Continuous Frictioned Motion Machine

[christopherkirkreves]

Continuous Frictioned Motion Machine Free Energy Device Perpetual Motion Machine Over Utility Device

 

 

This includes:

1. Ferrofluids

2. Capillaries

3. Wedge Magnets

(This is a top down view. No gravity involved.)

 

This idea, I think, is pretty self explanatory from the drawing. But for a longer (thought still simple) theoretical discussion please see www.continuousfrictionedmotionmachine.com

 

Also, on You Tube, I've posted the building and working of this machine under "How to build a perpetual motion machine."

 

The biggest question I think most people will have is "Will the ferrofluid drip?" You can actually see it drip on You Tube if you type in "Perpetual Motion Machine Simple Drip."

 

Thank you.

Edited January 18, 2011 by christopherkirkreves

[swansont]

Do you claim to have built such a device, and that you've demonstrated energy creation?

[John Cuthber]

[A Tripolation]

Imagine if all the creative energy that goes into trying to bend or destroy the laws of thermodynamics went into discovering new ways to implement renewable energy, or finding new sources of energy? *sigh*

[christopherkirkreves]

That’s one of my favorite Simpsons quotes.

 

To answer the first reply: No, I am not able to measure the incredibly small increase in thermal energy.

 

Rather: I did not build a frictionless machine. Where there is friction, thermal energy increases. So, as the parts of this machine move against one another, and encounter friction, thermal energy is increased.

 

And as to where I should put my creativity … well … I guess we have to disagree.

 

Thank you.

[Mr Skeptic]

There's nothing in your setup that would make your fluid flow in any particular direction.

[John Cuthber]

I guess it's interesting to know that an idea from 1648 has been updated.

 

It didn't work then and it won't work now.

There's a picture of it here.

http://www.chem.unsw.edu.au/staff/hibbert/perpetual/Freelnch.htm

[A Tripolation]

And as to where I should put my creativity … well … I guess we have to disagree.

 

Energy cannot be created. If the sum of all energies put into a system is n, then the output cannot be n + k. Doesn't work.

[gnarledreaper]

Shouldn't it be energy cannot be created as far as we know, there's a lot of energy and matter around and it was created by something, it can't simply have always existed can it?

 

I doubt we know enough to say energy cannot be created or destroyed, but i also doubt this simple machine has demonstrated it.

[christopherkirkreves]

There's nothing in your setup that would make your fluid flow in any particular direction.

 

 

I'm not sure which part you are suggesting won't move.

 

1. Ferrofluids will move, "flow," into and along the length of a capillary. (This can be seen at the end of my second video on You Tube.)

2. Any magnet, or magnatize_able material, will move to the strongest part of a magnetic field. (Assuming it's round and can roll. Ferrofluids don't "roll," but rather "flow" to the strongest part of a magnetic field.)

 

If I've misunderstood your objection, please let me know.

 

 

I guess it's interesting to know that an idea from 1648 has been updated.

 

It didn't work then and it won't work now.

There's a picture of it here.

http://www.chem.unsw...al/Freelnch.htm

 

 

There are lots of failed attempts. And there are lots of failed attempts that involve magnets (and ferrofluids). The distinction is in the details.

 

In the classic failed design in the link you mentioned, there is an attempt to use a magnet to lift a metal ball up against the force of gravity, and then to use to force of gravity to pull the metal ball back down from, and away from, the magnet. It doesn't work. You can lift the ball up the ramp, and you can get the ball to fall back down through the hole in the ramp. But, the ball won't roll away from the magnet back to the base of the ramp. There is not enough motion (kinetic energy) from the fall to overcome the pull from the magnetic.

 

What makes the design here different (besides the use of a capillary) is that the fluid goes from one magnet to another.

 

 

Energy cannot be created. If the sum of all energies put into a system is n, then the output cannot be n + k. Doesn't work.

 

 

Yes. If you start out with a theoretical structure as a given, any theoretical structure, then by definition anything that acts differently than what that theoretical structure allows for is false.

 

Yep. If the First Law of Thermodynamics is beyond question, then anything that acts differently than what this theory allows for is necessarily false. Yep.

