Mr Skeptic Posted January 22, 2011 Posted January 22, 2011 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 Well if that is so then that would be a violation of the laws of physics. Now, if I ask the question: why does my design fail? There are two answers. Well, both answers are that it violates the laws of physics. But generally I go with the explanation that doesn't involve the first/second law of thermodynamics, I consider those redundant. Yours would violate the first law. The first law is essentially the same as saying that all fundamental forces are conservative forces, so that if you move an object in a loop there is no gain nor loss in energy. Magnetism and capillary action are both conservative forces, so your machine can't work. Friction is not a conservative force (an object loses energy when moved in a loop), but the lost energy goes to heat and no energy is lost, since friction is built from conservative forces. I will suggest an improvement to your machine. Instead of capillary action and dripping, you should make a closed tube, with magnets on either end and filled with your ferrofluid. This eliminates the energy loss from dripping and the associated turbulence, so that instead you'd have low friction laminar flow, and also increases the throughput of fluid to be moved. This also as a bonus eliminates the problem of your not being able to understand how capillary action works. Can you tell why my improvement to your machine won't work? It's the same part that won't work with your machine: you don't move from the strongest part of one magnet to the weakest part of the other, not for both magnets.
christopherkirkreves Posted January 23, 2011 Author Posted January 23, 2011 michel123456 The ferrofluids used here came from: http://www.teachersource.com/ElectricityAndMagnetism/Ferrofluid/BulkFerrofluid.aspx I don't know anything about "magnetic saturation," but I'll look into it. Mr Skeptic "Well, both answers are that it violates the laws of physics." I was trying to suggest that in addition to saying it won't work due to the laws of physics, that if my machine does not work, then there must be a simple mechanical explanation (akin to the simple mechanical explanation I gave for why the half submerged wheel won't work). "Magnetism and capillary action are both conservative forces, so your machine can't work." And I would agree with you if this was just a design and I had not yet built it. But I did build it, and I saw it work. I saw the drip. (And I filmed it.) "This eliminates the energy loss from dripping …" Thank you for suggesting a way to improve my machine, but I think the drip is an essential part. From experimentation, I know that if a column of ferrofluid makes the connection between two magnets along their lines of flux, it stops. This is also true with a column of ferrofluid spiking out from the end of a capillary. (The size of the gap in my design has to be just right. If the gap is too small, the ferrofluid will spike across the gap, touch the other magnet, and stop. If the gap is too big, the ferrofluid with either not spike at all, or spike out but not break off and drip.) After it drips (again, I know this from experimentation) the drop of fluid moves to the strongest part of the magnetic field (and with a simple bar magnet this will be the edges). "This also as a bonus eliminates the problem of your not being able to understand how capillary action works." If in my previous discussions of how capillary action might work, or not work, I gave the impression that I do not understand how capillary action is working in this design, I apologize. I believe I do, but I'm willing to speculate about any possible ways that I might be wrong. As fluid is being pulled out from the end of the capillary, there is then more room within the capillary. And, at the same time, there is fluid in contact with the capillary but outside the capillary, at the base (pulled there because the way this is set up that is the strongest part of the magnetic field). And, just like a tree, as the fluid is pulled out, more fluid will move in. A capillary is not a one use deal. (But I was willing to speculate that it might be.) As the fluid is pulled out of the end of these capillaries more fluid will move into the capillaries due to capillary action. And it's also more than just capillary action pulling the fluid into the empty spaces of the capillaries. There are invisible lines of flux running through the capillaries. And the same tendency for ferrofluids to spike out into the air along these lines of flux, will also give them a tendency to fill the empty spaces within the capillaries. "… you don't move from the strongest part of one magnet to the weakest part of the other, not for both magnets." The capillaries do pull the fluid away from the strongest part of each magnet. And, when at the end of each capillary, the ferrofluids do spike out from the end of each capillary. And if the gap is the right size, the spikes break off, and the fluid drips. I've seen it, and I've filmed it. (If you're interested, you can see this happen at the end of the second video I put on You Tube under the title "How to build a perpetual motion machine.) I think what happens is that when the fluid reaches the end of the capillaries, the weaker part of second magnet has a stronger pull on the fluid than the strongest part of the first magnet, given that it's now so much closer to the second magnet. And that's why it drips away from the strongest part of the first magnet to the weakest part of the second magnet. Thank you for continuing to make suggestions, and to point out potential problems with my design.
John Cuthber Posted January 23, 2011 Posted January 23, 2011 "Thank you for continuing to make suggestions, and to point out potential problems with my design. " There's just one potential problem with your design. It won't work. You don't seem to understand that.
