Perpetual Motion (The topic that keeps coming back around)

[BigShinyToys]

Skip to 2:55 that is the most intersting part.


http://www.callowayengines.com/
I hit submit instead of perverse so I'm still working on this Post . Sorry.
Page is fixed Now.

Ok so are you a believer in perpetual motion or Not.

First I have no formal teachings on thermos dynamics . So most of this is UN qualified speculation.

SO I think that perpetual motion is Not possible based on the fact that every thing wares out over time . SO even if it would theoretically run forever it would Break eventual. SO what about near perpetual motion. A well balanced fly wheel can have a rundown time of many year . But does not produce any usable energy. Then you think ok maybe gravity. Make a unbalanced wheel . It has been try ed and failed before. But this is using magnet looks legit and seams to work ..

What do you think about these machine.

[Stormweaver]

You can't 'make' energy. So, no.

/thread

[BigShinyToys]

You can't 'make' energy. So, no.

/thread

But what about extracting energy from magnets??

[jorgebonafe]

You can't 'make' energy. So, no.

/thread

But what about extracting energy from magnets??

That's exactly the same as saying you want to "extract" energy from gravity. You can use gravity to generate energy, as in a hydroelectric power plant. It works by converting the water's potential energy into kinetic energy. But this process is not infinite. If you take the water up again to drop the water one more time, in the end you will have used more energy then you had generated.

This is the same as with the magnets. The wheel on the video is capable of making one rotation (or more if the wheel was turning at a bigger speed) but every time the wheel comes back to the starting point, is the same as trying to get the water again up on the river. There is a big magnetic attraction in that spot, and the energy to pass that step is larger then the energy generated. The wheel is only turning because the person in the video used his own kinetic energy to move the wheel on the right position, and to keep the wheel turning, he had to pull the magnet away every cycle, again using more energy then the energy that was generated.

[BigShinyToys]

The wheel is only turning because the person in the video used his own kinetic energy to move the wheel on the right position, and to keep the wheel turning, he had to pull the magnet away every cycle, again using more energy then the energy that was generated.

that is what I thought too But then In the end of the other video There it is running it's self With No help form a person. it uses a Cam to lift the magnet up.

[Gilberreke]

You can't 'make' energy. So, no.

/thread

But what about extracting energy from magnets??

You'll run into the gate the guy mentions, you can't make an infinite V of magnets. His fix of placing them at half-lengths won't work.

You can switch electromagnets around, but that requires electricity

Near perpetual motion is entirely possible, but by design, impossible to extract energy out of. Near-perpetual motion means: making something move with as few energy loss as possible. Extracting energy = the exact opposite. So it's either perpetual motion or extracting energy. Even a perpetual motion device would be useless, since all it would do is spin something around forever. You can't use it for a vehicle, since friction would quickly slow it down.

Your best bet is a super-conductor and a magnet for very cheap motion, which has already been invented and is being tested right now. It's very energy efficient, but not in any way near to perpetual.

[BigShinyToys]

You'll run into the gate the guy mentions, you can't make an infinite V of magnets. His fix of placing them at half-lengths won't work.

You can switch electromagnets around, but that requires electricity

Near perpetual motion is entirely possible, but by design, impossible to extract energy out of.

Please Watch the first Video "Evolution of Perpetual Motion_ A WORKING Free Energy Generator" At Time 2.55 He pull's a Pin and it spins up.

This works because the magnets are repelling they appear to produce enough momentum In the first rotation to lift the lead magnet Then Start pulling again. I do know about low friction fly wheels in vacuums ( and I know that it only consumed power and does not produce any ) But the magnets can create kinetic energy .

[EDIT]Added gif image to OP

[jorgebonafe]

Please Watch the first Video "Evolution of Perpetual Motion_ A WORKING Free Energy Generator" At Time 2.55 He pull's a Pin and it spins up.

Nice trick :P I wonder how he did it.

[BigShinyToys]

Please Watch the first Video "Evolution of Perpetual Motion_ A WORKING Free Energy Generator" At Time 2.55 He pull's a Pin and it spins up.

Nice trick :P I wonder how he did it.

I have been Tearing that video apart Frame by frame looking for signs of editing ( I'm not the worlds most skilled ) But if it is a hoax it is a dam good one. I have to give them credit for how much effort they went to.

[Gilberreke]

But the magnets can create kinetic energy .

Sure, but to convert that kinetic energy into a usable kind of energy, you need either friction or something that takes away momentum, both would destroy the near-perpetual motion immediately. To counteract that, you'd need to upscale the whole thing to gigantic proportions, but your laws of magnetism progress linearly, while the weight goes up cubical. Due to that, the friction on the axle also goes up exponentially, destroying the motion again.

This will not work. If it did, the guy would be rich. This comes about as close to perpetual motion as those swinging balls or those up and down swinging birds. The idea is not novel and there's no practical industrial applications.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, the physics and math just don't add up

[BigShinyToys]

But the magnets can create kinetic energy .

