 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in General Chat. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - General Chat - Perpetual Motion |
New poll |  | Thread closed |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
Rom Manic                  Since: 12-18-05 From: Detroit, WHAT?! Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
In response to Zer0wned's post, I have drawn a simple diagram:
When a strong enough kinetic force is applied to the wheel, the wheel spins. The magnets attached to the wheel pull on the magnets around it, and when they meet, they repel. Normall this would forma stand still, if the applied force was weak enough, but if it was strong enough, they would continue moving around, and around. The rest I've already explained. EDIT: Upon looking at this diagram, I've come to the conclusion that this diagram is inaccurate. Regardless of how much kinetic force is applied, it would still come to a stand still eventually. I'll post a more accurate diagram in a minute, I have stuff to do now. (edited by Rom Manic on 08-22-06 12:32 PM) |
|||
Zer0wned Koopa Since: 12-09-05 From: Torrance, ca Last post: 6454 days Last view: 6454 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Cadohacan The "basic idea" behind all these perpetual motion devices is always simple. Once you start counting in numerous factors and details, it falls apart, except in cases where it's just so complex you have to test it first. This is not complex, it's simple and can be easily debunked. It's not a matter of PUTTING the magnet between the blades, it's the fact that during rotation they'll put THEMSELVES inbetween the magnet, each time damaging the momentum gained EQUAL TO the amount gained by the other blade before it. 
Figure 1 - your expected outcome. The magnets repel each other and gain counter-clockwise bound energy. Figure 2 - Here's where it falls apart, because here comes blade #2, being pushed CLOCKWISE with force equal to the other side. It'll keep going though, because more force was initially generated, so it'll just be a stagnation of gain instead of a loss Figure 3 - this is about where I'd predict that the force of friction combined with the increasing power of the clockwise push+decreasing power of the counter-clockwise push would completely negate any previous gain. The device would stop spinning in one direction, and eventually return to something similar to figure 2, where the force being acted upon the closest blades is fairly equal. Notice in this diagram I didn't even include gravity, the magnet placement in design would screw itself. I'll put $50 up saying that within 1 month of attempting to put this together, you won't get it. I'm dead serious too, I'll sign an agreement in duplicate, mail them to you, you keep one for your records, I keep one for mine. Hell, I'll even give you 5:1 odds to be fair. If you lose you pay up $10, if you win I pay up $50. I'm that confident this will NOT work. I even looked at it optimistically at first, but I analyzed it and it's completely flawed. |
|||
|
Rom Manic Since: 12-18-05 From: Detroit, WHAT?! Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
I fixed the diagram as far as I can tell, but I still may be wrong about it.
And I notice your gravity factor. You know standing it up perpendicular to the ground would make gravity a factor, right? When you lay the disc parallel with the ground, gravity is no longer a factor as the magnets are not being weighed down by anything. They are "neutral". |
|||
|
Zer0wned Koopa Since: 12-09-05 From: Torrance, ca Last post: 6454 days Last view: 6454 days |
| ||
See, now in your diagram, the magnetics involved are a lot more complex, because they're no longer dealing with just the simple "attracts or repels", because it's running across the entire span of the magnet, and as I showed in an earlier post, the forces of magnitude aren't easily visualized.
this one isn't as cut and dry, but it would appear that this one is more prone to getting stuck at a point of attraction, it's far too balanced. And that should be point of PEAK attraction, and like I said, because of the interaction, it's harder to guess exactly where that would be. What I would recommend is trying to get the design to where whenever one magnet is an iffy point (e.i. directly underneath an external magnet, where its borderline push and pull), another one is in a stronger "pull" or "repel" phase. However I'm not sure such a design is even possible. As for the gravity, I ommitted it because another post had mentioned that the magnet was supposed to exceed any countering force by gravity, so I put it in a nuetral environment (parallel to the gravity, in space, whatever) to show that if that were the case, the design was still doomed. |
|||
|
Rom Manic Since: 12-18-05 From: Detroit, WHAT?! Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
| I agree. Looking at it now, symmetry in the placements of the magnets (The ones on the wheel) are out of the question. Distance from the magnets around the wheel are a factor. So if we remove 4 of the magnets on the wheel, and place south pole magnets a father distance from the north magnets on the wheel (Which would mean splitting them up), the driving force of the wheel should be perpetual.
