Perpetual motion

[TEguy]

So I'm assuming you are all working on some sort of mechanism that is self sustaining and uses magnets.

[arkain101]

negetive.

I have worked on devices that unite all forms of energy and direct them to the purpose in order to achieve a goal of 99% efficiency bursts. For closed and open system variations.

 

Perpetal motion is geared towards achieving everlasting energy. Though this is difficult to design. One can come so close with certain designs as to refer to it as a self-propelled system.

[TEguy]

negetive.

 

Perpetal motion is geared towards achieving everlasting energy. Though this is difficult to design. One can come so close with certain designs as to refer to it as a self-propelled system.

 

 

...go on

[IDMclean]

As I understand the premise is something like, You use a system of say permanent magnets which repel one another so that the system will not wind down in anyone person's life time.

[ryan2006]

I understand perpetual energy by looking at the universe and that it is is in perpetual motion. And of course you can not create or destroy energy.

 

Since I believe the universe may be round like the sun the moon and the earth with all the planets. Why not have a device that uses magnetic polarized spheres encapsulated inside a magnetic sheathing. This would cause a forcefield. The forcefield would help drive the magnetic balls.

 

Because of the natural shape of the spheres they would turn in polarization. But you would have to use 3 or more odd numbers to create a synergistic reaction.

 

On a quantum level you could use the polarized atoms in a magnetic sheathing that creates a forcefield to generate power. However In my hypothesis you would need to drill holes so heat does not blow the sheathing out at the seems.

 

I think further investigation on this needs to be done in order to determine with the Dept. of Energy whether or not the cost of making it is worth the energy it would generate.

 

Then of course you have to wonder whether gravity would pull down the balls or it would act like a levitron.

 

Ryan J. Henningsgaard

[Pyrotex]

I understand perpetual energy by looking at the universe and that it is is in perpetual motion. And of course you can not create or destroy energy....

"perpetual energy' is not equal or equivalent to "perpetual motion". The one does not imply the other. They are not even related.

 

You ARE aware, are you not, that hundreds if not thousands of exceptionally clever, extremely educated people, some arguably "geniuses" in their own right, and many with vast resoures of wealth and mechanical training, have sought to build so-called perpetual motion machines for nearly three centuries?

 

Did you know that they all failed?

 

Are you aware that those folks almost certainly came up with the same ideas that you have?

[captain_90]

Hi again everyone. Been away a while.

 

I have a question,,,,, Is there a material that you can put between a north pole and south pole magnet that interrupts the magnetic field? For example,, if you put paper, glass or any other material that I've tried , between the north and south poles of magnets,,, these magnets still attract.

 

So, I'm asking if anyone knows of a material, if put between the poles, will stop the attraction, when the magnets are put together.

 

thanks, Pete

[Erasmus00]

So, I'm asking if anyone knows of a material, if put between the poles, will stop the attraction, when the magnets are put together.

 

Superconductors expel magnetic field.

-Will

[ozi-rock]

Hi i was just wondering if you had a wheel with a single magnet, inside a frame of electromagnets which were powered by a battery and you had it set up that as soon as the magnet on the wheel reached an electromagnet it turned off and the next electromagnet along turned on.

If you had a generator connected to the wheel could the wheel continue to spin for longer than the battery would normally permit? or would the power needed to charge the battery put too much pressure on the wheel and thus it would not spin?

I am just a beginner to the idea of perpetual motion so please to kill me for asking:), i know this would not generate power to go forever and i know it would never provide power for anything else

[lemit]

I hope I'm not repeating other posts. As usual, I got too excited about this to take the time to read the whole thread.

 

I think many of us think now in enhanced terms of entropy and depletion of energy sources. I think the original concept of perpetual motion was exactly what the name says: a machine capable of maintaining motion in perpetuity (or at least past our own lifetimes).

 

Another limit is that we tend to think on the level of the pecking bird or the swinging balls (a phrase I thought I'd never have reason to write).

