Perpetual motion

[UncleAl]

1) Time is locally homogeneous.

2) Noether's theorems.

3) Mass-energy is locally conserved.

 

There are two ways out:

 

1) alter the local flow of time, or

2) overthrow the whole of mathematics.

 

Go for it.

[Sir Isaac Einstein]

If people would only think of gravity as a force, that can be 'milked' ----- the problems would be

solved.

If one continualy believes the so-called 'law - makers' as being correct all of the time, and they are

eventualy proved wrong ----- so be it! If the so - called 'laws' governing perpetual motion saying, it's

impossible ----- so be it!

Sir Isaac Einstein

[Moontanman]

No SIE perpetual motion is not thought to be impossible it is impossible. I suggest you try to build a few perpetual motion devices and see.

[Pyrotex]

A magnet and gravity can both perform a work function without any introduction of, or loss of any energy. Would you consider this an accurate statement?

Over a finite distance, yes.

Gravity and magnetism do indeed pull on stuff without having to supply energy.

But gravity and magnetism "perform a work function" only by converting a potential energy into kinetic energy -- over a finite distance.

 

For either of those forces to work indefinately, you would need either:

the original potential energy to be infinite, or,

the working distance to be infinite.

Neither one is gonna happen. :)

[Sir Isaac Einstein]

I'm quite sure, that anyone constructing a 'perpetual motion machine' ----- using magnets ----- would

not place their magnets so far away, that they become ineffective.

By the way, gravity IS infinite ----- but obviously stronger, nearer 'source'.

 

Sir Isaac Einstein

[Buffy]

I'm quite sure, that anyone constructing a 'perpetual motion machine' ----- using magnets ----- would not place their magnets so far away, that they become ineffective.

On the other hand, they would not place their magnets so close that they would cause drag that would cause the machine to stop.

 

Yes, they'd be placed at just the right distance so that they would have....no effect.

 

I understand from the other thread you've posted in that you have limited funds, but have you ever worked with even simple magnets? You can do quite a few experiments for just a few dollars of investment.

 

Unfortunately what you'll find is that the law of the Conservation of Energy applies here and the "force" of magnets, in whatever arrangement result in no motion whatsoever.

 

What magnets can be made to do is to levitate, and with the application of external energy can induce motion--through alternating electromagnets or propellers or whatever. Even this levitating force however decays over time and is not permanent.

 

Experimentation or even some research would show this to be the case, but even if you are a skeptic--and there's nothing wrong with that--it can be quite counter productive to be so certain of things when you do not take the time to understand the theories that you are trying to refute:

By the way, gravity IS infinite ----- but obviously stronger, nearer 'source'.

If gravity were infinite then you could not possibly be here now. The "source" of the gravity on earth is the geometric center of the (imperfectly shaped) sphere of the earth. If gravity were "infinite" at that point it would be by definition more powerful than any known black hole, which would of course cause the earth to collapse into a tiny point.

 

Obviously that hasn't happened, therefore gravity cannot be "infinite" at its "source."

 

It does not really take much "research" or even education to begin to work through these kinds of logic problems, and learning how to do so is quite essential to do anything resembling "science."

 

Unfortunately if you do not make that effort, it becomes difficult to take your theories seriously, especially if you don't provide data beyond stating that you "know its true."

 

We certainly encourage people to learn about science--no matter how old they are--but its important to approach it with an open mind.

 

Wisdom is what's left after we've run out of personal opinions,

Buffy

[Sir Isaac Einstein]

Buffy,

Who on Earth, is going to place their magnets so close, that they cause 'drag'?

In answer to your latter arguement, I'm affraid you've got it all WRONG! What I

meant was, gravity (as experienced on the SURFACE of the EARTH), reaches out

forever ----- albeit, gradualy diminishing. I did NOT mention anything about 'BLACK

HOLES' forming at the center of the Earth!

Read the book ----- not the cover!

 

Sir Isaac Einstein

[lemit]

Buffy,

Who on Earth, is going to place their magnets so close, that they cause 'drag'?

In answer to your latter arguement, I'm affraid you've got it all WRONG! What I

meant was, gravity (as experienced on the SURFACE of the EARTH), reaches out

forever ----- albeit, gradualy diminishing. I did NOT mention anything about 'BLACK

HOLES' forming at the center of the Earth!

Read the book ----- not the cover!

 

Sir Isaac Einstein

 

Hey! If Buffy wants to place magnets so close that they cause drag, I for one will defend her right to do so.

 

--lemit

[Sir Isaac Einstein]

Carefull Lemit,

Buffy just might kick you, and you'd turn into dust.

Read the book, and not the cover.

 

Sir Isaac Einstein

[Pyrotex]

I'm quite sure, that anyone constructing a 'perpetual motion machine' ----- using magnets ----- would

not place their magnets so far away, that they become ineffective.

