perpetual motion machine

[John Phoenix]

O.k. guys lets change this track a little.

 

For one I never said anything about creating energy out of nothing.. I never believed this was possible ( unless your God but that's another matter). And I have said many post down that I changed my mind about my magnet idea having learned more about magnets.. so lets put that behind us.

 

It is my understanding that a magnet produces a magnetic field because of electrons spinning around inside it. Right?

 

** What causes these electrons to spin? Are they using energy while spinning? I assume so, if so, are they also losing energy? This I also would assume to be the case. Is this correct? If so, where is the magnet getting the energy from to replace this lost energy? After all, nothing is acting on the magnet.. it's just sitting there. - If the magnet is Not losing energy then what is happening inside the magnet?

 

Lets say I take a magnet and sit it on a tabletop and wait for a thousand years.. will the magnet still have the same magnetic field or will all the energy run out thus effectively demagnetizing the magnet?

 

I will continue with this train of thought after you answer the above questions...

[Janus]

O.k. guys lets change this track a little.

 

For one I never said anything about creating energy out of nothing.. I never believed this was possible ( unless your God but that's another matter). And I have said many post down that I changed my mind about my magnet idea having learned more about magnets.. so lets put that behind us.

 

It is my understanding that a magnet produces a magnetic field because of electrons spinning around inside it. Right?

 

Wrong. The model of the atom with electrons whizzing around the nucleus like little planets was abandoned decades ago.

 

** What causes these electrons to spin? Are they using energy while spinning? I assume so, if so, are they also losing energy? This I also would assume to be the case. Is this correct? If so, where is the magnet getting the energy from to replace this lost energy? After all, nothing is acting on the magnet.. it's just sitting there. - If the magnet is Not losing energy then what is happening inside the magnet?

 

Even if the electrons orbiting the nucleus model were accurate, the electrons would not be using or losing energy. Their energy would remain constant. Nothing is needed to keep them orbiting, their own inertia would do that. If they lost energy, it would be at the expense of their speed and they would spiral in to the nucleus.

(Actually, it is for this reason that the orbiting electron model was abandoned. Being electric charges, orbiting electrons should radiate. if they radiate, they give up energy and after a very short time would fall into the nucleus. Since atoms neither radiate nor collapse, electrons can't be classical bodies orbiting a nucleus)

[John Phoenix]

Interesting Janus.. that's the model I was taught back in the 80's. I suppose I will have to research the atom again..

 

But.. none of my questions about the magnet got answered.. if the magnetic field is not produced by electrons spinning around inside it, then what produces the magnetic field?

[Mr Skeptic]

if the magnetic field is not produced by electrons spinning around inside it, then what produces the magnetic field?

 

In short, it is due to quantum mechanics. Electrons have an intrinsic property called spin, as well as their more well known electric charge. This spin produces a magnetic field. Most electrons go in pairs, one with spin "up" and the other with spin "down", but in some materials, this is not the case. Such materials are called ferromagnetic. Normally, ferromagnetic materials have their magnetic domains randomly arranged so that they cancel out. However, they can be aligned and then they will overall produce a magnetic field.

 

Electromagnets, on the other hand, are made via an electric current.

[John Phoenix]

O.k. so electrons are responsible for the magnetic field just not through the old atom model that they are zipping around to and fro around a nucleus but because they are spinning together with their electric charge and inertia.. " and the electrons would not be using or losing energy. Their energy would remain constant. Nothing is needed to keep them orbiting, their own inertia would do that."

 

Is this a better way of looking at it?

 

Now this same magnet, if sitting on a table undisturbed for a thousand years would still have the strength magnetic field.. ( because it did not use or lose its energy..)

 

So would it then be fair to say that the magnet itself is a type of perpetual energy device? ( because unless demagnetized by an outside force it will always produce a magnetic field and thus a form of energy? )

 

You guys said it yourselves.. it does not lose or use energy.. yet it still produces a magnetic field.. which to me is a form of energy radiating from the magnet..So nature has already found a way to make a perpetual energy device in this manner has it not? Or am I still not understanding something about magnets we haven't talked about yet...

 

Please answer if the above is correct.