 

And that's one way to proceed in science. And that's fine.

 

A different way ... a way a prefer ... is to question our basic assumptions.

 

 

Shouldn't it be energy cannot be created as far as we know, there's a lot of energy and matter around and it was created by something, it can't simply have always existed can it?

 

I doubt we know enough to say energy cannot be created or destroyed, but i also doubt this simple machine has demonstrated it.

 

 

In the esoteric world of the philosophy of science you can never actually prove a theory true. You can only show that it's more and more likely to be true. (You can, however, show a theory to be false.) There are lots and lots of examples where we can show that energy is conserved. So, we have seen enough to say with great confidence that the First Law of Thermodynamics is true.

 

But now I'm proposing this.

 

Thank you all for reading and responding.

Edited January 19, 2011 by christopherkirkreves

[John Cuthber]

"There are lots of failed attempts. And there are lots of failed attempts that involve magnets (and ferrofluids). The distinction is in the details."

For example, your failed example is newer and less excusable than the one I cited.

 

"In the esoteric world of the philosophy of science you can never actually prove a theory true. You can only show that it's more and more likely to be true. (You can, however, show a theory to be false."

Feel free to come back and show us when you have proved thermodynamics to be false.

 

Since you don't seem to wish to accept reality I guess I should point out one reason why your system (or the 17th C Bishop's) won't work.

If the magnet at the top left is strong enough to pull the moving thing ( ferrofluid or steel shot) across from the top righ of the diagram to the top left or up the slope, then it will be too strong to let that moving thing go somewhere else- like the bottom of the diagram, or down through the hole in the slope.

 

It's different in detail; but the reason it won't work is exactly the same and, if you had thought about the Bishop's "mechanism" and why it fails you would have realised why you system would also fail.

[christopherkirkreves]

Thank you for your reasoned response.

 

“If the magnet at the top left is strong enough to pull the moving thing ( ferrofluid … ) across from the top right of the diagram to the top left …, then it will be too strong to let that moving thing go somewhere else- like the bottom of the diagram, ….”

 

On the left side of the diagram (again, this is a top down view) the magnet is thinner (and weaker) at the top, and thicker (and stronger) at the bottom. After being pulled from the capillary and to the magnet, it will move towards the stronger magnetic field (which means moving to the bottom of the left hand side of the diagram). This can be seen on You Tube if you type in “Perpetual Motion Machine Another Simple Drip.”

 

“Feel free to come back and show us when you have proved thermodynamics to be false.”

 

You are right, any fool can claim to have disproved a fundamental law of physics. And, only a fool would not be skeptical. I was simply hoping to have a discussion about my machine, and its theoretical implications. (Which, I believe, do violate the law of conservation of energy.)

 

“It's different in detail; but the reason it won't work is exactly the same …”

 

Here you and I will have to disagree. The two machines, to my mind, work very differently. And while that one failed, I saw (and filmed) mine not fail.

 

Thank you for your response.

 

 

[md65536]

I'm assuming this isn't a perpetual motion machine, but the question is "why isn't it?"

 

I would guess either it would reach a state of equilibrium, or it would be using some small external energy input to remain perpetual (like evaporation or something).

 

According to your diagram, it appears that everything "flows downhill" thus not requiring violation of the laws of thermodynamics, except for the capillary action part.

 

A simpler "machine" using the same concept might involve a cloth hanging over the edge of a pot filled with water. Water "climbs" up the cloth and can saturate the part of the cloth hanging over the edge, and drip. Most of us have experienced this happening. If the drip is higher than the level of water in the pot, then the dripped water has gained some potential energy which can be extracted as you return the water to the pot.

 

This also won't work as a perpetual motion machine, if for no other reason than that such things are impossible.

 

I don't know much about capillary action but I think it's usually mistaken for "energy flowing uphill" in PMMs. I think in the case of a wet cloth, capillary action soaks up water and it becomes saturated, and it can drip. But then it reaches equilibrium. The water has "extracted energy" in a way, to be able to climb, and that energy is no longer available for more water to be lifted. Either through the changing shape of the cloth fibers as they soak up water (they don't return to their original shape after the drip), or the simple fact that the cloth now has water in it... it will reach a point where it cannot lift any more water. The "room for more water" left by the drip won't be replaced by more water due to capillary action.

