my "perpetual" motion notion.

[YT2095]

this started out tongue-in-cheek over in IRC as we were taking the <you know what> out of these perpetual motion ideas. the main idea is in Bold below.

 

<Klaynos> <YT-AWAY> they`re not even particularly Inventive anymore <--- right what you do is you get a magnet and a wheel and then gravity keeps it going on the long end...

<YT-AWAY> basically all he`s done is put a yo-yo on a spring, and used a magnet instead of gravity

<YT-AWAY> big deal

<YT-AWAY> here`s one, how about capturing the energy from a falling weight and using that to lift soil from out a hole, as long as the weight was more massive per volume that the soil removed it would keep falling forever

<YT-AWAY> that`s my Contribution to mankind

<YT-AWAY> problem solved

<Klaynos> lol

<YT-AWAY> water wells in the sahara... No sweat

<YT-AWAY> pass the Lead and a rope

<YT-AWAY> Hmmm... considering I just made that up this second, I wonder if it Would work?

<YT-AWAY> I can`t really see any Rules being broken

 

so... are there any rules broken at all?

can you see any thermodynamic contradictions or violations of physics?

 

granted it`s not Perpetual as eventually the hole would be so deep that gravity has no effect etc... but in Principal if you didn`t want your Lead back after it should be fair trade in Energy, shouldn`t it?

 

Hmmm... after a few minutes of thought, I can see a major flaw!

Edited June 11, 2008 by YT2095

[nstansbury]

Oooh, do you mind if I add mine to this thread as well because I can't figure out what laws mine is breaking as well.

 

A tube with one end sealed, is placed into a pool of water open end down.

 

A suction pump attached to the closed end, and it evacuates all the air. Ambient air pressure forces the water up the tube.

 

A one-way valve is inserted in the tube just above the water line, that allows water out but no air in.

 

Air pressure is pushing the water up the tube, counteracting the effect of gravity on the water, but the one-way valve still experiences a pressure against it, equivalent to the weight of water above it.

 

The one-way valve allows water to be pushed out of the tube and no air back in, and ambient air pressure maintains the height of water in the tube???

 

Obviously the water flow powers whatever you like.

 

What the heck am I missing? Just cant see what it is.

[Phi for All]

YT, what mechanism is causing the "digger" to keep lowering as the hole gets deeper?

 

 

A suction pump attached to the closed end, and it evacuates all the air.

What's powering the pump and does it use more power than you can create with pumped out water?

 

 

Obviously the water flow powers whatever you like.

Not necessarily "whatever". Wouldn't there be limitations on the pressure it creates?

[YT2095]

YT, what mechanism is causing the "digger" to keep lowering as the hole gets deeper?

 

we considered the idea of a gearing system for the whole affair, Gravity would be the Down force for all that needed to GO down, and the falling effect would lift all that needed to be lifted.

 

the real bottleneck in energy that I saw was that as it got deeper and soil was removed from in front of the falling weight, it also has further to go back Up the hole to get out.

 

so if you`r 10 foot down with a 1 foot drop left and use that energy to remove another 1 foot of soil, it has to UP a whole 10 foot.

 

eventually you`d reach a balance whereby Nothing moves at all, like an inverse exponential curve.

 

probably not the Best way to explain it, but that`s the main problem/flaw I can see.

[Phi for All]

eventually you`d reach a balance whereby Nothing moves at all, like an inverse exponential curve.

Still, it might be worth a try for limited applications, like digging post holes to a certain depth.

[nstansbury]

Not necessarily "whatever". Wouldn't there be limitations on the pressure it creates?

 

Well I was figuring the flow of water would power a small over-shoot water turbine. I figured the pressure of water would be ~14.7psi

[Phi for All]

Well I was figuring the flow of water would power a small over-shoot water turbine. I figured the pressure of water would be ~14.7psi

Have you done the calculations on how much energy the pump uses as opposed to how much energy the water turbine produces?

[Sisyphus]

Oooh, do you mind if I add mine to this thread as well because I can't figure out what laws mine is breaking as well.

 

A tube with one end sealed, is placed into a pool of water open end down.

 

A suction pump attached to the closed end, and it evacuates all the air. Ambient air pressure forces the water up the tube.

 

A one-way valve is inserted in the tube just above the water line, that allows water out but no air in.

 

Air pressure is pushing the water up the tube, counteracting the effect of gravity on the water, but the one-way valve still experiences a pressure against it, equivalent to the weight of water above it.

 

The one-way valve allows water to be pushed out of the tube and no air back in, and ambient air pressure maintains the height of water in the tube???

 

Obviously the water flow powers whatever you like.

 

What the heck am I missing? Just cant see what it is.