Mr Skeptic Posted January 23, 2011 Posted January 23, 2011 "Well, both answers are that it violates the laws of physics." I was trying to suggest that in addition to saying it won't work due to the laws of physics, that if my machine does not work, then there must be a simple mechanical explanation (akin to the simple mechanical explanation I gave for why the half submerged wheel won't work). I gave you another explanation as well. Feel free to read it before dismissing it. It cannot be but that the explanation of why it won't work is because it violates the laws of physics, in your case both the laws of thermodynamics and electromagnetism. As the fluid is pulled out of the end of these capillaries more fluid will move into the capillaries due to capillary action.... The capillaries do pull the fluid away from the strongest part of each magnet. See, this is what I mean about you not understanding how capillaries work. Capillaries can only pull when empty. Anything pulling the fluid out of and more into the capillaries is the same thing, the functioning is the same as with a tube -- suction is stronger than capillary action. It can only be the magnet pulling the fluid into the capillary (indirectly via suction from pulling some fluid out), and the capillary cannot contribute to this since it is already full. Anyhow, you can't go back to the original state while extracting energy. If it is not some reservoir draining, something might be happening to your fluid. Incidentally, how many drips per minute is your device?
christopherkirkreves Posted January 24, 2011 Author Posted January 24, 2011 Mr Skeptic "Incidentally, how many drips per minute is your device?" Once a spike starts to form, it takes about three or four minutes for it to grow big enough to drip. And it's about a half an hour between each drip. Not much motion. "See, this is what I mean about you not understanding how capillaries work." You are right. I have been wrong in analyzing capillaries. Once the capillary is filled, there never is any kind of empty space again to fill. When the fluid is pulled out at the end, I suspect what's happening is that all the fluid is drawn a little bit more towards the end of the capillary, along with more coming in at the base, due to cohesion. However, I still think that the fluid must move in and out of the capillaries in this system in a manner analogous to the movement of water into and out of trees (even though I was wrong about thinking in terms of "empty space"). And I'm going to go and learn more about trees. One of my main goals here was to see is you guys would vet my design at bit. And you have. I know you might think that I'm ignoring you, but I'm not. I've learned from your comments. John Cuthber "There's just one potential problem with your design. It won't work. You don't seem to understand that." Well, I don't. I built it and a saw it drip. Thank you.
Mr Skeptic Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Mr Skeptic "Incidentally, how many drips per minute is your device?" Once a spike starts to form, it takes about three or four minutes for it to grow big enough to drip. And it's about a half an hour between each drip. Not much motion. And this, I think, is what explains why your machine will not work if the fluid is directly touching, since then the flow would be several drips per second, it could run a whole day's worth of dripping in about a minute.
christopherkirkreves Posted January 26, 2011 Author Posted January 26, 2011 Mr. Skeptic "And this, I think, is what explains why your machine will not work if the fluid is directly touching, since then the flow would be several drips per second, it could run a whole day's worth of dripping in about a minute. " So, I put fluid on both magnets. The fluid is drawn to the base of both capillaries. The fluid is then drawn into both capillaries. The capillaries become saturated. Then the fluid drips out from each capillary and onto the other magnet. And this happens slowly over several days. And that's it. That's why it doesn't work. It's simply dripping slowly from one magnet to the other (via the capillary) over several days. Do I understand you objection correctly? However, if that's the case: what happens to the fluid after it drips onto the second magnet? What happens is that it is pulled to the greatest part of the second magnet's field, and thus to the base of the second capillary. And, once there, it joins with the rest of the fluid, and eventually is pulled into the second capillary, and is then pulled to the end of the second capillary, and then drips back to the first magnet and its starting point. Let me be clear. Given the slow amount of dripping (before the fluid became corrupted due to evaporation, or the capillaries became corrupted with water entering them, if those were in fact the causes, as I suspect they were, of mechanical breakdown): 1. I do not know that any fluid actually made it back to its original starting point. And 2. I do not know that any fluid did not make it back to its original starting point. And while I didn't see this expressly stated in your objection, I believe you might have been getting at this (?). And, if so, above is the answer. The fluid could have, might have, probably did, make it back to the starting point before mechanical breakdown. (It's impossible to keep track of a single drop of fluid integrated with and then separated from pools of fluid.) Thank you.
Mr Skeptic Posted January 26, 2011 Posted January 26, 2011 Or the fluid could have made it back to the starting point but was somehow different than before.