 

 

I think your machine suffers from the same problem, and will in fact reach equilibrium and stop dripping.

[Sisyphus]

In order for the ferrofluid to be accelerated against friction, it has to be moving from a position of higher potential energy to lower potential energy, "downhill." At some point in that loop, necessarily, is the point of lowest potential energy. It is there that it will come to rest.

[Mr Skeptic]

I'm not sure which part you are suggesting won't move.

 

1. Ferrofluids will move, "flow," into and along the length of a capillary. (This can be seen at the end of my second video on You Tube.)

2. Any magnet, or magnatize_able material, will move to the strongest part of a magnetic field. (Assuming it's round and can roll. Ferrofluids don't "roll," but rather "flow" to the strongest part of a magnetic field.)

 

If I've misunderstood your objection, please let me know.

 

Sure, it will move to where the field is strongest. And then stop. And the direction it moves depends on where you placed the moving part.

 

To get continuous motion you need to continuously change where the field is strongest, like in an electric motor.

 

Are you suggesting that in your device, the ferrofluid will move to where the field is strongest, and then away from it, and all of this in a specific direction?

[christopherkirkreves]

md65536

 

Yes, this is a perpetual motion machine. And, yes, I'm proposing the impossible.

 

If " … The "room for more water" left by the drip won't be replaced by more water due to capillary action ..." is true, then you may have found actual reason why my machine won't work. But is it? When the sun heats up the water in the leaves of trees, and that water evaporates, doesn't the water in the capillaries of the trees move upward due to capillary action, and thus leaving more room for water at the roots, which is then filled in with more water from the surrounding soil due to capillary action in the roots? Or have you found my idea's fatal flaw?

 

I have never seen a cloth (or any kind of a capillary) (presumably in an upside down u shape with one leg longer than the other, and the longer leg touching the water while the shorter one not) pull up a fluid into it, become saturated, and then drip back down above the water level. I believe you would need some other force than gravity to get the water back out of the capillary. In this situation, capillary action is stronger than gravity and pulls the water up against the force of gravity. It would then be impossible for gravity to be stronger than capillary action and pull the fluid back out. But I'd be happy to be corrected.

 

Thank you for analyzing my machine.

 

Sisyphus

 

"In order for the ferrofluid to be accelerated against friction, it has to be moving from a position of higher potential energy to lower potential energy, "downhill." At some point in that loop, necessarily, is the point of lowest potential energy. It is there that it will come to rest."

 

 

That is the point of the design. When the ferrofluid is at the base of the capillary there is the potential to be pulled to the top of the capillary (due to capillary action). When the ferrofluid is at the end of the capillary there is the potential to be pulled out (spike) from the end and break off (due to the lines of magnetic flux and the ferrofluids tendency to spike out along these lines). And when the ferrofluid is at the weakest (thinnest) part of the magnet there is the potential to move to the strongest (thickest) part of the magnet. And, once at the thickest part of the magnet, it is back at the base of the capillary, and there is the potential to be pulled into and to the end of the capillary, again, due to capillary action.

 

Thank you also for analyzing my machine.

 

Mr Skeptic

 

"Are you suggesting that in your device, the ferrofluid will move to where the field is strongest, and then away from it, and all of this in a specific direction?"

 

 

Yes. I am suggesting that the ferrofluid, when first place in the system along the length of the wedge magnets, will move from the weaker part of the magnets to the stronger. Then, with the base of the capillaries placed and touching the magnets at their strongest part (or rather touching the plastic covering the magnets), I am suggesting that the ferrofluid will move away from the strongest part of the magnet and into and along the length of the capillaries. Then, when the fluid reaches the end of each capillary, I am suggesting that the fluid will spike out from the ends of the capillaries and (if the gap is the right size) break off and drip onto the weakest part of the other magnet. And from there move from the weakest part of the magnet to the strongest.

 

Yes. I am suggesting it will all move in a specific direction. (In the diagram that means everything moves counter clockwise.)

 

Again, thank you all for taking the time to analyze my machine.

 

I could have done a better job distinguishing this machine from the 17th century one.