By the way, gravity IS infinite ----- but obviously stronger, nearer 'source'.

Sir Isaac Einstein

Let's see if we can start over on this.

 

By the way, it is a safe bet that the phrase "is infinite" is ALWAYS wrong, no matter how it is used. ;) So, we can say that the force of gravity never reaches zero as the distance from the body is increased. That avoids using the word "infinite" entirely, which is generally a good thing.

 

Now, as to magnets and distances. A magnet can indeed have a "work function" without the input of energy. That just means that the magnet can move (exert a force upon) a metal object, over a non-zero distance. Work = force X distance. No input of energy is required for this one-shot deal.

 

But distance must end somewhere, and it ends at the magnet. Once the object contacts the magnet, the object is not going anywhere else (unless someone inputs energy and pulls the object away). So, you can get a little bit of work out of a magnet. But just once. For a "Perpetual Motion" machine, you would need a continuous supply of work. You need the magnet to pull on a metal object (or multiple objects) over and over and over again in a completely repeatable fashion, so the System can get an unbounded amount of work out of the magnet(s).

 

But you can't do that. Either the objects stick to the magnets (end of work, no more free ride), or you have to have an external supply of energy (or momentum) to pull the objects away from the magnets and return them to their starting point(s).

 

Now, you could say (just for example), No, my system is different, because these magnets travel these really complicated paths, and they slide back and forth, and the whole thing is mounted on several nested wheels, and gravity is always there to make these forces when I need them, and on and on and on...

 

But you can't make the problem go away by covering it up with complexity.

[stevensrd1]

perhaps such is real, just an issue of discovering it. Ive been working on free energy projects for years, if your interested in seeing some of my schematics check out my site at *LINK REMOVED*

[joekgamer]

While the Second Law of Thermodynamics does make perpertual motion impossible, it only works when there are absolutely no outside forces acting on the system in question. For example, using the principle of capilary action, water could be sucked up a tube, then spilled onto a paddlewheel, producing energy. The water then falls back into the pool it was sucked from. This technically does not count as perpetual motion, in that energy (gravity) is applied to the system, as long as the system is limited to man-made components. If Earth is drawn into the system, then it bocomes apparent that the system is self-sustaining, due to the fact that the gravity used in the machine is part of the machine.

[modest]

While the Second Law of Thermodynamics does make perpertual motion impossible, it only works when there are absolutely no outside forces acting on the system in question.

 

I think it would be most correct to say that the second law applies to isolated systems which is a system that does not pass heat, work, or matter with its surroundings.

 

For example, using the principle of capilary action, water could be sucked up a tube, then spilled onto a paddlewheel, producing energy. The water then falls back into the pool it was sucked from. This technically does not count as perpetual motion, in that energy (gravity) is applied to the system, as long as the system is limited to man-made components.

 

Not exactly.

 

If I used sunlight to power a drinking bird and it kept moving for years and someone said "that is a perpetual motion machine" then I think it would be a good idea to point out that an external source of energy (sunlight) is being added to the system. If the external source of energy stopped then the motion would stop. In that sense, what you are saying resembles a good interpretation of the second law.

 

But, gravity (as opposed to sunlight) is not an external source of energy. Gravity is like a spring. It takes work to stretch a spring apart. After the spring has been stretched it contains potential energy. The spring does work when it relaxes. The amount of work done by the spring when it relaxes cannot be more than the work done stretching the spring.

 

In terms of gravity, it takes work to lift water or anything else higher off the ground. The work done lifting it is equal to the difference in gravitational potential energy at the two different locations. When the water (or other object) is dropped back to the ground the gravitational potential energy is converted to work. The work done by the object when it drops cannot be more than the work done lifting it.

 

So, the inclusion of gravity will not allow capillary action perpetual motion because it is not a source of external energy. A capillary perpetual motion machine doesn't work for different reasons:

 

 

The "Capillary Bowl". It was thought that the capillary action would keep the water flowing in the tube, but since the cohesion force that draws the liquid up the tube in the first place holds the droplet from releasing into the bowl, the flow is not perpetual.

Wikipedia -- Perpetual Motion -- Capillary Bowl

 

If Earth is drawn into the system, then it bocomes apparent that the system is self-sustaining, due to the fact that the gravity used in the machine is part of the machine.

 

If you consider that the amount of work required to lift something higher in earth's gravity is always more than the amount of useful energy you get from dropping it then it should be clear that any time something is continually going up and down in a gravity field it is due to some outside source of energy like the sun. A gravity field is just like a spring. Any time you see a spring continuously stretching and unstretching it is due to some outside energy source. Neither a spring or a gravity field are a net source of energy.