 

You see what i'm getting at is this.. forget the perpetual motion machine as classical science thinks of it.. perhaps that's not what the world needs to create an energy device that can help us lesson our dependence on fossil fuels. But perhaps magnets themselves can give us a clue how to look at the problem differently. If the spinning electron with it's electric charge and inertia can produce a magnetic field that does not lose energy, why not find a way to harness this to preform work.. Take these same principles, and magnify them thousands of times in a device of some sort.. possible?

 

 

( Just a side note but to me inertia implies movement.. I do not understand how an electron can have movement and not use or lose energy. Perhaps if I understood this better it too would provide answers to help solve my energy machine problem- Er.. perhaps I shouldn't have brought this up yet.. i don't want this to overshadow the discussion above. I understand inertia in he sense that an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force.. this is fine if you throw a ball out in space and it goes until it hits something or something hit it.. but inside a magnet there is a finite space with which the electron can move.. I assume its movement is circular and it follows a orbital path but then how does this along with the electric charge and spinning translate into energy in the form of a magnetic field?) ( That reminds me.. if our model of the atom today is different than our model in 1945, how then does that change our understanding of what happens when we split an atom?)

Edited September 2, 2009 by John Phoenix

[swansont]

So would it then be fair to say that the magnet itself is a type of perpetual energy device? ( because unless demagnetized by an outside force it will always produce a magnetic field and thus a form of energy? )

 

You guys said it yourselves.. it does not lose or use energy.. yet it still produces a magnetic field.. which to me is a form of energy radiating from the magnet..So nature has already found a way to make a perpetual energy device in this manner has it not? Or am I still not understanding something about magnets we haven't talked about yet...

 

 

Magnets produce a static field, which does not radiate. It is no more a perpetual motion device than a rock sitting on a table, which has a constant amount of potential energy. I hope we can agree that a rock sitting on a table is not perpetual motion.

 

 

You see what i'm getting at is this.. forget the perpetual motion machine as classical science thinks of it.. perhaps that's not what the world needs to create an energy device that can help us lesson our dependence on fossil fuels. But perhaps magnets themselves can give us a clue how to look at the problem differently. If the spinning electron with it's electric charge and inertia can produce a magnetic field that does not lose energy, why not find a way to harness this to preform work.. Take these same principles, and magnify them thousands of times in a device of some sort.. possible?

 

If you were to tap into the energy, it wouldn't be constant anymore. You run into a problem, though: magnetic forces do no work. The force is always perpendicular to the field. (F = qv X B)

 

And we do exploit this type of system — a motor, for example. But that requires electrical energy to run it.

[John Phoenix]

Ah.. o.k. Explain this static field which does not radiate to me better.. To my thinking the magnetic field is 'radiating' away from the magnet as seen in diagrams of magnetic fields that seem to emanate from the magnet.. why is this not radiation?

 

I didn't say perpetual motion device.. I said perpetual energy device... the only thing I imagine possibly moving here is the field itself as it ventures forth from the core of the magnet.

 

I am trying to digest what you said.. if a magnetic force can "do no work" then how can one magnetic force push another thus causing the other magnet to move..? To my understanding, this is work being preformed. You mean say that you can't tap into the field as if to drain the energy from it to put it to work ..right?

 

Do the two halfs of the field (from the two poles) balance each other out and thus they are in equilibrium themselves? If this is the case I can visualize why the field would be more 'static' than how I pictured the field before.

 

Also, what about monopoles.. I know there are none found in nature but they have been theorized to exist.. if one were possible could you take the force from one and by directing it, use it to preform work?

[Sisyphus]

In the sense that that is "perpetual energy," all energy is perpetual, since it can't be created or destroyed, just converted and/or transferred. Which is why perpetual motion machines don't work.

 

Two magnets can do work on one another, but only if you do a greater amount of work on them first. In other words, you can extract energy from them pushing apart, but you'd have to use more energy than you could extract to push them together in the first place.

 

Another example is gravity. A rock sitting on the edge of a table, as swansont says, has a constant potential energy. "Perpetual," even. This can be harnessed by tipping it over the side, in which case it is converted to kinetic energy as it accelerates. This uses up the potential energy. If you want to restore it, you have to use more than you could ever extract from it falling to get it back up on the table. (In an ideal world, you would only use the same amount as you extract to get it back on the table, which of course is still useless. In the real world, there are always inefficiencies, where some of the energy will be dissipated in the form of heat, vibration, whatever, so you always get out less useful energy than you put in.)

