darkkazier Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 tell me if this will work: you have a metal rod and at the end is a swivel that can go 360 degrees, you place that device in a tube with two magnets on opposite sides, and both are attractive, you also have both magnets hooked up to the spinning object in the middle, and you start it spinning. Now let's say you set up a program that will switch the magnets on and off, meaning that the attracting magnets switch on when the metal ball is coming towards them on the swivel but switch it off before it pulls the ball all the way to the magnet. Kinda like the sling shot effect caused by planets on space probes. Wouldn't the small generator be self sustaining if it is getting its energy to power the magnets from the spinning the magnets are causing the swivel to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 No, it won't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkkazier Posted July 26, 2005 Author Share Posted July 26, 2005 Why? i'm not a physics expert so could you explain to me why it work in layman terms? i mean if it is creating the energy needed to keep the magnets working, which in turn keep the pivot balls spinning which keeps the magnets working et al then why wouldn't it work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 and of course, if you had a good enough refrigeration suit, you could mine Hydrogen off the Sun too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Because it won't create the energy to keep the magnets moving. If you want specifics you need to draw a decent diagram of your device, along with the explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 i think he wants the part that is rotating to be a generator that powers electromagnets that make it move... if that is what you mean, then there are lots of reasons it won't work. electricity flow gives off energy in the form of heat...as does friction. the generator probably wouldn't give enough current to make the electromagnets work, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiohead Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Plus, magnets lose their magnetism after a while don't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 yea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Kirby Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 I'm a total believer in the possibility of perpetual motion machines. Why don't you build a working model? tell me if this will work: you have a metal rod and at the end is a swivel that can go 360 degrees, you place that device in a tube with two magnets on opposite sides, and both are attractive, you also have both magnets hooked up to the spinning object in the middle, and you start it spinning. Now let's say you set up a program that will switch the magnets on and off, meaning that the attracting magnets switch on when the metal ball is coming towards them on the swivel but switch it off before it pulls the ball all the way to the magnet. Kinda like the sling shot effect caused by planets on space probes. Wouldn't the small generator be self sustaining if it is getting its energy to power the magnets from the spinning the magnets are causing the swivel to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 ur joking, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Kirby Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 I'm not joking. I believe in the possibility. I am waiting to see the accomplishment of that possibility. I will not believe that it has been accomplished until I see a working model and have reviewed the work. A good test would be if a given working model could power a one hundred watt light bulb for several days from a small battery. It has to be unambiguous. Fancy manipulation of equations does not impress me. Another thing that would impress me would be an engine that could keep running for a long period of time with no energy input. Actually, I would also be pretty impressed with an engine that could run on ambient thermal energy even though it does have an energy input. I feel the same way about gasoline and steam engines, nuclear power, mass-energy equivalence, and so on. Since I have seen convincing demonstrations and a considerable amount of supporting material I can believe these things. I would always believe in these possibilities if they were at all reasonable. I have the actual demonstrations so I can believe that they have been accomplished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 there is no system that will operate at Unity, getting anything beyond that is even more laughable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkkazier Posted July 28, 2005 Author Share Posted July 28, 2005 Yeah it was just a thought i had, as i said i'm no physicist or anything like that, i'm a writer, And just because our current physics say something is impossible doesn't mean that in , one hundred years from now, or a thousand it won't be possible. Contrary to what some people might think, we humans don't know EVERYTHING their is to know yet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkkazier Posted July 28, 2005 Author Share Posted July 28, 2005 Well, how do you explain the fact that virtual particles can carry amounts of energy not normally allow by the laws of motion" that quote right their proves that something CAN have more energy than you put into it which means it can produce more energy than was put into it. (thanks to usenet physics for the information http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/index.html) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmalluck Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 Conservation of energy is a very well tested and excepted theory. In a nutshell it states that energy can neither be created nor destoryed. It must come from some source or another, but simply can't *poof* into being. Another as well excepted and tested theory is that no system is 100% efficent and that through every transformation of energy, some usuable energy is lost. There will always be some loss of energy due to friction and/or heat. Taking these two theories into account, you can see that the idea of a perpetual motion machine is ludicris. It must get energy from somewhere and