 

What you're missing is that the water wouldn't go out the valve. Yes, it's experiencing pressure from the water, but it's still less than air pressure. It has to be, otherwise the tube couldn't hold water in the first place.

[nstansbury]

Have you done the calculations on how much energy the pump uses as opposed to how much energy the water turbine produces?

 

No there is no pump, it's the atmospheric pressure "pushing down" and a partial vacuum "pulling up"

 

but it's still less than air pressure

Yes that's exactly what I thought but, the difference in p will be so minor & the one-way value needn't be pressure activated. I couldn't see how once it was started the momentum of the water travelling down through the outlet would be stopped by air pressure.

 

Dodgy pic attached.

[Sisyphus]

Yes that's exactly what I thought but, the difference in p will be so minor & the one-way value needn't be pressure activated. I couldn't see how once it was started the momentum of the water travelling down through the outlet would be stopped by air pressure.

 

Dodgy pic attached.

 

And yet it would be stopped. Your water is not going to have any more momentum than you give it by whatever it is you're using to "started." As soon as you use that momentum up, it will stop, and you won't have gotten any energy out that you didn't put in to start with.

[Klaynos]

Create that partial vacuum without a pump...

 

I can demonstrate why this wont work take a straw make a hole in one side put the straw in water and put your finger over the end. Take the staw out of the water, you've got a partial vacuum, and yet no water flows.

[insane_alien]

the pressure at the valve would be less than atmospheric pressure, the air would keep the one way valve shut. hence no flow.

 

amazing what a simple hydrostatic analysis can do.

[Edtharan]

Oooh, do you mind if I add mine to this thread as well because I can't figure out what laws mine is breaking as well.

Here is my idea (I don't actually think this would work but I haven't been able to find an answer why it wouldn't).

 

Most Perpetual Motion Machines tend to use classical mechanics, I suppose that it is easier for people to think in those terms. However, my machine is Quantum Mechanical in nature.

 

According to QM and the uncertainty principle, there are virtual photons and even virtual matter forming and disappearing all the time. When, say, a virtual electron/positron pair form, they exist for a fraction of a second and then annihilate with each other.

 

It is the fraction of a second that they exist that I found interesting.

 

These virtual particles have an electric field, and they have momentum. This means that if they encounter a magnetic field, they should curve, and in opposite directions. However, if all there was was the magnetic field, then they could just curve around and collide with each other as they finish the circle.

 

My ideas involves setting up such a magnetic field, but instead of allowing the particles to just circle around, there will instead be a pair of curved (1/4 circle arranged so that the nearest ends are in the magnetic field and the other ends are outside the magnetic field), conductive plates that the particles can collide with.

 

The position and shape of the plates would be critical.

 

You would actually have to have four devices arranged as below, with the centre of the magnetic field in the centre of the diagram (btw, instead of being straight, the plates would be curved).

 

\\ //

// \\

 

The virtual positron can collide and annihilate with an electron in one conductive plate. This then balances the "borrowed" energy of the virtual particles. It also (because of entanglement) promotes the virtual electron to a real electron which is now embedded in the other conductive plate.

 

So one plate has lost an electron (and therefore has a net positive charge) and the other has gained an electron (and therefore has a net negative charge). We now have a potential difference and can use it to do work (by connecting the two conductive plates in an electrical circuit.

 

This is sort of an effect like Tunnelling whereby an electron appears to tunnel between the two conductive plates. It is also a bit like Hawking radiation around a black hole, but instead of a gravitational field, we are using a magnetic field. It also relies on "quantum teleportation" using entanglement.

 

Can we show how and why this won't work as expected.

[doG]

Oh....oh...can I try:D

 

Let's modify nstansbury's design.

 

Take one of those coiled air hoses (pic attached) and attach a check valve to the straight side so that water can flow in that side but not out.

 

Submerge it in water to get all the air out of it and prefill it with water. Put a cork in the end on the coiled side to trap the water in it until you're ready to start it.

 

Now hang it over a support with a bucket of water in such a way that the straight side goes to the bottom of the bucket and the end on the coiled side hangs just above the surface of the water.

 

Now you have a greater mass of water on the coiled side than the straight side because it is actually a longer piece of hose than the straight side, thus holding more volume.

 

Pull out the cork to start the water flow into the bucket. As the water flows out it will cause a vacuum that pulls water up the straight side causing an ever running siphon powered by gravity.

 

Where's the hole?

 

[hide]Consider how long a slope the coiled side really is and how much friction it has.[/hide]

[nstansbury]

Create that partial vacuum without a pump...

 

Apologies see what you mean. Yes I was assuming that it would just be "primed" once, and then sealed.

 

I can demonstrate why this wont work take a straw make a hole in one side put the straw in water and put your finger over the end. Take the staw out of the water, you've got a partial vacuum, and yet no water flows.