[Leader Bee]

Out of curiosity and possibly moving the topic off its intended route...

 

How would superconductivity affect a "perpetual motion device"?

I don't beleive that PM is obtainable but something that could run for a VERY long time could be.

If we were to supercool the transmission medium of an electrical circuit so that it has zero resistance ( Perhaps I am wrong in my belief but superconductors have no electrical resistance?) wouldn't all the energy we put in to a device be dedicated to powering the device rather than creating waste heat and thus increasing the efficiency of the device? Ignoring friction of course and gravity and all those other forces we take for granted.

 

I assume the method for sustaining such a temperature would take a tremendous amount of energy anyway so I assume this would be a waste of time too?

[swansont]

Superconductivity will reduce your electrical transmission losses, but will not put you over-unity or even let you achieve break-even. It takes energy to cool superconductors down and to maintain a temperature below ambient, as you have noted, so you still have losses in your system.

[Mr Skeptic]

You guys said it yourselves.. it does not lose or use energy.. yet it still produces a magnetic field.. which to me is a form of energy radiating from the magnet..So nature has already found a way to make a perpetual energy device in this manner has it not? Or am I still not understanding something about magnets we haven't talked about yet...

 

The magnetic field of a magnet is just sitting there, if you wanted it to radiate you would need a changing magnetic field... which would require energy.

 

What it seems you are not understanding is what is energy. Let's do a simple test of your research skills: what is energy? What is the equation for work?

[John Phoenix]

Mr Skeptic, I'll research that and answer you in my next post.. ( I have a good science book around here someplace) But I think the reason why I am not understanding everything you guys are saying is because, to me, I am looking at this as the magnetic force itself IS energy. The more I read you guys post it seems you make a clear distinction between the magnetic field's force and energy.... I have yet to understand why this is..

 

O.k... i'm going to find my reference materials.. granted they may be 20 years old.. i'm not going to use the web because I want to draw from the things I have been taught in the past.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

There are two types of energy, kinetic energy and potential energy.

 

Kinetic energy is energy that is doing work as in an object that has been acted on by a force over distance.

 

Potential energy is energy that is at rest or 'stored ' energy (as in an object at rest) waiting to be made into kinetic energy when it is acted on by a force over distance.

 

Work is determined by force multiplied by distance.

 

I think I was forgetting about both types of energy. Also it would have been helpful if I stated either kinetic or potential energy.

 

I was thinking that the potential energy of the magnetic field could be used as kinetic energy.

Edited September 2, 2009 by John Phoenix
Consecutive posts merged.

[mooeypoo]

There are two types of energy, kinetic energy and potential energy.

Uh, no. There are many more types of energies, not just kinetic and potential.

 

Elastic Energy, for instance (used usually in motions that involve springs).

 

It's true that you can split energies to the very broad thinking of "potential" and kinetic but that's not to say there really are two types of energies. These are two broad categories.

 

Kinetic energy is energy that is doing work as in an object that has been acted on by a force over distance.

 

Potential energy is energy that is at rest or 'stored ' energy (as in an object at rest) waiting to be made into kinetic energy when it is acted on by a force over distance.

 

Work is determined by force multiplied by distance.

Broadly stated, yes, but it's not always linear.

 

I think I was forgetting about both types of energy. Also it would have been helpful if I stated either kinetic or potential energy.

 

I was thinking that the potential energy of the magnetic field could be used as kinetic energy.

There's also a magnetic energy, related to the magnetic moment of the object and the magnetic field.

 

You should try to avoid splitting the energies into the two groups of potential and kinetic because then you might miss the less commonly known energies that are relevant here. Magnetic energy can be viewed to belong under the "Potential" energies category, but it's not exactly the potential energy that people usually refer to..

 

It might just end up being more confusing than helpful, is the point I'm trying to make.

 

~moo

[John Phoenix]

Very interesting. apparently the information I have was written for either high school age 20 some years ago or it contains just the basics. I even did a web search and found sites that only talk about those two types of energy.

 

Well I went and got me a copy of Physics for Dummies by Stave Holzner. I don't know how much help it will bring me because i'm horrible at math. I'll try to get through it anyway.