christopherkirkreves Posted January 26, 2011 Author Posted January 26, 2011 Mr Skeptic "Or the fluid could have made it back to the starting point but was somehow different than before." I thought about this. If the fluid necessarily changed while moving through the first capillary in a way that made it impossible to move again through the second capillary, then, yes, this would be a failed design. Ferrofluids, in my understanding, are actually little solids suspended in an actual fluid. So, if somehow when going through the first capillary, part of the overall ferrofluid was stripped from the other part, then there might be a problem here for my design. But I don't think this is happening. I don't think, one, the solid magnetize_able parts get stuck in the capillary, because what makes it drip at the end of the capillaries is the magnetic attraction. And, two, if the fluid part of the ferrofluid filled spaces in the capillaries that the solid parts of the ferrofluids are too big to enter, then I think this would be a onetime occurrence (when the capillaries first become saturated), and the (… if this is happening …) chunkier ferrofluid that drips, when it reaches the small pool of ferrofluid at the base of the other capillary, will disperse this little bit of extra chunkiness amongst the other fluid there. So, yes, it could be slightly more dense with the solid particles on the second iteration. But, I would guess, either this is not much of a problem, or, if it is a problem, then it could be solved by starting out with a ferrofluid that has a little bit more fluid than solid in it. While I doubt this is a problem, I cannot prove that this is not a problem. This, yes, is a potential problem. Thank you. ---- I realized after my last post (… after the discussion of what I do not know …), that what I should do is build one of these and start out with ferrofluids on just one side. While I think there is a conservation of energy problem after both capillaries drip once and the fluid is then a position equivalent to their starting points, I realize that it would be move persuasive if I could show the fluid returning to its actual starting point. And, I can do this by putting the ferrofluid initially only on one side. Then, if the fluid makes its way to the strongest part of the first wedge, then though the first capillary, then drip to the second magnet, then to the strongest part of the second magnet, then through the second capillary, and then drip … we can know with certainty that this fluid has returned to its actual starting point. Again, I think this is beyond what needs to be shown. I think that once the fluid drips to an equivalent starting point, the conservation of energy issue presents itself. (Analogous to if a pendulum could swing, and encounter friction, and still reach the equivalent height on the other side. In this hypothetical pendulum, we would not need to see it return to its original position to know that there was a conservation of energy problem. We would know there was a problem when it reached the same height on the other side.) But I will try. This will be a much better demonstration. I have my doubts if it will work, however. From my experiments with these machines and ferrofluids, I've found evaporation to be a real problem. After a couple of days, the fluid starts to get chunky, and eventually brittle. It can take, sometimes, 24 hours for a capillary to become saturated and then drip. And in this next test I'm going to do, I'm filling one capillary and then the next. And it can take, sometimes, 24 hours for the capillary to become saturated and drip with a small pool of ferrofluid surrounding the base. Here, I will attempting to fill and saturate the second capillary with a tear drop sized drip once every half an hour. I'm afraid that evaporation will outpace the filling of the second capillary. (And I can't submerge this machine in water until the second capillary has saturated and drip, otherwise the water will fill the capillary first (and I know this from experimentation) and the ferrofluids can't get in.) But, I'll give it a try. And I'll post the results here. Which I assume will be, sadly, negative … at least on the first try. (This may take a couple of weeks.) Thank you.
christopherkirkreves Posted January 27, 2011 Author Posted January 27, 2011 ------- [A second post] I'm working on the next experiment. However, I was hoping that some of you guys still have enough interest to help me vet another conservation of energy question: The assembling and disassembling of a capillary, and the assembling and disassembling of potential capillary action energy. 1. If potential capillary action energy is a positive quantity, then: Time One. Two glass plates sit some distance apart. Time Two. I push them together. I use my body's energy (so a decrease in physiological energy) while creating a capillary (an increase in potential energy). Time Three. I then pull them apart. I use my body's energy (so a decrease in physiological energy) while undoing the capillary (a decrease in potential energy). A decrease in one form of energy leads to a decrease in another form of energy. Energy would not be conserved. 2. If potential capillary action energy is a negative quantity, then: Time One. Two glass plates sit together. There is a negative amount of potential capillary action energy. Time Two. I then pull the two glass plates apart. I use my body's energy (so a decrease in physiological energy) while undoing the capillary (an increase in potential energy (negative potential energy becomes less negative) ). Time Three. I then push them together. I use my body's energy (so a decrease in physiological energy) while creating a capillary (a decrease in potential energy (negative potential energy becomes more negative) ). A decrease in one form of energy leads to a decrease in another form of energy. Energy would not be conserved. 3. If potential capillary action energy is not really a form of energy, then: When a fluid rises into a capillary (an increase in kinetic energy) where is offsetting decrease in another form of energy if not from potential capillary action energy? Energy would not be conserved. 4.1. If potential capillary action energy is only a form of energy when in the proximity of a fluid, and if potential capillary action energy is a positive quantity, then: Time One: A capillary sits some distance from a container of fluid. Time Two. I move the capillary to the container of fluid. I use my body's energy (so a decrease in physiological energy) while increasing potential capillary action energy (an increase in potential energy). Time Three. I then move the capillary away from the container of fluid before it fills up with fluid. I use my body's energy (so a decrease in physiological energy) while decreasing potential capillary action energy (a decrease in potential energy). A decrease in one form of energy leads to a decrease in another form of energy. Energy would not be conserved. 4.2. If potential capillary action energy is only a form of energy when in the proximity of a fluid, and if potential capillary action energy is a negative quantity, then: Time One. The capillary is in the proximity of the fluid. There is a negative amount of potential capillary action energy. http://www.continuousfrictionedmotionmachine.com/images/299_more15.gif (Sorry, but I've reach the limit on how many images can be posted. I'm sure my drawings seem excessive, but I think they make the ideas much easier to understand.) Time Two. I move the capillary away from the container of fluid before it fills up with fluid. I use my body's energy (so a decrease in physiological energy) while increasing potential capillary action energy (an increase in potential energy (negative potential energy becomes less negative) ). http://www.continuousfrictionedmotionmachine.com/images/299_more14.gif Time Three. I then move the capillary to the container of fluid. I use my body's energy (so a decrease in physiological energy) while decreasing potential capillary action energy (a decrease in potential energy (negative potential energy becomes more negative) ). A decrease in one form of energy leads to a decrease in another form of energy. Energy would not be conserved. http://www.continuousfrictionedmotionmachine.com/images/299_more13.gif I'm sure there're more rabbit holes of logic to explore. Thank you.
