Perpetual Motion: U-Tube Water Capacitor Experiment

In summary, the conversation discusses the possibility of creating a perpetual motion machine using a U-tube, pure water, and electrical properties. However, it is determined that this is not possible due to energy consumption and the inability of water to act as a good dielectric. Simplifications are suggested, but the main focus is on finding a simple reasoning for the original problem. Ultimately, it is concluded that the fun lies in demonstrating the equilibrium of the system without using the conservation of energy.
  • #1
celestra
18
0
There is a U-tube which contains pure water of about half of its volume. And let's put a capacitor around one surface of the water in the tube. If we apply a high dc voltage to the capacitor, the surface of the water in one side of the tube rises slightly because the permittivity of water is eighty times greater than that of air in the room temperature.

And here is the question. If we make small holes on both sides of the tube and connect the holes using a small tube so that the water can circulate through, then will the water really circulate? If we ignore the viscosity of the water and the friction with the tube, will it work perpetually?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Even if it does run continually it is not perpetual motion, you are driving with electricity. That is no different to putting electricity into an electric motor.
 
  • #3
But, the electricity doesn't have any load. It seems that it supplies no work, i.e., no energy at all.
 
  • #4
Same old basic premise. (No, the resolution is not in maintaining the charge.) You've changed the effective potential of the water, sure. But the effective potential is changed on both sides of the hole. If the water is forced to rise up to the hole, it won't be able to fall on the other side.
 
  • #5
I must admit that I've never seen this one before. Enthusiasm and wishful thinking know no bounds.
 
  • #6
It is the first time that I see a perpetuum mobile which uses electrical properties. I like it!

The part of water that is "sucked" by the condenser is at a pressure smaller than the atmospheric pressure. The line of hydrostatic pressure equal to the atmospheric pressure is at the level of the water in the other branch of the tube. Then, when you make a hole in this part of the tube, that is under atmospheric pressure, you must not ask if the water will pour out, but if the air is not going to bubble inside the tube.
I have not still worked out a simple reasoning to demonstrate that the air does not enter. A more complicate reasoning is that when you put some air to replace some of the water in the capacitor the electrical potential energy increases (the capacitance diminishes). Worded otherwise, to enter the air bubble, it must push out some water.
I'll continue to think about this to see if there is a more direct and simple reasoning.
 
  • #7
While a perfect capacitor would not consume power, there is no such thing in the real world.
In general dialectics consume power.
One that moves will use more.
 
  • #8
NoTime said:
While a perfect capacitor would not consume power, there is no such thing in the real world.
In general dialectics consume power.
One that moves will use more.
Yes, dialectics consume power, much more than dielectrics.

I think that you have not understood what is the fun with "perpetumm mobile".

It is not to say "it won't work". Of course we all know that it won't work. The fun is to demonstrate, without using the conservation of energy, that it is in equilibrium or, that once you have used the energy fournished for the initial state, you won't get any more.

Water is not a good dielectric because it is ionic and has a residual conductivity, even when it is pure. But there are others dielectrics, non ionic, whose conductivity is really small. So small that it is very hard to measure. You can replace water by one of any such good dielectrics and it does not change the fun of the problem.
 
  • #9
lpfr said:
if there is a more direct and simple reasoning.

First simplification: Consider a U-tube of ferromagnetic fluid, with a magnet at one end of the U, so that the fluid level differs on each side. Now, make a hole in the higher-level tube, and imagine whether the fluid will flow out (and down another tube to the lower-level side of the U)?

Second simplification: Consider just a U-tube of water, tilted slightly sideways so that the water fills further along one side than the other. Now connect another tube between those two arms; will the water start circulating (from the fuller, lower arm, up the connecting tube, into the higher, emptier arm)?

:zzz:
A little while ago this idea was presented on PF, with the U-tube of ferrofluid, and further obfuscated by (rather than having the fluid itself circulate) threading a chain of light buoys through the tube, which circulate if archimedes principle is naively applied inappropriately. I look forward to seeing coriolis forces worked in somehow as well.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
cesiumfrog said:
First simplification: Consider a U-tube of ferromagnetic fluid, with a magnet at one end of the U, so that the fluid level differs on each side. Now, make a hole in the higher-level tube, and imagine whether the fluid will flow out (and down another tube to the lower-level side of the U)?

<< insulting comments edited out by berkeman >>

First: the idea is to find a simpler reasoning for this problem and not another one.
Second: replacing everyday water with a fluid that very few have ever seen and less still have had the possibility to play with, is not a simplification.

cesiumfrog said:
Second simplification: Consider just a U-tube of water, tilted slightly sideways so that the water fills further along one side than the other. Now connect another tube between those two arms; will the water start circulating (from the fuller, lower arm, up the connecting tube, into the higher, emptier arm)?
I do not think that someone who is interested in the problem of this thread would be << deleted by berkeman >> to have a confusion with the non-problem you are exposing.