[Mr Skeptic]

There are two types of energy, kinetic energy and potential energy.

 

Roughly speaking, you could say that is true. Potential energy in particular has all kinds of ways you could subdivide it.

 

Kinetic energy is energy that is doing work as in an object that has been acted on by a force over distance.

 

Potential energy is energy that is at rest or 'stored ' energy (as in an object at rest) waiting to be made into kinetic energy when it is acted on by a force over distance.

 

Work is determined by force multiplied by distance.

 

Very good. Note that it's not just a force, it's a force applied over a distance (ie, the object that the force is pushing or pulling is moving in the direction of the force). Movement perpendicular to the force doesn't count, incidentally.

 

Anyhow, time for an example. You set a 2 pound ball on a chair, applying 2 pounds of force on the chair for 1 minute. How much work did the ball do on the chair? How much work did gravity do on the ball? Let's see, 2 pounds * 0 feet = 0 ft-lbs of work. That you did it for a minute doesn't matter.

 

Example 2: you drop a 2 pound ball 5 feet. How much work does gravity do on the ball? 2 lbs * 5 ft = 10 ft-lbs, the kinetic energy of the ball. But how did it's potential energy change? (oh, if you prefer metric units feel free to use them, I prefer them too)

 

Now the reason the magnetic field is not producing energy is because it isn't pushing something. (The magnetic field itself does have some energy intrinsic to it, but you can only release it by destroying the magnetic field, in which case you get back as much energy as it took to create the field.)

[John Phoenix]

You ask " But how did it's potential energy change?" In both cases gravity is the acting force, except in example 1 ( The chair is also providing an equal and opposite force it seems because the ball does not move), the ball is not traveling through space ( distance). In example 2 it does, thus the potential energy becomes kinetic energy.

 

So It's how I was defining energy also. ie. It seems it is to say, just because something has a field or a force ( whats the field made of.. waves? particles? waves that act as particles?) it in itself, is not considered a form of energy unless it's producing work. ( even though it had potential energy) Correct?

 

 

How about this.. What's the closest thing science does agree on that is possible in terms of a machine that produces the most power ( or energy, ability to do work) for the least amount of energy put into it? What's the holy grail in terms of what is known to be possible?

[Klaynos]

You ask " But how did it's potential energy change?" In both cases gravity is the acting force, except in example 1 ( The chair is also providing an equal and opposite force it seems because the ball does not move), the ball is not traveling through space ( distance). In example 2 it does, thus the potential energy becomes kinetic energy.

 

So It's how I was defining energy also. ie. It seems it is to say, just because something has a field or a force ( whats the field made of.. waves? particles? waves that act as particles?) it in itself, is not considered a form of energy unless it's producing work. ( even though it had potential energy) Correct?

 

Seems about right, force fields like gravity, and magnetism are mediated by virtual particles, such as virtual photons and gravitons.

 

How about this.. What's the closest thing science does agree on that is possible in terms of a machine that produces the most power ( or energy, ability to do work) for the least amount of energy put into it? What's the holy grail in terms of what is known to be possible?

 

I'd suggest you read about the carnot engine.

[John Phoenix]

Interesting reading about the Carnot engine.. thanks.

 

Klaynos, You mention "virtual particles, such as virtual photons and gravitons." I didn't get that far in my Physics for Dummies book yet. Can you define the use of the word ' virtual ' in this sense? What makes these particles ' virtual '?

 

Any other folks want to try to answer the question:

 

What's the closest thing science does agree on that is possible in terms of a machine that produces the most power ( or energy, ability to do work) for the least amount of energy put into it? What's the holy grail in terms of what is known to be possible?

[Sisyphus]

The upper limit on what you can get out is what you put in, i.e. 100% efficiency. 100% efficiency itself is impossible, but there's no theoretical limit to how close you could get.

[Mr Skeptic]

So It's how I was defining energy also. ie. It seems it is to say, just because something has a field or a force ( whats the field made of.. waves? particles? waves that act as particles?) it in itself, is not considered a form of energy unless it's producing work. ( even though it had potential energy) Correct?

 

Correct. To be even more exact, a force field has a potential, but items that can interact with the field have a potential energy which they can exchange for kinetic energy if they fall through the field. Or, they can exchange kinetic energy for potential energy if they move against the field.

