MAGNETIC MODEL

[Abhay.K]

I HAVE MADE A MODEL THAT USES MAGNETS TO RUN

 

ITS DIAGRAM IS IN A WORD FILE THAT I HAVE ATTACHED

I ALSO HAVE WRITTEN ITS DESCRIPTION IN THE FILE

 

WILL IT WORK

PLEASE CLARIFY

THANK YOU

Doc1.doc

Edited June 5, 2013 by Abhay.K

[CaptainPanic]

Normally, I skip all posts that are in all CAPS.

 

What is actually going to happen is that the middle magnet will turn around 180 degrees, and then (depending on how you hold this thing) slam into the bottom set of magnets, because it was not in perfect balance, and gravity pulled it off the center.

 

But even in a weightless environment, it would not work. The problem with your thingy is that if the middle magnet is only a fraction away from the center, the forces of the magnets that are closest will pull just a little bit harder than those further away. Therefore, the magnet in the middle moves a bit more in the same direction, which strengthens this, and ultimately, it will attract the magnet in the middle.

 

Also, in a perfect vacuum it is true that something that starts spinning should theoretically spin forever, but (1) we don't have a perfect vacuum. Even in space, vacuum is not perfect. There is always a little material: always a little friction. But more importantly, (2) what is the point? So what if something spins for a long time? I don't understand why you'd want to build that.

[EdEarl]

Please do not SHOUT. (use all caps)

 

You cannot get something from nothing.

 

You are trying to design a perpetual motion machine, which cannot ever work no matter how you try to do it.

 

You cannot get something from nothing. NEVER, EVER! It is a law of the Universe, always true, cannot be ignored or broken by anyone anywhere.

[Enthalpy]

For decades, students learned the Gold and Bondi cosmology, where matter was to be created from nothing to keep the Universe at constant density despite the recess of galaxies.

 

Before the neutrino was proposed, observers of beta radioactivity were ready to abandon the conservation of energy.

 

The Universe is said to have created matter for free during the inflation period, as the gained gravitation energy compensated the matter "cost".

 

... looks like not everyone clenches to conservation law that hard.

 

As of laws of the Universe... we ignore them. We make models and observe to what point they hold. Some models, including the conservation of mass+energy, hold damned well.

[imatfaal]

For decades, students learned the Gold and Bondi cosmology, where matter was to be created from nothing to keep the Universe at constant density despite the recess of galaxies.

 

Before the neutrino was proposed, observers of beta radioactivity were ready to abandon the conservation of energy.

 

The Universe is said to have created matter for free during the inflation period, as the gained gravitation energy compensated the matter "cost".

 

... looks like not everyone clenches to conservation law that hard.

 

As of laws of the Universe... we ignore them. We make models and observe to what point they hold. Some models, including the conservation of mass+energy, hold damned well.

 

What no mention of poor Fred Hoyle!? Hoyle, Gold and Bondi presented their paper in 1948 - by 1965 the CMBR had been discovered and it was the beginning of the end for steady state. Lemaitre was in the 1930s and Alpher and Herman were arguing for Big Bang with ideas for definitive tests from early 40s. I agree with your major point - but just highlighting that it was by no means settled and accepted physics