 

The 17th century machine (cited above) is analogous to a pendulum. If it were possible to build a frictionless pendulum, then it would run forever. However, if there is the slightest bit of friction (anything greater than zero) then on each iteration the pendulum will reach a lower and lower lever and eventually stop.

 

Same thing with the 17th century machine. It uses a magnetic to pull a metal ball up against the force of gravity. Once up the ramp, it then tries to use the force of gravity to pull the metal ball back down and away from the magnet. If there was no friction, then this would work. However, if there is the slightest amount of friction (anything greater than zero), then the ball will never reach its original starting point, and the motion will not continue.

 

The design here is different. It works in the presence of friction.

 

1. The ferrofluid is drawn into and along the length of the capillary in the presence of friction.

 

2. The ferrofluid drips across the gap, through the air, in the presence of friction.

 

3. The ferrofluid moves along the length of the magnet in the presence of friction.

 

This design does not need to frictionless in order to work, while the 17th century one does.

 

Thanks.

Edited January 20, 2011 by christopherkirkreves

[Mr Skeptic]

Ah, capillary action. It still won't work. You just add that force to the magnetic force when considering the potential energy of your fluid. Your fluid will move to the point of least potential and then stay there.

 

Yes, capillary action is a force like any other and yes, gravity can overcome it just fine. Otherwise, a capillary tube would fill up completely, yet all the capillary tubes I've observed only fill up partially. They can be filled up more than normal by immersing them deep in the liquid, and kept there against gravity by putting a finger over the top (so that air pressure helps hold it up against gravity), but then if released will drip down until it is at the same level it would be if it had just been stuck barely touching the liquid.

[Sisyphus]

 

 

That is the point of the design. When the ferrofluid is at the base of the capillary there is the potential to be pulled to the top of the capillary (due to capillary action). When the ferrofluid is at the end of the capillary there is the potential to be pulled out (spike) from the end and break off (due to the lines of magnetic flux and the ferrofluids tendency to spike out along these lines). And when the ferrofluid is at the weakest (thinnest) part of the magnet there is the potential to move to the strongest (thickest) part of the magnet. And, once at the thickest part of the magnet, it is back at the base of the capillary, and there is the potential to be pulled into and to the end of the capillary, again, due to capillary action.

 

Thank you also for analyzing my machine.

 

You misunderstand. Each step has to be moving to a lower potential energy. You can't go downhill in a circle and end up back where you started, because the universe doesn't look like this:

 

 

If A>B and B>C, then C>A can't be true.

 

Either it will come to rest, or there is some outside energy input pushing it "uphill" at some point in the cycle.

[swansont]

Yes. If you start out with a theoretical structure as a given, any theoretical structure, then by definition anything that acts differently than what that theoretical structure allows for is false.

 

Yep. If the First Law of Thermodynamics is beyond question, then anything that acts differently than what this theory allows for is necessarily false. Yep.

 

And that's one way to proceed in science. And that's fine.

 

A different way ... a way a prefer ... is to question our basic assumptions.

 

It's more than that, really. Any continuous symmetry corresponds to a conservation law (Noether's theorem). Conservation of energy is due to time symmetry — the laws of physics are not changing in time. The two statements are linked, so if one is true the other is as well. If you have created (or lost) energy, you must have changed a law of physics. You can't make this disappear with a wave of your hands and a "think outside the box" cliché.

[John Cuthber]

Thank you for your reasoned response.

 

“If the magnet at the top left is strong enough to pull the moving thing ( ferrofluid … ) across from the top right of the diagram to the top left …, then it will be too strong to let that moving thing go somewhere else- like the bottom of the diagram, ….”

 

On the left side of the diagram (again, this is a top down view) the magnet is thinner (and weaker) at the top, and thicker (and stronger) at the bottom. After being pulled from the capillary and to the magnet, it will move towards the stronger magnetic field (which means moving to the bottom of the left hand side of the diagram). This can be seen on You Tube if you type in “Perpetual Motion Machine Another Simple Drip.”

 

“Feel free to come back and show us when you have proved thermodynamics to be false.”