 

How about this.. What's the closest thing science does agree on that is possible in terms of a machine that produces the most power ( or energy, ability to do work) for the least amount of energy put into it? What's the holy grail in terms of what is known to be possible?

 

Always you get exactly as much energy, but a portion of your energy changes to a form that you can't use. It kind of depends what your machine does, but converting a difference in temperature into work is one of the more inefficient processes.

[Klaynos]

Interesting reading about the Carnot engine.. thanks.

 

Klaynos, You mention "virtual particles, such as virtual photons and gravitons." I didn't get that far in my Physics for Dummies book yet. Can you define the use of the word ' virtual ' in this sense? What makes these particles ' virtual '?

 

Any other folks want to try to answer the question:

 

What's the closest thing science does agree on that is possible in terms of a machine that produces the most power ( or energy, ability to do work) for the least amount of energy put into it? What's the holy grail in terms of what is known to be possible?

 

I think it's possible (likely) I ment to say exchange not virtual particles.

 

I'd suggest trying to get a copy of QED by Feynmann....

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Particles/expar.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_carrier

[padren]

John Phoenix, you can think of perpetual motion like this: The Big Bang created a big sheet of paper and crumpled it up, we gain useful energy by unfolding little bits of overlapping paper to increase the total surface area in that spot... but there is no way to increase the actual amount of paper.

Some people think you can take a section and fold it back and unfold it, and end up with more surface area than before therefore letting you fold/unfold larger chunks every time and have "an unlimited supply of increasing amounts of paper."

 

Another way to visualize it is to imagine a big tank of oil and water that was created and shaken up during the Big Bang. You have lots of big bubbles of oil already settled at the top, and water at the bottom, and lots of little ones slipping around each other in the middle finding equilibrium. All motion, heat, electromagnetism - every life of every living creature - exists because those bubbles are pushing past each other on their way to establish equilibrium. At this moment during the process the patterns and motion can be somewhat complex and confusing, giving the impression it may be possible to direct these movements into a perpetual loop so they never settle and there will always be motion.

However, it's obvious to anyone that knows the basics of how these fluids will interact knows this is impossible - they aren't close minded, it's just not how liquids work. With oil and water it's easy to see why you could never keep the oil and water from reaching equilibrium without constantly adding external energy. With all the forces at play in the real Universe it's easier to be confused but the same thing still applies, and the universe will reach an energetic equilibrium just as assuredly as oil and water will in a tank.

 

Those are the 'big picture' truths that make all the 'little clever machines' fatally flawed from the beginning - they can only obscure how and when equilibrium is reached, not prevent it.

[Edtharan]

Very interesting. apparently the information I have was written for either high school age 20 some years ago or it contains just the basics. I even did a web search and found sites that only talk about those two types of energy.

 

Well I went and got me a copy of Physics for Dummies by Stave Holzner. I don't know how much help it will bring me because i'm horrible at math. I'll try to get through it anyway.

The science you get taught in schools (bellow university level) is not exact. The amount of maths and theory needed to understand current results and theory means that if one were to give the "unabridged" version to high school students then they would have no real chance of grasping it.

 

Science is complex. Very complex.

 

So what they ahve to so is give it to them in understandable chunks.

 

In high school you are taught Newtonian gravity. But Newtonian gravity is not exact. It works good for anything that a high school student would encounter, but it is not the complete theory.

 

When you get to collage you are taught basic Einstein gravity, but then this is not the complete theory either. When you get to university, you learn Relativity. But then this is not the complete theory either. If you then specialise in Relativity or Cosmology, you are then taught to the knowledge of your lecturers. Then if you go and do your thesis in relativity, you might learn the latest and most complete version of the theory.

 

So if you are going of a high school textbook, then it is that you have been using an incomplete and over simplified version of the theory.

 

This doesn't only apply to relativity, but also mechanics, quantum theory (you don't even start to learn the basics of that until late high school or collage), mathematics, chemistry, English (yes even this), and so forth. It applied to every subject covered by school's curriculum.

 

Most people don't need to know quantum mechanics, language theory, n dimensional topology and so forth. School is designed to equip people to operate in society. If you need a particular field of knowledge (to say get a job in that field), then you learn more about it in the more specialised educational institutions (collage, Uni and such).