However, one concept I've come up with is that there should be a gradual "Attraction Drop" affecting the way the south magnets would pull the wheel around. A simple way to do this is to place them diagonally along the thickness of the wheel, so that there is a gradual drop in the force of attraction between the north and south. But since they would still be the same distance from the north magnets, they would have to slope off, like so: 
Of course, Figure 1's magnet would be sloped more, but I did this quickly. As for figure 2, the slope would lessen the strength of their attraction while still providing a driving force, and the repelling action of the north magnets will not be hindered. Just a concept, really. But what are your thoughts? |
|||
Kejardon Shyguy    Since: 05-21-06 Last post: 6298 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
| Trying to invent a perpetual motion machine is like trying to cover a 100 square foot hole with 10 square feet of tarp.
If you look at a few small details you might think you can make it work, but if you take a few steps back and look at the overall problem you realize it's just not going to happen unless you manage to make 10 > 100. Which means throwing out virtually all known physics and making your own. Not to say it *isn't* possible... but if it is, it requires entirely new laws of physics. No amount of fancy organization and manipulation of current physical laws is going to get you a perpetual motion machine. |
|||
|
Rom Manic Since: 12-18-05 From: Detroit, WHAT?! Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
So who says we can't write them? I'll write the first law of perpetual motion right now:
Newton was just a man, as was Einstein, Da Vinci, and countless other geniouses. Who is to say that we cannot achieve what they have achieved?
No, but I could build it if I had the materials availiable to me. Point being, I'm in school right now and have no money. Once I do though, I'll be sure to show it to you. |
|||
Skreename Giant Red Paratroopa Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6303 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
| The problem with any given solution involving fixed magnets is that there will be a situation in which the amount of energy being returned will be (at best) that which is put in. Even if you split the magnets, the amount of energy will not be altered by the magnets--the contraption will merely come to a stop once friction (etc.) has eroded away the initial push. Basically, even if the north magnet repulses the rig one way, it's also repulsing the other part of it the other direction, leading to a net change of zero.
Basically, the idea you keep coming up with is a broken motor. Motors are set up in almost the same way, except that the outer (electro)magnets (or just coils of wire; magnetism and electricity are related that way) are constantly flipping polarity in order to keep it spinning. |
|||
|
Zer0wned Koopa Since: 12-09-05 From: Torrance, ca Last post: 6454 days Last view: 6454 days |
| ||
| I like to think of designing perpetual motion devices as an exercise of futility. Much like how some scholars of old would make enigmas like the age old "what is the sound of one hand clapping", there's no real answer, but it forces the student to think very hard to at least try to come up with an answer, and to conclude with some damn good evidence as to why there is no answer if they ever get to that point.
What this is good for is designing an idea, scrutinizing it at the design phase, redoing it until the design phase seems satisfactory, then testing it. Once the test obviously fails, we go back and find out why that happened. You're developing a lot of key skills, despite the fact that what you're doing is bound to be fruitless. It's like isometric exercise for the brain. |
|||
|
Rom Manic Since: 12-18-05 From: Detroit, WHAT?! Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
| You might be right, but it's fun to dream, you know...
Anyways, I can't think of any other way this might work. I have a few concepts to alter it, but thats about it... (edited by Rom Manic on 08-22-06 08:03 PM) |
|||
|
Kejardon Shyguy Since: 05-21-06 Last post: 6298 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
| There's nothing stopping common people from finding and writing new laws. The problem is, what you wrote isn't a law, it's a definition. It's also slightly different from the normal definition of a perpetual motion machine. But that's aside the point.
A scientific law is basically an observation of reality. If you want to make a new scientific law, you have to find a phenomenon ALREADY IN EXISTENCE that is not explained by current scientific laws, and then explain that phenomenon with new laws. Note that it makes no sense to arbitrarily make new laws with no evidence to back them. You CAN make hypotheses with no evidence to back them, but they're only hypotheses until you get evidence. In your case of trying to create a perpetual motion machine, you'd want to find or cause a new phenomenon, and model its workings with new scientific laws. Otherwise all you're doing is about the same as randomly flailing your limbs in an attempt to fly. A magnet powered perpetual motion machine simply CANNOT exist. All you need is the first law of thermodynamics and the concept of voltage to see that. The amount of potential energy in a magnetic system can be calculated as a finite number (Voltage). If the kinetic energy of a magnetic system increases, that must come with a decrease of potential energy from somewhere, gravitic or magnetic or something (First law of thermo). Feel free to dream, but if you decide to share absurd and baseless dreams with people, be ready to be laughed at mercilessly.  |
|||
HyperHacker Star Mario Finally being paid to code in VB! If only I still enjoyed that. <_< Wii #7182 6487 4198 1828 Since: 11-18-05 From: Canada, w00t! My computer's specs, if anyone gives a damn. STOP TRUNCATING THIS >8^( Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
| Consider this: If a perpetual motion machine is as easy as strapping magnets to a wheel, why hasn't it been done before? | |||
|
Rom Manic Since: 12-18-05 From: Detroit, WHAT?! Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
| I don't know, the right physics and measures weren't taken into account perhaps?