 

~modest

[joekgamer]

What I had meant was that the capilary action (a force that [like magnetism] is 'sitting there' in a way and is being drawn from to get energy) was being used to get energy, therefore circumventing the Second Law. As for the surace tensin holding the water back, the design was actually similar to the one above, but instead of attemting to use the force of water coming up from below, to push out the water on top, the last secion of tube points down and gradually grows larger, eventually breaking the surface tension with the combined water pressure (from gravity) and lessened surface tension (from the widening of the tube), causing the water to fall.

 

It was meant to show that by utalizing 'ambient' forces that normally are static and ignored, one can make a kind of 'Psuedo-Perpetual Motion Machine'.

 

It was meant as an example (one I thought up a few years ago, actually), but I appreciate the feedback on why it will/will not work.

[modest]

What I had meant was that the capilary action (a force that [like magnetism] is 'sitting there' in a way and is being drawn from to get energy) was being used to get energy, therefore circumventing the Second Law.

 

I understand what you mean.

 

As for the surace tensin holding the water back, the design was actually similar to the one above, but instead of attemting to use the force of water coming up from below, to push out the water on top...

 

Whether the water is drawn from the bottom of the bowl or the top shouldn't make a difference as far as the result.

 

, the last secion of tube points down and gradually grows larger, eventually breaking the surface tension with the combined water pressure (from gravity) and lessened surface tension (from the widening of the tube), causing the water to fall.

 

I understand.

 

A key assumption that you're making is that a larger diameter tube makes a larger volume of water and therefore greater pressure. This is a common assumption that is actually mistaken. We've had quite a few posts on the topic, so let me find one to quote...

 

I’m certain this perpetual motion machine won’t work.

 

I think I see a simple physics mistake that caused you to think it might, Jim.

 

Though one would intuitively think, as you do, that the pressure exerted by a column of fluid is proportional to its volume, it’s not. It’s proportional only to the height of the column of water. This hyperphysics page has a good illustration of this, but it’s one of those counterintuitive things you really must see to believe – my 7th grade science classroom had a nifty demo gadget with different diameter clear cylinders with sealable nozzles at different heights, but a quick experiment you can do if you have, say, a garden hose (or better, some wide clear tubing), some (narrow) aquarium tubing, and a bucket, is to note that if you fill the hose and the tubing, then put one end of each in the bucket, and raise the other ends, the water will settle at the same height in both tubes.

 

So, your key assumption that the larger volume tube on the left would draw fluid from the upper vessel, while the smaller volume one on the right would draw fluid into it, is false. What would happen is that the fluid in the right column would fall until the same height as the one on the left, as shown in my slight edit of your picture below.

 

http://scienceforums.com/topic/22313-self-siphoning-water/page__view__findpost__p__299619

 

The downward pressure won't be greater than the upward pressure by increasing the diameter of the downward-pointing tube. Because the height of the upward pointing tube is less than the height of the downward pointing tube, it will have less pressure or 'weight'.

 

Because the tube is relying on capillary action, the atmospheric pressure will be greater than the water pressure meaning the water will never want to leave the tube. Let me find a website explaining why this is...

 

here we go...

 

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm#capillary1

 

It was meant to show that by utalizing 'ambient' forces that normally are static and ignored, one can make a kind of 'Psuedo-Perpetual Motion Machine'.

 

It was meant as an example (one I thought up a few years ago, actually), but I appreciate the feedback on why it will/will not work.

 

I follow. I, personally, rather enjoy thinking about potential perpetual motion machines. There have been a great number proposed on Hypography. Here is one involving capillary action:

 

http://scienceforums.com/topic/18656-perpetual-motion-hydroelectric-generators/

 

Good fun :)

 

~modest

[joekgamer]

The wider tube is not meant to increase the pressure on the surface, but to 'break' the surface tension of the water by making the tube too large for the water droplet to be held in.

 

The water is drawn from the bottom.

 

There should be a fourum just for perpetual motion.

[modest]

...gradually grows larger, eventually breaking the surface tension with the combined water pressure (from gravity) and lessened surface tension (from the widening of the tube)

 

The wider tube is not meant to increase the pressure on the surface, but to 'break' the surface tension of the water by making the tube too large for the water droplet to be held in.

 

The water is drawn from the bottom.

 

In your first post you say pressure and in the second you say not.

 

With increased surface area is decreased capillary action per volume of water. When you increase the diameter of the downward-pointing tube as it gets lower the water's tendency is to settle further up in the tube. The surface tension can never be broken because the pressure of the atmosphere is greater than the pressure in the column of water, something that is explained well enough here: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm#capillary1

 

There should be a fourum just for perpetual motion.

 

Can't argue with the popularity of the topic ;)

 

~modest