 

I have two questions: could a non-repetetive perpetual motion machine--even if not workable--be conceived, and is there any way to overcome the problem of friction?

 

Once again, energy regeneration is not necessary. Also, in both questions I'm looking for the possibility of success, not the certainty, which might be a pretty tough barrier. I want to start a discussion.

 

Any takers?

 

--lemit

[freeztar]

I have two questions: could a non-repetetive perpetual motion machine--even if not workable--be conceived

 

Yes!

It is entirely possible to conceive of a machine that has perpetual motion. Of course, this requires a bit of imagination and an abandonment of modern physics. See below...

 

and is there any way to overcome the problem of friction?

 

Yes. You create a system in which the atoms traveling encounter no other atoms. Is this practically possible? No.

[TheBigDog]

I hope I'm not repeating other posts. As usual, I got too excited about this to take the time to read the whole thread.

 

I think many of us think now in enhanced terms of entropy and depletion of energy sources. I think the original concept of perpetual motion was exactly what the name says: a machine capable of maintaining motion in perpetuity (or at least past our own lifetimes).

 

Another limit is that we tend to think on the level of the pecking bird or the swinging balls (a phrase I thought I'd never have reason to write).

 

I have two questions: could a non-repetetive perpetual motion machine--even if not workable--be conceived, and is there any way to overcome the problem of friction?

 

Once again, energy regeneration is not necessary. Also, in both questions I'm looking for the possibility of success, not the certainty, which might be a pretty tough barrier. I want to start a discussion.

 

Any takers?

 

--lemit

It needs to do more than just break even. It needs to exceed the resistance or it will eventually stop. And if it eventually stops it is not perpetual. I have even seen it stated that a true perpetual motion machine does not need to be started; it simply starts of its own accord because it has an excess of energy simply by being.

 

Bill

[Drewbeenius]

This is a great post! I appologize if my comment has been made previously. I was unable to read all 29 pages.

 

Could an isolated Hydrogen atom be considered a perpetual motion machine?

I understand that a real Hydrogen atom will interact with other matter, and thus we won't find this isolated atom in our universe. However, we can hopefully theorize and imagine here.

 

Or, will this isolated Hydrogen atom still occasionally release a photon? Would it eventually experience a cold collapse?

I really do not know. I am not a physicist, and I have not taken many courses in physics outside the "mechanics" type work for engineers.

 

Are there irreversible interactions between the electron and proton? If so, would an islolated proton (no electron) be a perpetual motion machine?

Here again, I understand that there is no practical application for such an entity.

[sanctus]

Just a quick answer to your last question since the proton seems also to have a finite lifetime I would say that this is already enough to not make it a perpetual motion machine.

[Pyrotex]

Well... I dunno. The question of the proton's half-life hasn't exactly been established beyond doubt. Last time I looked, the photochambers looking for proton "collapse" weren't seeing nearly as many flashes as predicted by theory.

 

If we are to avoid the implicit use of "infinity" in our discussion, what say we accept some value for "perpetual"?

 

If we accept a billion years, than a good sized planet in a circular orbit about a star makes a terrific perpetual motion machine (PMM). You can even extract energy from it for free! Which we do when we use a gravity sling-shot maneuver to speed up one of our deep space probes.

 

If we accept 15 billion years (life of the observed universe) then a spiral galaxy around a black hole would do nicely.

 

On the other hand, if we accept something smaller than, say, 1000 years, this might open up to engineering solutions. :)

[ozi-rock]

I am an engineering student and the idea of perpetual machines interests me, I understand that they will obviously degrade over time and are thus not perpetual but could it be possible to make something move by itself for even 100 years?

[Essay]

Welcome ozi-rock,

 

Sure it'd be possible to build something that moved for a hundred years--using a source of energy.

 

I thought the point of "perpetual motion" was to get more energy out, than you are putting in--which is why it won't work.

 

Is this the sort of 100-year motion that you want, or is it just something that'll keep moving--while it uses more energy than it produces?