Quick question about perpetual motion.

[Deep-Fried-Thoughts]

I know Perpetual motion is a losing battle, however,  i was curious what would happen if someone mounted the most effective version of a large  BHASKARA'S Wheel onto the center axle of a well constructed perpetual water mill design? Since they both  "Almost" work on their own, would it make any difference if these two designs were combined into one machine?

[Ghideon]

4 minutes ago, Deep-Fried-Thoughts said:

Since they both  "Almost" work on their own, would it make any difference if these two designs were combined into one machine?

No. It makes no difference; perpetual motion is not possible even if combining devices. The overall physical laws still applies. 

 

Edited September 5, 2019 by Ghideon
spelling

[Janus]

10 hours ago, Deep-Fried-Thoughts said:

I know Perpetual motion is a losing battle, however,  i was curious what would happen if someone mounted the most effective version of a large  BHASKARA'S Wheel onto the center axle of a well constructed perpetual water mill design? Since they both  "Almost" work on their own, would it make any difference if these two designs were combined into one machine?

 While the efficiency of the combined pair would be the result of the combined efficiency of the two devices, it wouldn't combine to improve the overall efficiency but to decrease it.

If you compound a 99% efficient device onto a another 99% efficient device, you end up with less than 99% end efficiency for the combination.  It is the loses inherent in each device that add up.

[Ghideon]

I'll try a logical explanation with more detail without referring to math of specific laws of physics this time: 

Let's say two hypothetical devices are working perpetually* as a unit without external energy source. Perpetual motion device A feeds energy (1) into device B and then device B feeds energy (2) to device A. Since no external energy is added and operation is perpetual there is no internal energy wasted; efficiency is 100%. Device A runs from the energy provided by B and B runs from the energy provided by A.
Hence, over time, A must supply B with the same amount of energy that A would require to operate in isolation. And B must provide A with the same amount of energy B would require to run in isolation. 

So the result is that the only way the device A and B could work as a 100% efficiency perpetual motion device together is if they could do so in isolation. A and B are perpetual devices on their own or the device (A+B) is not a perpetual device.
In other words you can not build a perpetual motion device unless you have a set of perpetual motion devices.
 

 

This does of course not alter the fact that perpetual motion machines is not possible. It is just a way of showing how OPs setup is not working in a general case.

 

(I answered from phone earlier and was unable to use an image. This is pretty much same as @Janus but I had started drawing already so posting probably does not harm.)

*) Not possible! Only used to setup the explanation. 

 

Edited September 5, 2019 by Ghideon
duplicated image

[jajrussel]

On 9/5/2019 at 5:16 AM, Deep-Fried-Thoughts said:

I know Perpetual motion is a losing battle, however,  i was curious what would happen if someone mounted the most effective version of a large  BHASKARA'S Wheel onto the center axle of a well constructed perpetual water mill design? Since they both  "Almost" work on their own, would it make any difference if these two designs were combined into one machine?

I think that the idea of inertia is what generally gives way to the thought that Perpetual motionIs achievable. Newton’s first law? Sometimes I forget but I think it is the first law of motion?

 Gravity is the perpetual motion killer. Always acting as an opposing force to inertia. I just read another thread that spoke of gravity acting as a body force which I’m still coming to terms with which would mean that even if the objects inertia was directed toward the gravitational source at some point the gravity would act as an opposing force stopping the inertial motion, where I mean the object would come to rest. Defeating the concept of perpetual motion. I am not an expert and generally usually only have half a clue, but I am sure that if my explanation is wrong we will both learn something more 🙂.

[uncool]

Gravity does not "always act[...] as an opposing force to inertia", which you'd know if you ever went skydiving. Gravity is a conservative force, and in a universe with just gravity, perpetual motion machines of the second kind are possible. The force that "opposes inertia" (more precisely, that equalizes velocities) is friction. 

[swansont]

On 10/2/2019 at 4:36 PM, uncool said:

 The force that "opposes inertia" (more precisely, that equalizes velocities) is friction. 

Even more generally, any dissipative process. Wind resistance being another example. Inelastic scattering, too.

[jameskennymatheson]

The answer  is to get Methylene Chloride  and make a indoor wind generator 

Its not perpetual motion but it does work for 100 days

If anyone's interested please reply 

 

I really want to make some decent jobs where I live 

[Bufofrog]

38 minutes ago, jameskennymatheson said:

The answer  is to get Methylene Chloride  and make a indoor wind generator 

Make an indoor wind generator out of methylene chloride?

[Sensei]

45 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Make an indoor wind generator out of methylene chloride?

Watch video from his other thread. The idea is simple. Heat substance with low boiling point so it will change to gaseous state and move to the other end of closed container where it will liquify. Repeat with other end.