 

You are right, any fool can claim to have disproved a fundamental law of physics. And, only a fool would not be skeptical. I was simply hoping to have a discussion about my machine, and its theoretical implications. (Which, I believe, do violate the law of conservation of energy.)

 

“It's different in detail; but the reason it won't work is exactly the same …”

 

Here you and I will have to disagree. The two machines, to my mind, work very differently. And while that one failed, I saw (and filmed) mine not fail.

 

Thank you for your response.

 

 

How long was the film? The US patent office requires it to run for a year before they even look at it. I think they are being absurdly generous.

[md65536]

If " … The "room for more water" left by the drip won't be replaced by more water due to capillary action ..." is true, then you may have found actual reason why my machine won't work. But is it? When the sun heats up the water in the leaves of trees, and that water evaporates, doesn't the water in the capillaries of the trees move upward due to capillary action, and thus leaving more room for water at the roots, which is then filled in with more water from the surrounding soil due to capillary action in the roots? Or have you found my idea's fatal flaw?

I would put it this way (though I may be wrong):

 

An empty capillary has a certain potential (energy) for lifting a liquid. A saturated capillary has no additional potential.

That potential might be for example "enough liquid to saturate the capillary, plus 20 drops". So 20 drops might drip from the capillary in what appears to be free energy, but it has used the potential energy of the empty capillary. I don't know exactly why a capillary can become over-saturated and allow drips in the first place. When it drips, you have gravity (or magnets) overcoming the force of the capillary action. That's fine... there's no law of physics broken. There may even be an "oscillation" in the system so that it overshoots equilibrium... but without energy input, it will certainly tend towards equilibrium. In other words, even after the drip, the capillary is still saturated and can't pull up more liquid.

 

Another way to think about this is that if potential energy is used to get the liquid into the capillary, then it will take at least that much energy to get the liquid out. Falling (due to gravity or magnets) involves using potential energy. In the case of trees, energy (input) from the sun can be used to pull water out, allowing more water to be drawn up.

 

In summary I'd say that the potential energy of the empty capillaries powers your device through for however long it drips, but that potential energy gets used up and the device stops.

 

 

I think that if you want to build a true PMM (by the way, don't, cause it's a waste of time) then you'd be better off first proving that the laws of thermodynamics are wrong and then exploiting that, rather than trying to piece together things that are known to obey the laws of thermodynamics and somehow end up with an end result that doesn't. I think the siren lure of attempting PMMs is that the Rube Goldberg-style complexity of the combination of the machines' parts makes the simple reasoning behind their flaws harder to see.

 

Edit: It's a pretty cool device, and an interesting puzzle, but the reasoning behind why all PMMs are impossible is really solid.

Edited January 21, 2011 by md65536

[christopherkirkreves]

(Thank you for continuing to analyze my machine. I'm sure your patience will run out soon and you guys will go silent. But, before that happens, I'm hoping to learn as much as I can.)

 

I understand that given established principles of physics (e.g. the first law of thermodynamics and others) that this device won't work. I could not have built what I say built.

 

But what I was hoping for in posting the idea here was to either establish that I did build it, or, two, find out the mechanical reason why my analysis is wrong (e.g. the ferrofluid won't drip, or when you remove fluid from a capillary it cannot be filled with fluid again).

 

When I first came up with this idea, I was hopeful that it would work, but also suspected ( … reasonably so … ) that it would not. Before building it, I figured it would probably not work for one of three reasons:

 

1. The ferrofluid would act differently than other fluids and not be drawn to the end of the capillary due to capillary action. (However, it was drawn to the end of the capillary.)

 

2. (If it reached the end of the capillary, then) it would not spike out beyond the end of the capillary. (However, it did spike.)

 

3. (If it reached the end of the capillary and spiked, then) it would not break off and drip. (However, it did drip.)

 

(It was obvious that if it did drip, then it would be drawn to the greatest part of the other magnet's field and to the base of the other capillary.)