Sure, but to convert that kinetic energy into a usable kind of energy, you need either friction or something that takes away momentum, both would destroy the near-perpetual motion immediately. To counteract that, you'd need to upscale the whole thing to gigantic proportions, but your laws of magnetism progress linearly, while the weight goes up cubical. Due to that, the friction on the axle also goes up exponentially, destroying the motion again.

This will not work. If it did, the guy would be rich. This comes about as close to perpetual motion as those swinging balls or those up and down swinging birds. The idea is not novel and there's no practical industrial applications.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, the physics and math just don't add up

Ok you kinda got a point there

[Gilberreke]

Ok you kinda got a point there

Credit where credit is due, it IS a very nice and complex near-perpetual motion machine. It probably gets a very very long spin time.

As mentioned, there's something to it and it can create very efficient energy by pairing it with a super-conductor like this:

[Stormweaver]

You know, I've occasionally wondered about what goes through the heads of people who spend time trying to 'invent' free energy machines.

And for some strange reason, those occasions happen to corrolate with me plugging/unplugging my phone from it's solar-powered charger.

[Gilberreke]

those occasions happen to corrolate with me plugging/unplugging my phone from it's solar-powered charger.

Yeah, that's it exactly. Perpetual motion is a dead-end, but near-infinite energy sources are not. The sun sends enough energy to the earth daily to power a huge amount of devices. The waves created by the moon's gravitational field are harvestable and we're coming real close to real-world applications. Creating fuels through living biomatter that uses the "useless" CO² as an energy source is something relatively new, but there are already results, like biofuel from algae.

[joetalbot1]

Just had an idea. All I need is to know whether or not you can turn energy in to matter.

[BigShinyToys]

Ok you kinda got a point there

Credit where credit is due, it IS a very nice and complex near-perpetual motion machine. It probably gets a very very long spin time.

As mentioned, there's something to it and it can create very efficient energy by pairing it with a super-conductor like this:

That is very cool literally ( I have no idea how it works But very cool none the less. )

And for some strange reason, those occasions happen to corrolate with me plugging/unplugging my phone from it's solar-powered charger.

I have to agree that solar is by far the simplest form of Sorta free energy. It would cost about 5 thousand Australian dollars to Completely disconnect form the grid . solar panels have a life span of about 50 years but do degrade over time Unfortunately.( that is Not including Running ovens / cooking appliances ) they all run on gas here ( well ours do )



[EDIT]

Just had an idea. All I need is to know whether or not you can turn energy in to matter.

E energy = Mass Times C ( constant the speed of light ) Squared.

mass to energy conversion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80 ... quivalence

[Awfulcopter]

You can't 'make' energy. So, no.

/thread

But what about extracting energy from magnets??

Here's what I know:

People who study and understand the physics behind magenets say they can't be used to create energy.
People who play around with them in garages say they can.

I choose to believe the former.

[Stormweaver]

I have to agree that solar is by far the simplest form of Sorta free energy. It would cost about 5 thousand Australian dollars to Completely disconnect form the grid . solar panels have a life span of about 50 years but do degrade over time Unfortunately.( that is Not including Running ovens / cooking appliances ) they all run on gas here ( well ours do )

Tbh with energy costs being what they are these days (and going up), I'd be sorely tempted to invest in energy independance.

...that is, if house prices weren't what they are these days (and going up) and I could afford to do more than rent.

[BigShinyToys]

Here's what I know:

People who study and understand the physics behind magenets say they can't be used to create energy.
People who play around with them in garages say they can.

I choose to believe the former.

I have to say That physicists said that a speaker could not be made smaller than 8" in diameter But some guy in his garage didn't know that and just built one smaller . the rest is history.

"Walks away smugly listening to music from my I pod"
^is joke.

Tbh with energy costs being what they are these days (and going up), I'd be sorely tempted to invest in energy independance.

...that is, if house prices weren't what they are these days (and going up) and I could afford to do more than rent.

Yea i have been thinking the same thing . the newer panels have better efficiency than some of the very old photovoltaic cells . Also solar hot water is very effective

[CreeperCommando]

Well, first I'll be a conservatist in claiming thermodynamics second law states that perpetuum mobile of any kind is impossible. Let's get into what this means

1. Perpetuum mobile: a closed system where a thermodynamical non-equillibrium process (usually and simplest in form of a cycle) is indefinetly taking place.
2. Closed system: an imagined closed area in space that envelopes the 'machine', any changes outside this space SHALL NOT affect the system in ANY WAY!
3. Thermodynamical non-equillibrium: short story, a system where its entropic value strictly increases. Layman version, it has a net-loss of usable energy.
4. Indefinetly: means that if you sample from the experiment now or later you should expect the same results from both sample, i.e. it is expected that the system will look the same no matter when you decide to peek on it.