will be less than 100% efficent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 Conservation of energy is a very well tested and excepted theory. (second emphasis added) accepted theory. I don't normally pick on typos unless it changes the meaning of the sentence, as this does (or if it's funny). Conservation of energy is demonstrably equivalent, by Noether's theorems, to the laws of physics not changing with time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkkazier Posted July 28, 2005 Author Share Posted July 28, 2005 then how do you explain virtual particles? how can they do what they do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmalluck Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 Thank 'ye Swansont. then how do you explain virtual particles? how can they do what they do? You're speaking of blackhole evaporation correct? Don't you mean virtual particle pairs then? As I understand it, if you have a positive virtual photon, a corresponding negative virtual photon must also exist. This results in a net energy of zero. Even if one of these photons falls into the blackhole, while the other escapes, the net energy of the system remains zero. The photon that escapes takes with it the amount of energy equal to the mass lost by the blackhole. No energy is created nor destoryed and so conservation of energy is upheld. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callipygous Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 tell me if this will work: you have a metal rod and at the end is a swivel that can go 360 degrees, you place that device in a tube with two magnets on opposite sides, and both are attractive, you also have both magnets hooked up to the spinning object in the middle, and you start it spinning. Now let's say you set up a program that will switch the magnets on and off, meaning that the attracting magnets switch on when the metal ball is coming towards them on the swivel but switch it off before it pulls the ball all the way to the magnet. Kinda like the sling shot effect caused by planets on space probes. Wouldn't the small generator be self sustaining if it is getting its energy to power the magnets from the spinning the magnets are causing the swivel to do? you really dont even need to read it to answer your question. perpetual motion machine? nope, wont work. specifically, the air, and moving parts of your system cause friction, and therefore heat, which means your losing energy. if your talking about an electromagnet on each side, then even if you could achieve perfect efficiency, the amount of energy pulling on the rod would be, at best, equal to the amount of energy produced by your generator, which means it would need an initial burst of energy to get going. but you cant achieve perfect efficiency. the generator gives off heat as someone already mentioned, then theres the friction... not gonna happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.C.MacSwell Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 I'm not joking. I believe in the possibility. I am waiting to see the accomplishment of that possibility. I will not believe that it has been accomplished until I see a working model and have reviewed the work. A good test would be if a given working model could power a one hundred watt light bulb for several days from a small battery. It has to be unambiguous. Fancy manipulation of equations does not impress me. Another thing that would impress me would be an engine that could keep running for a long period of time with no energy input. Actually' date=' I would also be pretty impressed with an engine that could run on ambient thermal energy even though it does have an energy input.[/b']I feel the same way about gasoline and steam engines, nuclear power, mass-energy equivalence, and so on. Since I have seen convincing demonstrations and a considerable amount of supporting material I can believe these things. I would always believe in these possibilities if they were at all reasonable. I have the actual demonstrations so I can believe that they have been accomplished. I can do that. The only energy used is from water at room temperature. (other than a small start up energy) It can run your lightbulb for weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 if you have a small electric genorater, a vaccuum pump, and an airtight container that conducts heat well, you can make electricity using your body heat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Kirby Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 Can you show me plans or a working model? I can do that. The only energy used is from water at room temperature. (other than a small start up energy) It can run your lightbulb for weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.C.MacSwell Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 Can you show me plans or a working model? There are many ways to do it. Conceptually it is no different from using any source of heat at any temperature. The key element is using a significantly colder heat sink. The colder the potentially more efficient. The problem, of course, is that the heat sink must be significantly colder than ambient, unlike for higher temperature heat sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newtonian Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 Erm.....they have been and continue to be inventions of this nature.Apparent success is claimed on a regular basis,however friction always wins in the end and the devices fail.My own designs for PM have given misleading results(one such apperatus continued to function for 8 weeks)you can imagine my heartache at discovering my own flaws in design...id totally overlooked that my device had two AA batteries cellotaped underneath concealed in the base.......Damn!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MetaFrizzics Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 Wait, couldn't his idea be made even more efficient by using the methane gas generated from you know where? I mean you've already got the airtight container, and I don't think you want that gas to just build... I could show you a little perpetual motion machine of mine that actually depends upon friction! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now