 

I have built 12 of these machines; one of which was submerged in water. They all dripped, and they all came to a stop. Of the 11 not submerged in water, the longest dripped for 6 days. I believe evaporation was the problem. Over time the ferrofluids became more like a collection of solids than a liquid. The one submerged in water (ferrofluids don't mix with ordinary water) dripped for 10 days and then stopped. Obviously, the problem here was not evaporation. I'm guessing that the capillary became corrupted somehow. Perhaps the water entered it. (Part of my motivation of posting here was to perhaps get ideas on how to keep them moving longer.) But, I don't know the mechanical reason why the submerged one stopped. (Of course, one could always say: given the first law of thermodynamics, a perpetual motion machine will not work, and that's why it stopped.)

 

However, these machines did not come to a stop:

 

1. due to friction

 

Or

 

2. due to the exhaustion of potential energy

 

They came to a stop because the parts wore out. The "quest for a perpetual motion machine," in my opinion, is not a quest for a "perpetual machine" but a quest for "perpetual motion." The parts of the machine may wear out, but the motion does not wear down. And in these machines, the motion did not wear down.

 

Even though these machines came to a stop, in my analysis, after the first drip from each capillary, these machines were beyond conservation of energy. After the first drip form each capillary, when the fluid was returned to its original starting points (or, rather, to a position equivalent to its original starting points), the amount of potential energy was the same as at the start, but given that the fluid had moved and encountered friction, thermal energy was increased without a decrease in another form of energy (e.g. kinetic, potential) to offset it. And, with each iteration, over the several days, thermal energy continued to increase and increase, while the potential energy remained constant (when the fluid returned to the smallest (weakest) part of the wedge magnet again and again).

 

And that's the idea. That's it.

 

 

Mr. Skeptic

 

"Ah, capillary action. It still won't work. You just add that force to the magnetic force when considering the potential energy of your fluid. Your fluid will move to the point of least potential and then stay there."

 

The fluid did move:

 

1. From the weakest part of the magnet to the strongest

 

2. From the base of the capillary to the end of the capillary

 

3. From the end of the capillary to the weakest part of the magnet

 

 

Sisyphus

 

"… because the universe doesn't look like this … If A>B and B>C, then C>A can't be true."

 

I'm claiming that if you look at the details of the machine, and if my analysis is right, that in these machines the universe does look like this.

 

 

Swansnot

 

"It's more than that, really. Any continuous symmetry corresponds to a conservation law (Noether's theorem). Conservation of energy is due to time symmetry the laws of physics are not changing in time. The two statements are linked, so if one is true the other is as well. If you have created (or lost) energy, you must have changed a law of physics. You can't make this disappear with a wave of your hands and a "think outside the box" cliché."

 

 

 

I understand that given the established laws of physics, either I did not build what I say I built, or my analysis of its implications for the law of conservation of energy is wrong. And I hope I've presented my ideas clearly and it doesn't look like I'm just full of smoke and mirrors.

 

 

John Cuthber

 

"How long was the film? The US patent office requires it to run for a year before they even look at it. I think they are being absurdly generous."

 

 

I think a reasonable person first looking at my machine would think that all I've done is built a machine that starts out with a certain amount of potential energy, and that I've simply managed to string out turning this potential energy into kinetic energy over a period of days. And that these machines all came to a stop after that potential energy was used up.

 

But, after a detailed inspection of my design, I can't see how that's what I'm doing here. After the first drips from each capillary I think there is a conservation of energy problem. It appears to me that these machines all came to a stop when the parts wore out, and that the motion never wore down.

 

 

Md65536

 

“In the case of trees, energy (input) from the sun can be used to pull water out, allowing more water to be drawn up.”

 

The only way, so far, I can see from a mechanical point of view (and that is also consistent with what I observed) where this machine could fail is this: I fill the capillaries up with ferrofluids, and then I pull the ferrofluids out, but more ferrofluids do not come in.

 

But I don’t think that’s what’s going on. I suspect (just as with a tree) when the fluid drips out of the capillary at the end, and thus opens up more room in the capillary, that more fluid is drawn into the capillary at the base.

 

But I’ll keep thinking about this.

 

 

 

Again, thank you all for reading this and responding.