[Bufofrog]

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

Watch video from his other thread. The idea is simple. Heat substance with low boiling point so it will change to gaseous state and move to the other end of closed container where it will liquify. Repeat with other end.

Oh, sorta like a steam cycle.  Seems like controlling the pressure would be tricky in a closed system, but that's his problem to figure out.

[Tom Booth]

Methylene chloride is what's inside the drinking bird, everybody probably already knows that though.

If someone wants to run a heat engine on evaporative cooling though, I think it's more practical to use a Stirling engine.

There are a number of ways I think this one could be improved.

Not my engine or my video BTW. The guy that built this engine died  several years ago.

This engine is running on only a 2.5 °C temperature gradient.

Not many have succeeded in building a model heat engine this sensitive.

I can see there is a vent hole, which is usually needed in a diaphragm engine because it is completely sealed (no leaks around a piston), used to equalize pressure if needed. Like when the barometer falls. But I suspect, though I have no proof or any real reason to think so, that it may have been used to fill the chamber with helium.

 

[studiot]

On 9/5/2019 at 9:30 PM, Ghideon said:

I'll try a logical explanation with more detail without referring to math of specific laws of physics this time: 

Let's say two hypothetical devices are working perpetually* as a unit without external energy source. Perpetual motion device A feeds energy (1) into device B and then device B feeds energy (2) to device A. Since no external energy is added and operation is perpetual there is no internal energy wasted; efficiency is 100%. Device A runs from the energy provided by B and B runs from the energy provided by A.
Hence, over time, A must supply B with the same amount of energy that A would require to operate in isolation. And B must provide A with the same amount of energy B would require to run in isolation. 

So the result is that the only way the device A and B could work as a 100% efficiency perpetual motion device together is if they could do so in isolation. A and B are perpetual devices on their own or the device (A+B) is not a perpetual device.
In other words you can not build a perpetual motion device unless you have a set of perpetual motion devices.
 

 

This does of course not alter the fact that perpetual motion machines is not possible. It is just a way of showing how OPs setup is not working in a general case.

 

(I answered from phone earlier and was unable to use an image. This is pretty much same as @Janus but I had started drawing already so posting probably does not harm.)

*) Not possible! Only used to setup the explanation. 

 

nice +1

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

nice +1

Yes. Very elegant. Another +1 from me. 

[Country Boy]

If two machines, each having 90% efficiency, work together the result will be (0.9)(0.9)= 0.81 or 81%  efficiency.  The result will be less efficient, not more.

[Andrew William Henderson]

On 9/5/2019 at 10:16 AM, Deep-Fried-Thoughts said:

I know Perpetual motion is a losing battle, however,  i was curious what would happen if someone mounted the most effective version of a large  BHASKARA'S Wheel onto the center axle of a well constructed perpetual water mill design? Since they both  "Almost" work on their own, would it make any difference if these two designs were combined into one machine?

The nearly perpetual motion fed by another nearly perpetual  allways re charging the other to become perpetual ... ? So the power to turn an electric generator is originaly powered  by the release  of a clock work spring  turned once a year ..🤔

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

The nearly perpetual motion fed by another nearly perpetual  allways re charging the other to become perpetual ... ?

That is the situation adressed in my post above (scienceforums.net/comment=1116693)

 

1 hour ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

So the power to turn an electric generator is originaly powered  by the release  of a clock work spring  turned once a year

Is that a proposal for perpetual motion? 

[joigus]

On 9/5/2019 at 10:30 PM, Ghideon said:

I'll try a logical explanation with more detail without referring to math of specific laws of physics this time: 

Let's say two hypothetical devices are working perpetually* as a unit without external energy source. Perpetual motion device A feeds energy (1) into device B and then device B feeds energy (2) to device A. Since no external energy is added and operation is perpetual there is no internal energy wasted; efficiency is 100%. Device A runs from the energy provided by B and B runs from the energy provided by A.
Hence, over time, A must supply B with the same amount of energy that A would require to operate in isolation. And B must provide A with the same amount of energy B would require to run in isolation. 

So the result is that the only way the device A and B could work as a 100% efficiency perpetual motion device together is if they could do so in isolation. A and B are perpetual devices on their own or the device (A+B) is not a perpetual device.
In other words you can not build a perpetual motion device unless you have a set of perpetual motion devices.
 

 

This does of course not alter the fact that perpetual motion machines is not possible. It is just a way of showing how OPs setup is not working in a general case.

 

(I answered from phone earlier and was unable to use an image. This is pretty much same as @Janus but I had started drawing already so posting probably does not harm.)

*) Not possible! Only used to setup the explanation. 

 

Very elegant explanation, as well as @Janus'.