Mr Skeptic Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Capillary action is the same sort of thing as surface tension -- the attraction of the fluid molecules to the capillary walls. Please do read up on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capillary_action
christopherkirkreves Posted January 28, 2011 Author Posted January 28, 2011 Mr Skeptic “Capillary action is the same sort of thing as surface tension -- the attraction of the fluid molecules to the capillary walls. Please do read up on it” I should not have posted that question. It’s distraction and a waste of other people’s time. I read the link you gave me, and while it did not talk about potential energy, I think I’ve figured it out. I think the whole premise of my question was wrong. And I’ll keep looking for more answers, and not waste people’s time with this stuff. What I suspect is that there is no such thing as “potential capillary action energy.” So, there is no point in asking whether or not it’s positive or negative. Rather, I suspect that when a capillary is assembled or disassembled, and dry, the potential energy is zero. Before fluid enters a capillary there is no guarantee that the capillary will remain one. However, once fluid does enter the capillary and rise (and increase in kinetic energy), then perhaps something more like capillary action energy appears, and it’s always a negative quantity. And by increasing in negativity as more fluid enters the capillary, energy is conserved. This makes sense to me. But, again, I never should have posted this question. I need to find answers on my own more and ask less questions. I think I just got carried away with the interactivity of this forum. Thank you. And I apologize.
christopherkirkreves Posted January 30, 2011 Author Posted January 30, 2011 Mr Skeptic "Capillary action is the same sort of thing as surface tension -- the attraction of the fluid molecules to the capillary walls. Please do read up on it" The answer was in the link you sent me (as well as on other pages), but I just had to dig for it to understand it. I was thinking, incorrectly, that a dry capillary had a certain amount of potential energy. But it does not. Rather (I now think I understand) as a fluid enters a capillary, there is a decrease in the surface area of the fluid. And, to quote from the link you sent me: "Since mechanical systems try to find a state of minimum potential energy, a free droplet of liquid naturally assumes a spherical shape, which has the minimum surface area for a given volume." Or, to state it in the terms I was thinking of: as the fluid enters the capillary, there is an increase in kinetic energy, which is corresponded to with a decrease in surface area of the liquid, which is a decrease in potential energy. Did I get it right? The whole premise of my "A Second Post" is wrong. There is not potential energy in the capillary, but rather in the fluid. And, so, there is only a decrease in this potential energy when the fluid actually enters the capillary. Before that, before the fluid enters the capillary, there is no potential energy to create or destroy when assembling or disassembling a capillary. It makes perfect sense, and energy is conserved. And while I've taken a side step in the last couple of posts, my original challenge still stands: If the design presented in my first post here is a failed perpetual motion machine design, then: 1. there must be a simple mechanical explanation as to why it fails akin to the simple mechanical explanation I gave for why the half submerged wheel is a failed perpetual motion machine design, and 2. this includes not just that the ferrofluid might become corrupted when moving through the first capillary in a way so that it cannot move through the second, but, rather, a simple mechanical reason as to why the ferrofluid necessarily becomes corrupted when moving through the first capillary in a way that keeps it from moving through the second. Thank you.