Edited January 21, 2011 by christopherkirkreves

[Mr Skeptic]

I have built 12 of these machines; one of which was submerged in water. They all dripped, and they all came to a stop. Of the 11 not submerged in water, the longest dripped for 6 days. I believe evaporation was the problem. Over time the ferrofluids became more like a collection of solids than a liquid. The one submerged in water (ferrofluids don't mix with ordinary water) dripped for 10 days and then stopped. Obviously, the problem here was not evaporation. I'm guessing that the capillary became corrupted somehow. Perhaps the water entered it. (Part of my motivation of posting here was to perhaps get ideas on how to keep them moving longer.) But, I don't know the mechanical reason why the submerged one stopped. (Of course, one could always say: given the first law of thermodynamics, a perpetual motion machine will not work, and that's why it stopped.)

 

That's rather impressive, if you mean it going in a circle rather than dripping from some reservoir. Dripping is not very good for conserving energy/low friction.

 

The fluid did move:

 

1. From the weakest part of the magnet to the strongest

 

2. From the base of the capillary to the end of the capillary

 

3. From the end of the capillary to the weakest part of the magnet

 

Well that's missing the part where it drips back to the first magnet.

[christopherkirkreves]

Mr Skeptic

 

"Well that's missing the part where it drips back to the first magnet."

 

I'm sorry I should have finished out the logic.

 

The fluid did move:

 

1. From the weakest part of the first magnet to the strongest part of the first magnet

 

2. From the base of the first capillary to the end of the first capillary

 

3. From the end of the first capillary to the weakest part of the second magnet

 

4. From the weakest part of the second magnet to the strongest part of the second magnet

 

5. From the base of the second capillary to the end of the second capillary

 

6. From the end of the second capillary to the weakest part of the first magnet

 

 

Thank you.

 

 

 

I guess I should have posted something like this earlier. Hopefully it explains my hopes in posting my idea here.

 

 

 

There is a classic perpetual motion design where a wheel is half submerged in water.

 

 

If you were to ask me why this is a failed attempt at perpetual motion, I can give you two answers.

 

Answer One: It fails because if it worked it would violate the accepted laws of physics.

 

Or

 

Answer Two: There is an overall upward pressure from the water on one half of the wheel, but not on the other. So, intuitively, it seems like the wheel should turn counter clockwise. However, the pressure from a fluid on a submerged solid has an overall direction, and that direction is perpendicular to the surface of the solid. So, in the case of a round wheel, all the pressure is directed at the central axis. There is no torque. The wheel will not turn. (Even if the system was frictionless.)

 

 

Now, if I ask the question: why does my design fail? There are two answers.

 

Answer One: It fails because if it worked it would violate the accepted laws of physics.

 

Or

 

Answer Two: Well … that's why I posted my idea here. I'm looking for an equivalent of Answer Two above for my design. (I'm open to any suggestions.)

 

 

---------------

 

A note on "forever."

 

There is no torque on the wheel from the water pressure in the design above. But, for a moment, let's assume that there was.

 

In that hypothetical case, the wheel would turn if the amount of torque was greater than all the friction (the friction between the wheel and water, the friction between the axel and the axel holder, the friction between the wheel and the seal, and the friction between the wheel and the air).

 

And as it turned, and encountered friction, thermal energy would increase and increase, without an offsetting decrease in another form of energy (e.g. potential, kinetic).

 

If the seal was anything less than perfect (which is would be) then some of the water would adhere to the wheel as it moved from being submerged to not, and some of this water would come off (e.g. drip, evaporate) of the wheel before returning to the submerged side. Over time, the fluid would be drained and the wheel would come to a stop. It would come to a stop because the parts wore out. It would not come to a stop because kinetic energy decreased to offset the increase in the thermal energy. And, energy would not be conserved.

 

And, if we assume a perfect seal, then the machine would still come to an eventual stop. The movement between the axel and the axel holder would produce wear, and over time the axel would wear out. Again, it would come to a stop because the parts wore out, not because of a decrease in kinetic energy to offset the increase in thermal. Again, energy would not be conserved.

 

(The moment is over, there is no torque in the half submerged wheel. It will not turn.)

 

Thank you.

Edited January 22, 2011 by christopherkirkreves

[michel123456]

This is out of my knowledge but maybe your ferrofluid becomes magnetically saturated.

Or it is not a ferrofluid but a magnetorheological fluid.