 

No I realised that wouldn't work, aside from the fact air would seep in and break the vacuum, at that size surface tension may stop the water flow anyway.

 

the pressure at the valve would be less than atmospheric pressure' date=' the air would keep the one way valve shut. hence no flow.

 

amazing what a simple hydrostatic analysis can do. [/quote']

 

No because, the pressure exerted on the inside the tube walls will be ~14.7psi, and will be in equilibrium because of atm and the vacuum, even at the entry to the sloping tube, it will be ~14.7 psi.

 

But.. the at end of the sloping tube, it isn't being balanced by atm & the vacuum - it has gravity acting on it as well as the original 14.7psi - the weight of the water should cause it to be at a higher pressure?

 

 

Let's modify nstansbury's design.

Aha - I think this is why it might not work....

 

 

Look, I'm not arguing this would work, it's just the reasons mentioned why seem counter-intuitive to me.

[insane_alien]

No because, the pressure exerted on the inside the tube walls will be ~14.7psi, and will be in equilibrium because of atm and the vacuum, even at the entry to the sloping tube, it will be ~14.7 psi.

 

But.. the at end of the sloping tube, it isn't being balanced by atm & the vacuum - it has gravity acting on it as well as the original 14.7psi - the weight of the water should cause it to be at a higher pressure?

 

 

no it will not, the only place in the tube that will be at 14.7psi is the bit level with the surface of the water on the outside, the pressure above this point will be 1atm-rho*g*h where h is the the distance between the arbitrary point and the atmospheric pressure line. the positive direction for the height is up.

 

the pressure at the top of the fluid will be that of the partial vacuum. there will be a gradient of pressure in the water from this to the end of the tube which if submerged will be greater than atmospheric.

 

You do not seem to understand hydrostatics properly

[nstansbury]

the pressure at the top of the fluid will be that of the partial vacuum

 

Arrgh!! - Of course

[insane_alien]

as i said, simple hydrostatic analysis....

 

same goes for doGs one, even without considering friction on wither of the two.

 

can't comment of ed's quantum one as i don't know enough about QM

[Klaynos]

Here is my idea (I don't actually think this would work but I haven't been able to find an answer why it wouldn't).

 

The energy comes from the magnets, you'd need really quite powerful magnets to separate the pair as well as a really really good vacuum...

[Edtharan]

The energy comes from the magnets, you'd need really quite powerful magnets to separate the pair as well as a really really good vacuum...

Ahh so the magnets would be weakened over time by this effect.

 

Hmm, then would it be a good way of storing energy

[Klaynos]

I'm pretty sure to get a field large enough you'd have to use electromagnets... and no magnets are not good batteries it's not very easy to get energy out of them.

[Edtharan]

I'm pretty sure to get a field large enough you'd have to use electromagnets

How strong a field would it have to be (out of curiosity - so just estimates is good enough). I know it would depend on the velocity of the particle pair and the distance between he plates.

 

How much energy would it remove from the magnets to do this? From what I have been told, the magnets would only be weakened as the electron/positron were actually moving (do to the fact that they would set up an opposing magnetic field as they are moving electric charges). Once they were stopped in the plates, as I understood it, they would not be setting up that counter magnetic field.

 

and no magnets are not good batteries it's not very easy to get energy out of them.

I take it that you could extract energy from this, only that it would be really innefficient. So they can be used to store energy, it is just difficult to get it back out.

[foodchain]

<YT-AWAY> here`s one, how about capturing the energy from a falling weight and using that to lift soil from out a hole, as long as the weight was more massive per volume that the soil removed it would keep falling forever

 

I don’t see how it could keep falling as to where, and also I think eventually that the change would reach a limit or hit some kind of equilibrium.

 

As for my idea on a perpetual motion machine is there any amount of mass of say any type of matter that could be say molded into a star and hooked up to a plug type apparatus, say you make a model star but you keep sucking the energy out to keep it just below some threshold of going nuclear?

[Klaynos]

How strong a field would it have to be (out of curiosity - so just estimates is good enough). I know it would depend on the velocity of the particle pair and the distance between he plates.

 

I don't know, but I've had a look around and can't find any one who seems to have done it yet.

 

How much energy would it remove from the magnets to do this? From what I have been told, the magnets would only be weakened as the electron/positron were actually moving (do to the fact that they would set up an opposing magnetic field as they are moving electric charges). Once they were stopped in the plates, as I understood it, they would not be setting up that counter magnetic field.

 

The first thing you'd need is enough energy to overcome the pair production barrier, which if you consider even if the electron and positron exist but are very very close together they are very very strongly attracted to each other.

[YT2095]

I don’t see how it could keep falling as to where, and also I think eventually that the change would reach a limit or hit some kind of equilibrium.

 

as established in post #4 ya mean?