christopherkirkreves Posted February 3, 2011 Author Posted February 3, 2011 The next test started yesterday, February 2nd. (My friend with the movie camera was on a business trip to New Orleans, and took it with him.) I believe this is the 14th of these machines I've built. Unlike in the previous tests, this time I put the ferrofluid only on one side. Yesterday, the ferrofluid was placed on the face of the North magnet. And yesterday, it made it to the end of the North to South capillary, and then dripped onto the face of the South magnet. However, there was not enough buildup of ferrofluids at the strongest part of the second magnet (the South magnet) for the fluid to reach and possibly enter the second capillary. Overnight it continued to drip. This morning, I discovered (and filmed) the ferrofluid entering the second capillary. (It's only about a half a centimeter into it.) This proves that the ferrofluid does go through the first capillary in a way that allows it to enter the second capillary. (The unknowns are becoming less.) However, this still does not prove that the ferrofluid can go through one capillary and drip, and then go through a second capillary and drip. And, sadly, I doubt it going to make it. Evaporation is a real problem for me. But, I am hopeful. And if it does make it to the end of the second capillary and drip, then we will know (with physical certainty) that the fluid made it back to its actual starting point, and not just to an equivalent of its starting point. (Again, I think I'm trying to show more than I have to. I think once the fluid makes it to its equivalent starting point, then there is a conservation of energy issue. And if there's not a conservation of energy issue at this point, then there must be a simple mechanical explanation as to why not.) Thank you.
John Cuthber Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 " (The unknowns are becoming less.)" The only unknown is why do you still believe in this.
christopherkirkreves Posted February 8, 2011 Author Posted February 8, 2011 John Cuthber : " " (The unknowns are becoming less.)" The only unknown is why do you still believe in this. " I appreciate your skepticism … and I appreciate your wit. However, I appreciate even more your analysis of my idea being the same idea as Bishop's, even though I disagree. John Cuthber: " 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. " It is possible to set up Bishop's design ( … I've tried it , and learned from experiment … ) and get the metal ball to roll up and the ramp … and to also get the ball to fall through the hole. By pulling the ball up the ramp, the force on the ball from gravity is much less than the force on the ball from gravity when exposed to the hole and a free fall. You can move the ball towards the magnet and then away from the magnet. However, while you can get the ball to fall, you cannot get the ball all the way back to the base of the ramp. As the ball falls, it falls more slowly than it otherwise would because of the magnet pulling up on it. And after falling, as the ball starts to roll back towards the base of the ramp, it's still in the magnetic field, and so there is a backwards pull on it from the magnet. If you think about it, this idea is simply an attempt to use a magnetic field to overcome a gravitational field, and then an attempt to use that same gravitational field to overcome the same magnetic field. It would work … if there was no friction ( … like a hypothetical frictionless pendulum swinging back and forth forever). The idea I have proposed here, to my mind, is something quite different. "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." After the ferrofluid drips across the gap, it is on the face of the second magnet, and at the weakest (thinnest) part of the second magnet. It makes logical sense that the ferrofluid will then move to the greatest (thickest) part of the second magnet, and I have demonstrated that this does actually happen. I think the difference between this idea and Bishop's idea in somewhere in the area of in this idea I'm not simply using the magnets to pull the ferrofluid towards it and away from another force. Rather, here I make use of the ferrofluids natural tendency to spike along the lines of flux. (When a ferrofluid spikes out along the lines of flux and away from a magnet, it moves out from the greater part of the magnetic field to a lesser part.) And, in this design, when the ferrofluid spikes out at the end of the capillary, it is spiking away from the strongest (thickest) part of the first magnet towards the weakest (thinnest) part of the second magnet. However, I suspect that after moving through the capillary and spiking out, since it is so much closer to the weakest part of the second magnet than the strongest part of the first magnet, that at this point it is spiking towards, into, a greater magnetic field. There is more pull on the fluid from the weakest part of the second magnet, than there is from the strongest part of the first magnet, due to the fluid being so much closer to the second magnet. And all of this happens in the presence of friction. Do you still believe that these two machines are simply two versions of the same thing? If so … then … I guess we'll just have to disagree. Thank you.
John Cuthber Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 Fundamentally, all perpetual motion machines are the same thing- a doorstop. The differences are, as I say, in the detail and you just haven't understood it. The ferrofluid will be attracted to the strongest part of the magnet and, because that's the place it's most attracted to, it will stay there.
Ethereally Luminous Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 It does seem like no matter how many ideas for perpetual mechanisms there is always some inhibiting factor that balances the mechanism to a static phase. Don't give up though if you created a perpetual motion device you'd go down in history as the founder of The Law of Perpetual Motion .