Once again, the fun is not to replace this physics problem with another more complicated or more << deleted by berkeman >> . The fun is to give the exact reasoning for this problem.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
I was somewhat serious when I was posting it if the water will really circulate. However, now I get to know it will not, thanks to the cesiumfrog's explanation. :smile:
 
  • #12
If we ignore the viscosity of the water and the friction with the tube, will it work perpetually?

I think friction is the key word. Without friction, many things would move perpetually :)

In the future, use ms paint or something to draw out your experiment.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Nobody has mentioned the physical mechanism that draws the water up. Toward (the edge of) a capacitor (or more obviously, to a single electrostatically charged rod), the water molecules (neutral free dipoles) align with the varying field, and (since the field strength now differs between the the two 'poles of the molecule) the molecules have a net attraction in the direction of stronger field.

This being understood, we can reduce the problem by replacing that mechanism with something else (conceptually simpler or just more familiar) that has an exactly equivalent effect. For example, we can replace the charged capacitor with a very dense mass, which also causes the water to rise higher on that side of the U (but by the mechanism of gravity). With no remaining "herrings", it should be obvious that the water would not flow through a connection between the U-arms.. indeed, if it would, then it have already done so through the bottom of the U-tube. Friction is also clearly irrelevent. If the water is forcefully attracted to between the plates, why wouldn't that force also oppose it from flowing elsewhere?

Another way of looking at things would be to imagine an O-shaped tube full of water. One probably wouldn't expect a capacitor around one section to cause the water to start circulating? Though with some electric current leakage..
 
Last edited:
  • #14
lpfr said:
Yes, dialectics consume power, much more than dielectrics.
:rofl: Fun with spell checkers. Spell something wrong right.

lpfr said:
I think that you have not understood what is the fun with "perpetumm mobile".
Yea! I doubt I'm a candidate for Funniest Member :wink: :smile:

How about a real world system.
The Nuclear Fast Breeder Reactor.
Not only does it make significant power.
But once started it makes its own fuel. o:)

lpfr said:
Water is not a good dielectric because it is ionic and has a residual conductivity, even when it is pure. But there are others dielectrics, non ionic, whose conductivity is really small. So small that it is very hard to measure. You can replace water by one of any such good dielectrics and it does not change the fun of the problem.
Small yes, but not small enough to keep capacitors from going bang if operated outside the design limits.

In this case the motion of the dielectric consumes power.
Independent of any direct dielectric loses.
They make some very nice speaker systems that are just big capacitors.
 

1. What is the U-Tube Water Capacitor Experiment and how does it relate to perpetual motion?

The U-Tube Water Capacitor Experiment is a demonstration of a potential source of perpetual motion. It involves two tubes filled with water that are connected at the bottom by a small opening. When the tubes are inverted, the water will flow back and forth between the tubes, creating a continuous motion. This experiment is often used to show the concept of a perpetual motion machine, which is a machine that can continue to operate without any external energy source.

2. Is the U-Tube Water Capacitor Experiment a true example of perpetual motion?

No, the U-Tube Water Capacitor Experiment is not a true example of perpetual motion. While the experiment may appear to show a continuous motion, it is not truly perpetual as it relies on the force of gravity and the natural flow of water. Perpetual motion is impossible according to the laws of thermodynamics, which state that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred or converted.

3. What are the limitations of the U-Tube Water Capacitor Experiment?

The U-Tube Water Capacitor Experiment has several limitations. One limitation is that it relies on the natural flow of water and the force of gravity, so it cannot continue indefinitely without any external energy source. Additionally, the experiment does not take into account factors such as friction and air resistance, which would eventually cause the motion to slow down and stop. Furthermore, the experiment does not produce any useful work or energy, making it impractical as a source of perpetual motion.

4. Are there any real-life applications of the U-Tube Water Capacitor Experiment?

While the U-Tube Water Capacitor Experiment is not a true example of perpetual motion, the principles behind it have been applied in some real-life applications. For example, the concept of a siphon, which utilizes the flow of water to transfer liquids, is similar to the flow of water in the U-Tube Water Capacitor Experiment. Siphons are commonly used in many industries, such as agriculture and manufacturing, to transfer liquids from one location to another.

5. How does the U-Tube Water Capacitor Experiment demonstrate the importance of understanding the laws of thermodynamics?

The U-Tube Water Capacitor Experiment is a practical demonstration of the first and second laws of thermodynamics. The first law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred or converted, which is evident in the flow of water between the tubes. The second law states that in any energy transfer or conversion, some energy will be lost in the form of heat, which is seen in the eventual slowing down and stopping of the motion in the experiment. This experiment serves as a reminder of the fundamental principles of thermodynamics and the impossibility of achieving true perpetual motion.

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Engineering and Comp Sci Homework Help
Replies
31
Views
1K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
2
Views
914
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
947
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
247
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Back
Top