If you combine all of this definitions you will see that they exclusively claims that perpetuum mobile of any kind is impossible.
We can discuss in terms of mechanical models (total energy = kinetic + potential (+ heat)) what this means:
1. There will always be a net loss of the total energy, primarily in form of heat energy which is simply energy in its most chaotic (entropic) form.
2. Due to being a closed system i.e. no outside onteractions, the only gains are by a form of potential energy, which can only be regained by the system itself.
3. Statement 1 + 2 gives that energy must be lost from either the potential energy or the kinetic energy (as stated in this case), which results in a forced reduce in the total energy - thermal energy of the system

Note: you could claim that a perpetuum mobile should be allowed to be in thermodynamical equillibrium, which in case I could claim that anything that already is in equillibrium such as gas in a airtight space/ a still heap of matches thus qualifies as perpetuum mobile.... which is clearly a trivial solution of the problem and thus a boring one :)

[Glox]

Offcourse a perpetuum mobile is possible. The universe is one. It's the only one though, and the only one there will ever be. (unless you start with multiple universes etc. offcourse).

That magnet motor thing in the OP is pretty nice, but once that guy would record it spinning for 2 days straight without slowdown we'll talk again (about how he's hoaxing it, that is).

Second law of thermodynamics, sooner or later everything turns to shit.

[CreeperCommando]

Well, I wouldn't call the universe a perpetuum mobile cause of many reason, mainly due to the whole definition is based on the ability to draw out more energy than put in from a machine.
Also note that the universe is not in thermodynamical equillibrium or time independent, breaking both definition 3 and 4 by my above post

[Glox]

Well, I wouldn't call the universe a perpetuum mobile cause of many reason, mainly due to the whole definition is based on the ability to draw out more energy than put in from a machine.
Also note that the universe is not in thermodynamical equillibrium or time independent, breaking both definition 3 and 4 by my above post

wiki:
A perpetual motion machine of the first kind produces work without the input of energy. It thus violates the first law of thermodynamics: the law of conservation of energy. = runs forever and creates energy out of nowhere
A perpetual motion machine of the second kind is a machine which spontaneously converts thermal energy into mechanical work. When the thermal energy is equivalent to the work done, this does not violate the law of conservation of energy. = runs forever without creating or losing energy.
It is well known that the amount of energy in the universe is constant, and since the universe is constantly changing, the universe does fall in the second category.

[Runesmith]

I believe that, if one is going to argue that the Universe is an example of a perpetual mobile, one should refer to the notion of entropy mentioned by CreeperCommando.

Granted, the Universe can be considered a closed system where the total mass/energy within it is constant, but due to basic thermodynamics stating that universal entropy is always increasing the amount of available, usable energy constantly decreases.

What is usuable energy? It is a net energy difference between two states that people can utilize for whatever purpose we decide.Consider your ubiquitous car engine, which is an internal combustion heat engine.

It's ultimate source of energy lies in the configuration of chemical bonds in gasoline/petrol. When the fuel burns, the chemical bond configuration is going from a higher energy state/lower entropy state (hydrocarbons and oxygen) to a lower energy/higher entropy state (C02 and water vapor). The energy difference is released as heat, which rapidly expands the resultant gas to drive the engine pistons.

Without this chemical energy diffential, the energy within the fuel/engine system is unusable. Mind you, once you burn all your fuel, your engine is then in a state of maximum entropy and you won't be going anywhere no matter how "energetic" the engine is by being extremely hot.

The universe is the same, once it reaches a certain state of entropy, energy transactions in it become moot.

[CreeperCommando]

Well, I wouldn't call the universe a perpetuum mobile cause of many reason, mainly due to the whole definition is based on the ability to draw out more energy than put in from a machine.
Also note that the universe is not in thermodynamical equillibrium or time independent, breaking both definition 3 and 4 by my above post

wiki:
A perpetual motion machine of the first kind produces work without the input of energy. It thus violates the first law of thermodynamics: the law of conservation of energy. = runs forever and creates energy out of nowhere
A perpetual motion machine of the second kind is a machine which spontaneously converts thermal energy into mechanical work. When the thermal energy is equivalent to the work done, this does not violate the law of conservation of energy. = runs forever without creating or losing energy.
It is well known that the amount of energy in the universe is constant, and since the universe is constantly changing, the universe does fall in the second category.

Uhm, your citation firmly claims that "A perpetual motion machine of the second kind is a machine which spontaneously converts thermal energy into mechanical work". Which I'll assume is the layman terms of reducing entropy which thus firmly means that the universe is NOT a perpetual motion machine of 'second kind'.
Also to note, most scientists believe that the universe will suffer a fatal fate in the form of either 'the cold death' or the 'big rip', not what I'd call indefinite timescales.
Another thing to add, you're playing a dangerous ballgame in claiming that the universe, being infinite in size has a 'constant' amount of energy. I understand what you're getting at, but that's definition of energies on a whole other level....

Entropy is a measure of chaos, used in physics and chemistry. Second law of thermodynamics claims that all kinds of time dependent processes in any kind of closed system, the universe included mind you, always create a positive gain of entropy for said system, thus that said system will only get more chaotic --> less and less usable energy.