christopherkirkreves Posted February 12, 2011 Author Posted February 12, 2011 Ethereally Luminous: "It does seem like no matter how many ideas for perpetual mechanisms there is always some inhibiting factor that balances the mechanism to a static phase." I agree. And I can understand why the folks in this forum simply don't believe me. However, if this machine will reach a state of balance, then there should be a simple clear way to state why, such as: 1. The ferrofluid will not move to the strongest part of the magnetic field. 2. The ferrofluid will not move into the capillary and away from the strongest part of the magnetic field. 3. The ferrofluid will not spike out beyond the end of the capillary. 4. The ferrofluid will not break off from the end of the capillary and drip onto the weakest part of the second magnet. or 5. The ferrofluid necessarily becomes corrupted after moving through the first capillary in a way that will not allow it to move into a second capillary. I've posted another video on You Tube. It's titled "14th Machine. A one sided attempt." In this experiment, I start by putting the ferrofluid on only one of the two wedge magnets. The fluid is pulled to the greatest part of the first magnet. The ferrofluid moves into the first capillary. The ferrofluid reaches the end of the capillary and spikes. The ferrofluid breaks off from the end of the capillary. The ferrofluid drips onto the weakest part of the second magnet. The ferrofluid is pulled to the strongest part of the second magnet. And, the ferrofluid enters the second capillary. Unfortunately, after four days of slowly dripping, the first capillary stops dripping due to evaporation, so there is no more fluid available to enter the second capillary, and the fluid only enters the second capillary to about a half a centimeter. However, this experiment does show that the ferrofluid does not become corrupted when moving through the first capillary in a way that keeps it from entering the second. "Don't give up though …" Thank you. I won't. John Cuthber: "The ferrofluid will be attracted to the strongest part of the magnet and, because that's the place it's most attracted to, it will stay there." After coming up with this design, but before I built it, I suspected that this might be true. I suspected that perhaps after reaching the strongest part of the magnet, that the magnetic liquid would not move into the capillary and away from the strongest part of the magnet. But it does. And this can be seen happening in the videos on You Tube. (It's is especially clear in the latest one: "14th Machine. A one sided attempt.") If you're interested, you can see the ferrofluid move away from the strongest part of the magnet. Thank you.
md65536 Posted February 13, 2011 Posted February 13, 2011 "Don't give up though …" Thank you. I won't. I disagree with that advice. I'd recommend researching a bit more so that you understand why these machines don't work, instead of trying multiple times to build them. I think that it is very unlikely that you can break a law of science without first understanding it enough to know where (and only IF) it can be broken. You requested and listed possible explanations for why your machine doesn't work, but you've skipped the suggestions given to you. Here is your flaw: You are starting your machine in one state (capillaries empty; relatively high amount of potential energy) and then letting it run to another state (capillaries saturated) at which point, for some reason you expect it to keep running. Once you get to a stable state, there are not really any "new states" for the machine to get to. You are claiming that the machine is in one state, the liquid drips, the capillaries suck up more liquid, and you are back at a state very similar to the previous state. So answer this: What form of energy is used to return the machine to a previous state? If you can answer that realistically, then you've identified an energy input to your machine. It's nothing special that the machine would go from its start state to a stable state, even if that involves the liquid dripping and moving across the magnet, even cycling for days or whatever else it might do. However I don't think you've shown that your machine goes from a stable state, through a cycle, and returns to a stable state. Without energy input this is impossible. Yet you're ignoring this, and looking for other excuses for why the machine stops working.
John Cuthber Posted February 13, 2011 Posted February 13, 2011 Fundamentally there is somewhere in the system that is the "best" place for the fluid to be. It might be at the pole of the magnet, or it might be in the tube. But it can't be both. If it's in the tubes then it will go there and stop, If it's at the pole of the magnet it will get to the pole and stop. If you really think the problem is due to evaporation, put the thing in a plastic bag with a wet sponge. When it still stops, you will have to dream up another excuse for it. 1
christopherkirkreves Posted February 16, 2011 Author Posted February 16, 2011 … excuses, excuses, excuses … md65536: "Yet you're ignoring this, and looking for other excuses for why the machine stops working." John Cuthber: "When it still stops, you will have to dream up another excuse for it." As these machines continue to drip day after day, the spikes become longer and longer before breaking off. And, at some point, the spikes become long enough to bridge all the way across the gap. At this point the systems come to a stop. And, if you poke at the bridged ferrofluid, it's brittle, and snaps off. It no longer acts like a liquid. (This is also true of the other spikes of ferrofluid along the magnets themselves. They become brittle and non fluid like after a few days.) My guess is that the fluid part of the ferrofluid evaporates, leaving a greater concentration of suspended solids, and so they act more like a collection of solids than a fluid. There is another possibility. Perhaps as the ferrofluid moves through the capillaries they become corrupted in a way that makes the fluid brittle. If that is so, then there must be a specific reason why a ferrofluid moving through a capillary becomes less fluid like and more like a collection of solids. I'm open to the discussion. John Cuthber: "If you really think the problem is due to evaporation, put the