perpetual motion mechanism.

[aman]

I know most perpetual motion ideas are complicated to hide the flaw and I have a complicated one that I can't find the error in.

Imagine a 1000 ft dam. I roll a 50 gal barrel full of water off the dry side onto a chain mechanism that generates energy until the barrel is at the bottom. I empty the barrel. Then I open an airlock at the base of the dam and put the empty barrel in and close the door. On the wet side I open the airlock and the barrel rises conected to another chain to harness the rising energy. When it surfaces I fill it with water and send it back down the dry side.

All I have lost is the water from the barrel at the base of the dry side and the water that fills the airlock after each cycle.

That's maybe 110 gal. of water. On the surface it seems there would be a net gain of energy.

Just aman

[blike]

Sounds good in concept..

 

Eventually though you'd run out of water...halting everything. Also airlock doors would require power, and you'd lose even more water. Perhaps the energy in the bonds of the lost water is greater than the energy of the dropped barrel..

 

 

I was thinking, why drop the barrel with water in it?

 

How about this:

 

have the barrel drop empty. when it hits the bottom, theres an incline. The barrel rolls down the incline and the energy harnessed is used to open the first airlock door (very light material). After the barrel enters, the first door is dropped shut. There is yet another incline that is used to open the second airlock, flooding the chamber and floating the barrel.

 

There would also be a chain to harness the energy while the barrel is rising. This energy lifts(w/ help of pulleys) the water inside the airlock seal back to the top, where it is dumped into the pool.

 

repeat?

 

Interesting thought, aman

[aman]

OK. You have the mechanism to open the airlock with the barrels descending energy. The airlock is slanted and contains 60 gal. volume. The airlock empties and the barrel needs to be inserted. The door needs to be sealed and the other door needs to open. The extra ten gallons of air is compressed as the airlock is flooded. This compressed air could be used pneumatically to insert the next barrel, close the airlock and open the one on the wet side. Then close the wet side door.

I still can't find the error.

Just aman

[blike]

Why can't a clever magnetic contraption be used somehow? Sounds like free energy to me, though I'm sure theres a catch.

[Radical Edward]

It's just conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy, in much the same way that a normal dam is. a 'perpetual motion' machine is one that literally powers itelf, to the point that it can run indefinitely without any outside help, and possibly have energy left over.

[blike]

Yea, but why can't magnets be used somehow? Does a magnet last forever?

[aman]

Monopoles would make a device easier. Using like charges to repel and collecting the energy from the device. Can a monopole be made by taking a permanent bar magnet and dipping one pole in lead so only one pole is exposed?

Just aman

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by blike

Yea, but why can't magnets be used somehow? Does a magnet last forever?

 

It's still just conversion of kinetic to potential energy. the system isn't indefinitely self-powering.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by aman

Monopoles would make a device easier. Using like charges to repel and collecting the energy from the device. Can a monopole be made by taking a permanent bar magnet and dipping one pole in lead so only one pole is exposed?

Just aman

 

nope, you can't make monopoles, magnetic monopoles don't (classically) exist, though someone somewhere said there might be magnetic monopoles as a result of some funny Quantum mechanics, though I am sceptical of this. basically all magnetism really is, is a relativistic version of the electrical field.

[aman]

Yah, I screwed up on my representation of a monopole. You can't hide one pole. All it does is shorten the length of the magnetic field bringing the two poles closer together.

Just aman

[roger4464]

Yea, but why can't magnets be used somehow? Does a magnet last forever?

Magnet can be a substitute, to 'gravitational field', with the use of matter _''TO CREATE A FORCE'' and converted to kinetic energy _ continuous motion, ''in a circle path''_( important) !! ...... ''possible only in a closed system'' :

[Janus]

I know most perpetual motion ideas are complicated to hide the flaw and I have a complicated one that I can't find the error in.

Imagine a 1000 ft dam. I roll a 50 gal barrel full of water off the dry side onto a chain mechanism that generates energy until the barrel is at the bottom. I empty the barrel. Then I open an airlock at the base of the dam and put the empty barrel in and close the door. On the wet side I open the airlock and the barrel rises conected to another chain to harness the rising energy. When it surfaces I fill it with water and send it back down the dry side.

All I have lost is the water from the barrel at the base of the dry side and the water that fills the airlock after each cycle.

That's maybe 110 gal. of water. On the surface it seems there would be a net gain of energy.

Just aman

It's not perpetual, nor is there a net gain of energy.

 

All the energy is provided by water going from the wet side to the dry side. You are simply tapping the gravitational potential energy of that water which is higher on the wet side. You are converting energy that is already there. This is what hydroelectric damns do. Water flows from the high side to the low side while running through turbines.

 

 

Your whole barrel idea seems less efficient than that. When the empty barrel rises, the energy you can get from it is only equivalent to the energy needed to displace its equivalent volume of water 1000 ft. However, in order to empty the airlock, you have to dump a column of water 1000 ft tall, which has a lot more stored energy than you got out of the rising barrel. You are basically just throwing away energy.

 

L

[John Cuthber]

This is just a really complicated way to make a hydroelectric power station, but without the benefit of having an electrical output.

It would work, it's powered by the rain that fills the dam.

[J.C.MacSwell]

What Janus said. You are just displacing the water and converting the available energy in a more complicated way. Essentially you need even more complications to hide the flaw and that leads to even less efficiencies....so better to just use the turbines that are already there.