configuration with a small moment of inertia, but you also reduce the amount of energy required to stop them. Therefore, any load you place on them (and any friction inherent in the system) will cause them to slow down faster than with a higher moment of inertia. It's swings and roundabouts!

EDIT: just realised you were no longer talking about the rotational stuff in that bit I quoted. The same principles apply for rotational and linear dynamics though. Just replace torque with force, angular velocity with velocity, moment of inertia with mass etc.

Edited May 11, 2011 by ballzac

[Gunter]

thermal clines may provide a means of obtaining energy, there are several ways to utilize this with a vapor/condensation system

then there is pressure and gravitational variation, gravity can vary, if those variations can be employed then pressure can be turned into energy without requiring a constant input of outside energy,

both of these methods would use an energy source and so would not be perpetual in the classic sense, however they would not require fuel outside of constant systems and reactions

[CβL]

Perpetual motion, in theory (neglecting minor effects) is possible. But in practice, I'm sure that it is not possible. The best you could probably come up with is nicking energy from an unseen energy source - giving the illusion of free energy.

[Slybacon]

Thanks Ballzac, I forgot you teach physics. I will post some sketches as soon as I can figure out how to draw them with google sketch. I would love someone with a better understanding of phisics to explain why it wont work.

[Slybacon]

The problem with this idea is that the magnetic field lines have to go somewhere. Sure, you can shield one magnetic material from the field of another, but only if you use a material that forces the magnetic field lines to pass through the shield. This will cause a force between the shield and the magnet you are shielding, which will require an input of energy in order to remove the shield.

 

So to push a shield in and out of a magnetic field will require more force than simply moving the same shield the same distance?

[ballzac]

So to push a shield in and out of a magnetic field will require more force than simply moving the same shield the same distance?

 

Yes. If you have a material with a low permeability (that is, it cannot be magnetised. e.g. paper), then the field lines will pass straight through it, and you won't shield the field at all. If you use a material with a high permeability...let's use the example of steel, though it's permeability isn't as high as permalloy or something, it's probably the easiest to think about because it's common and everyone knows (qualitatively) how it responds in a magnetic field...it will shield one magnet from the field of another to some extent, but it will also be difficult to remove from the magnetic field because it will be attracted to the magnet.

A detailed (quantitative) analysis of this would be reasonably in depth, and I certainly don't have time to do any specific calculations. In order to perform these calculations requires an understanding of electrodynamics on the level of Jackson's "Classical Electrodynamics", which in turn requires an undergraduate level of understanding of electrodynamics to be able to follow, so I don't expect anyone without a strong physics background to be able to do a quantitative analysis, but hopefully the heuristic approach I've given provides a reasonably convincing argument.

[Slybacon]

Thanks

What about a light weight shield like these?

[Slybacon]

opps link

http://www.lessemf.com/mag-shld.html

[ballzac]

The actual mass of the shield is not the problem. It's the magnetic forces that will cause you problems.

[Sheather]

What about trying to use water's ability to "climb"? I was of the understanding that the cohesive/adhesive properties of water allowed it to effectively "climb" up through (glass?) microtubules. Could a static structure be developed that was extensive enough to utilise this effect towards the idea of infinite energy generation (gravity being the driving force of course)

EDIT: A quick google turns up with Capillary Action, I'm not familiar enough with this concept or the physics behind it to know much about its feasability, but it was an idea I had in high-school for an aqueduct that doesn't require gradient, or had the ability to flow against said gradient. Anyone have more knowledge on it? The equations show that thinner tubes exhibit greater rise, would a network be useable in some manner?

Edited May 12, 2011 by Sheather

[ThunderIdeal]

my hunch is that you could only get the liquid to fill up the tube and then stop, rather than flow out the top of the tube endlessly.

[Sheather]

In discussion with my dad, he recalls that the Romans used bundles of reeds to this effect to power aqueducts on an incline, or flat. If you broke surface tension at the top, the flow would begin, and as it continued it would pull water behind it in to flowing too perhaps?

[ThunderIdeal]

well i'm curious how the romans did that, i don't think the water would so much as poke its head out at the top end.

[ballzac]

I don't know much about hydrodynamics, but I know that the end of a siphon needs to be below the waterline for it to work. This will be true of a capillary siphon too.