thing in a plastic bag with a wet sponge." Yes. You're right. It's time for a 15th machine. md65536: "You requested and listed possible explanations for why your machine doesn't work, but you've skipped the suggestions given to you." I hope not. md65536: "You are claiming that the machine is in one state, the liquid drips, the capillaries suck up more liquid, and you are back at a state very similar to the previous state." Yes, and I think I've confused the issue by talking about the part where I put the ferrofluid into the system before the capillaries are saturated. Time One. Both capillaries are saturated with ferrofluid. And, there is ferrofluid outside the capillaries, but in contact with the capillaries, at the base of both capillaries. Time Two. The ferrofluid spikes out of the capillaries towards the weakest parts of the other magnets. (The question is: what happens then? It was suggested in this forum that this will create an empty space within the capillaries. If this is true, then my design is a failed design. If the capillaries fill up, drain, but do not fill up again, then my machine does not work. Cool. But I doubt that is what is happening. I suspect that as the ferrofluid is pulled out beyond the end of the capillary, that, due to cohesion, more fluid is pulled into the capillaries from the surrounding fluid at the base of the capillaries (fluid outside of the capillaries, but in contact with the fluid in the capillaries). Just as a tree does not take in fluid once, then loses it through the leaves, and thus becomes empty of water. A tree will take in more water from the surrounding soil due to osmosis and cohesion.) Time Three. The ferrofluid breaks off and drips. Time Four. The ferrofluid moves to the strongest part of the magnet and joins the rest of the ferrofluid there (outside the next capillary, but in contact with it). md65536: "So answer this: What form of energy is used to return the machine to a previous state? If you can answer that realistically, then you've identified an energy input to your machine." After this system is set up, I do not see any additional energy inputs into it. md65536: "However I don't think you've shown that your machine goes from a stable state, through a cycle, and returns to a stable state." Stable state. The capillaries are saturated with ferrofluid and surrounded by ferrofluid at their bases. Cycle. The ferrofluid spikes out of the capillaries. The ferrofluid breaks off and drips. The ferrofluid moves to the strongest part of the next magnet and joins the ferrofluid there at the base of the other capillary. Stable state. The capillaries are saturated with ferrofluid and surrounded by ferrofluid at their bases. (That is, of course, assuming that I'm right in that as the fluid is pulled out of the capillary that more fluid will move into the capillary (thus keeping it saturated) due to cohesion. I'm open to the discussion. Why would more fluid not move into the capillaries at their bases, as fluid spikes out at the tops?) John Cuthber: "If it's in the tubes then it will go there and stop, If it's at the pole of the magnet it will get to the pole and stop." The fluid does move into the tube and away from the pole of the magnet, and the fluid does also move out of the tube and back onto the pole of the other magnet. It happens. Thank you.
michel123456 Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 Maybe this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetorheological_fluid#Material_behavior "As mentioned above, smart fluids are such that they have a low viscosity in the absence of an applied magnetic field, but become quasi-solid with the application of such a field. In the case of MR fluids (and ER), the fluid actually assumes properties comparable to a solid when in the activated ("on") state, up until a point of yield (the shear stress above which shearing occurs). This yield stress (commonly referred to as apparent yield stress) is dependent on the magnetic field applied to the fluid, but will reach a maximum point after which increases in magnetic flux density have no further effect, as the fluid is then magnetically saturated."
md65536 Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 (edited) My guess is that the fluid part of the ferrofluid evaporates, leaving a greater concentration of suspended solids, and so they act more like a collection of solids than a fluid. Evaporation typically involves an energy input. Stable state. The capillaries are saturated with ferrofluid and surrounded by ferrofluid at their bases. Cycle. The ferrofluid spikes out of the capillaries. The ferrofluid breaks off and drips. The ferrofluid moves to the strongest part of the next magnet and joins the ferrofluid there at the base of the other capillary. Stable state. The capillaries are saturated with ferrofluid and surrounded by ferrofluid at their bases. (That is, of course, assuming that I'm right in that as the fluid is pulled out of the capillary that more fluid will move into the capillary (thus keeping it saturated) due to cohesion. I'm open to the discussion. Why would more fluid not move into the capillaries at their bases, as fluid spikes out at the tops?) Exactly! This is the key to understanding your device! How can any system perpetually cycle through the same states without requiring any new energy, and while losing (a tiny amount of) energy due to friction? Conservation of energy is what you need to research. If you can extract a certain amount of energy going from state A to B, it will take at least that much energy to go from state B (through any states C etc) back to state A. Some additional points: - A system can cycle for a very long time if it is very efficient. A pendulum won't swing to the bottom and then immediately stop, even though it has the lowest potential energy there, because potential energy is constantly being converted to kinetic energy and vice versa (with some lost to inefficiency), in accordance with conservation laws. - Having a device drip for a long time is meaningless if you're extracting very little energy from it. See: http://www.emoti.com...ag/00/0417.html Tar can continue dripping extremely slowly for a century but no one would consider it a perpetual motion machine. The longer your machine runs, the easier you're making it to fool yourself (and possibly others). - You have not shown how or even speculated that your machine circumvents conservation of energy laws. There is no reason to believe it does, other than that it's a puzzle to figure it out. On the plus side: You may consider this device among the best "perpetual motion machines" ever designed and built, some of which might be considered "famous". On the bad side: None have ever worked, and there is scientific proof of that, and a lot of time has been and continues to be wasted. On a related note... I finally discovered the "Stop watching this topic" button which has improved my life! I keep fooling myself into thinking that I can help resolve something with a reply. Edited February 16, 2011 by md65536 1