Like Zer0wned described, there is a halting point of attraction between the outer magnets and the inner magnets, so how can you avoid that? I think my idea would work, but shaping the magnets would have to be very precise (And I have next to no hand-eye co-ordination, so I wouldn't be able to shape them). Wikipedia's article on Thermodynamics SOMEONE explain to me how the mechanics of a heating system have anything to do with magnetics. I'd be interested to know, because it seems to me that you're all spewing bullshit.
Maybe by all the shallow inconsiderate pricks, yeah. In reality, people get intrigued by something new. |
|||
MathOnNapkins  1100  In SPC700 HELL Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
| I'd like to remind everyone that the "laws" of physics are only what we have observed. Although they are heavily researched and tested, they are not laws. They are theories with lots of evidence. I think the fact that there is no unified theory of physics tells us that we have a lot to learn. I think rules are meant to be broken, but with our current knowledge you're not going to build a perpetual motion thingy. | |||
|
Skreename Giant Red Paratroopa Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6303 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
| It's not based on a heating system. It's based on a system in which heat is involved--meaning any system involving energy. Thermal energy is just as valid a type of energy as kinetic or potential, and is converted from kinetic energy by friction. It's also converted from electricity by resistance (hence why lightbulbs get warm--you probably already knew this part).
At any rate, as long as the friction force (no matter how trivial) continues to produce work on the system, energy will continue to be lost to heat. As energy is lost in such a manner, the rig will get closer and closer to finding its equilibrium point, at which it will simply stop. Magnets, no matter how many, will NOT introduce more energy into the system. |
|||
|
Rom Manic Since: 12-18-05 From: Detroit, WHAT?! Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
| There is no friction here. Nothing is there to produce friction. Magnets do not produce heat, it is the electromotive force and the current inside a motor (Which I have a feeling you're referring to) that create heat. This is simple attraction and repelling, moving a wheel. This is not a motor driving device, like you might imagine. All we're doing is spinning a wheel.
And MON is right. Just because someone said this and that doesn't mean there isn't a way around it. Just like objects can lose their mass, objects can perpetuate themselves. |
|||
Sukasa Birdo Not quite as active as before. Xkeeper supporter Xk > ||bass I IP Banned myself! Twice!  Since: 11-17-05 From: Somewhere over there Last post: 6298 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
| Somewhat... but the thing is; when do/can magnets lose their magnetism?
That's the one issue that seems to have not been addressed yet... |
|||
|
Alastor Fearless Moderator Hero  Since: 11-17-05 From: An apartment by DigiPen, Redmond, Washington Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
Er... Perhaps I had it all wrong but I'm looking at the diagrams and explanations here and it's nothing like what I gleaned from reading what was previously stated. I assumed he wanted a large circular magnet of one polarity to be above the fan blades and generator column, and the magnets on the fans were supposed to be repelled down, the force of which against the slanted fan blades is supposed to spin it. I find it hard to believe I got it that wrong  |
|||
|
Rom Manic Since: 12-18-05 From: Detroit, WHAT?! Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
| We moved on from the guy in the link. I came up with that wheel, which is esentially similar to what the guy on Google came up with. But as Zer0wned pointed out, the points of attraction will hold the magnets in place when they attract. | |||
|
HyperHacker Star Mario Finally being paid to code in VB! If only I still enjoyed that. <_< Wii #7182 6487 4198 1828 Since: 11-18-05 From: Canada, w00t! My computer's specs, if anyone gives a damn. STOP TRUNCATING THIS >8^( Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Rom Manic In a vacuum? Because air will cause friction too. |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - General Chat - Perpetual Motion |
| Thread closed |