christopherkirkreves Posted February 20, 2011 Author Posted February 20, 2011 michel123456 Thank you. I read through the wikipedia link. I don't know anything about magnetorheological fluids other than what I just read. And I think I know what you're suggesting, but I'm not exactly sure. Let me try … 1. Magnetorheological fluids and ferrofluids are smart fluids. 2. When smart fluids are exposed to a magnetic field their viscosity increases. 3. When a fluid increases in viscosity it becomes more "quasi-solid". 4. The greater the magnetic field, the greater the increase in viscosity. 5. However, at some point a smart fluid will become "magnetically saturated," meaning additional increases in the magnetic field will not increase the apparent viscosity of the fluid. 6. In the machines I built, the ferrofluids were exposed the a magnetic field for several days, and over those several days they become more and more viscous, eventually reaching a point where they were brittle and solid like. Therefore … 7. Perhaps the reason why my ferrofluids became brittle and stopped moving was not evaporation (or not just evaporation) but also "magnetic saturation." 8. And, while the evaporation problem is something that can be removed in a better built machine, given the nature of the design (specifically that the ferrofluids are exposed to a magnetic field and left there), that "magnetic saturation" will always eventually be reached, and so the ferrofluid will always eventually become brittle, and so these machines will always necessarily come to an eventual stop. 9. And, thus, it is a failed design. Is this the argument? If so, it's a good one. But, before I respond to this, and I think there is a response, I'd like to understand if I've gotten the argument right. michel123456, did it get the argument and analysis right? Thank you. md65536 "Evaporation typically involves an energy input." And it is an essential part in the movement of water though a tree. However, here it does not aid in the movement. (I did get one machine to drip, and then submerged it in water. It continued to drip for 10 days.) "Conservation of energy is what you need to research." "I think that it is very unlikely that you can break a law of science without first understanding it enough to know where (and only IF) it can be broken." Are you suggesting that laws of physics are not "falsifiable"? If so, then you are suggesting, it appears, that they are not scientific theories. They're more like religious principles. It used to be thought that the hallmark of a scientific theory was whether or not the theory was "testable." So, for example, if my theory is that "god exists" but there's no way to test this, then it's not a scientific theory. But, they later realized that it was not enough to be able to test an idea, but rather to be able to show it is false. So, for example, if my theory is "if I say something mean to you, you will be insulted," and this (you being insulted) is demonstrated by you saying something back to me, or walking away, or saying nothing, or whatever else you might possibly do, then if any reaction on your part is evidence of you being insulted, then while we can test my theory, we cannot falsify it. And, therefore, it is not a scientific theory. Rather, a scientific theory (in my understanding) looks more like "if I let go of this ball it will fall." While it might be true that every time I drop this ball, over the course of my lifetime, it falls, the fact that it is in the realm of possibilities that it could do something else (like float up), means that it is possible to show my theory false, and therefore it is a "scientific theory." (Again, if I understand the philosophy of science correctly in this regard.) Are you are saying that I need to go think about the law of "Conservation of Energy" and specifically whether or not "IF" it can be broken? If this law is not falsifiable then, in my current understanding, it is not a "scientific theory." And, if it is possible (though very unlikely) to show this law to be false, then what would that demonstration look like? It would look like a mechanism, or some other system, where energy is not conserved: a perpetual motion machine, or some other possible (though very unlikely) natural phenomena. "A pendulum won't swing to the bottom and then immediately stop, …" "Tar can continue dripping extremely slowly for a century …" My claim that there is a conservation of energy issue in this design is not based on these machines dripping for several days. (I'll go you one further. Pick up a rock, put it on top of a rocket, and shoot it off into free space where there aren't many stars. This rock will move for a longer time than a pendulum or tar.) Rather, my claim of a conservation of energy issue is that it appears (… although I'm open to suggestions of possible problems like "magnetic saturation" … ) that there is an issue after each capillary drips once. After each capillary drips once (and friction is encountered) and as the fluid moves back to an equivalent position to where it began, energy (thermal energy) is increased without an offsetting decrease another form of energy. (Just as a hypothetical pendulum, which encounters friction while it swings, but then still manages to reach the same height on the other side.) "… which has improved my life!" I'm sorry this experience has been an unpleasant one for you. Thank you … regardless. And … michel123456, let me know if I got the "magnetic saturation" argument and analysis right? I think I know the right response, but it's challenging.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now