My Perpetual Motion - Would it work?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the feasibility of a proposed perpetual motion device utilizing magnets. The participant presents a concept involving discs with magnets designed to create opposing forces, potentially generating energy. The inquiry seeks to understand whether such a design could function and the underlying physics that may prevent it from working.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • The initial idea involves discs with magnets that would spin in opposite directions, potentially creating perpetual motion through magnetic forces.
  • Some participants argue that the angle of the magnets does not influence the magnetic force they exert on each other, and that the attraction to stationary magnets could slow down the motion.
  • There is a suggestion that using electromagnets would essentially create an electric motor, which requires energy input, contradicting the idea of perpetual motion.
  • One participant explains that the forces involved in attracting and repelling magnets would balance out, leading to minimal net force generated by the proposed design.
  • Another participant asserts that perpetual motion is impossible, stating that the energy required to separate magnets after attraction equals the energy gained from their repulsion, resulting in no net energy gain.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the feasibility of the proposed design, with multiple competing views on the physics involved. There is no consensus on whether the concept could work or the specifics of why it would fail.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of the proposed angles and configurations of magnets, as well as the implications of using electromagnets versus permanent magnets. The discussion highlights the complexities of magnetic interactions and energy conservation principles.

Tiffanys
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I think of some pretty crazy ideas when I'm half asleep.

I keep a notebook and pencil by my bed, randomly wake up and write jibberish down. Sometimes great ideas, but most of the time crazy nonsense that I have to wonder what the hell I was thinking, even though they seemed like the greatest ideas in the world at the time.

Well anyways, I had this idea while sleeping one night, woke up half awake and wrote it down. Now, I'll be pretty honest here... I don't know just a whole lot about Physics. So, I figure it'd be a good idea to ask some people that do...

(recreated in Photoshop exactly as written while half asleep)
[PLAIN]http://i.min.us/icbBhq.png

Right, so. There's my idea. Basically discs with magnets attached like cogs, angled to direct their magnetic force at one another in opposing directions to cause one another to spin on opposite directions, further perpetuating the other's spinning and thus creating perpetual motion.

The power created from it would be like an alternator. The kinetic energy/friction created from the magnets would create energy and then it would be stored and whatnot.

An alternative concept would be hollow discs with a strong magnetically charged liquid metal running through them, opposite directions in each disc, the magnetic force hopefully causing the other to spin even faster.

So yeah, would it work? If not, could you explain why?

I imagine I'm not the first one to have the idea of putting opposing magnetic forces to work against one another. So, there must be something I'm missing.

I know that the magnetic force in magnets is created by an electrical current passing through them, so maybe that's the hang up? Does it take too much electrical energy to pass through them to maintain a strong magnetic force, so it would be inefficient and use more energy than it creates?

My thought was that maybe it would require an initial jolt, but once they got going, they could go with relatively no other help and would be a renewable energy, even if not a true perpetual motion.

If anyone could explain, I would greatly appreciate it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Your picture doesn't show up. However, the "angle" at which you have magnets will not affect the magnetic force they apply to other magnets- and you seem to be neglecting the attraction to stationary magnets the moving magnets have just passed which will slow the motion.
 
Running a current through an electromagnet to create kinetic energy is pretty much what an electric motor does. As you said though, that requires energy to do. If you have to use electromagnets you would essentially just be creating an electric motor (assuming the design is valid).

I don't think your cogwheel design will work the way you think it will, even if you use permanent bar magnets so that you don't require electrical energy to pass a current through the whole thing. Remember, bar magnets don't just repel/attrack magnets that are directly in line with them. If I lay out some magnets as below (sorry for the crudeness): magnet 2 is going to repel magnet 3 (which is what your design is based on) but it's also going to repel magnet 1 just as much, even though they're not directly in line.

...\S\ (1)
...\N\

(3) [S N]...[N S] (2)

My intuition is that the way you angle the cogs will actually have very little effect at all. Each magnet will still attract/repel all the magnets on the other cog, and while it will vary in strength based on distance, I'm pretty sure that it will mostly, if not completely, balance out so that the magnets will generate very little force.
 
Here's that image: http://i.min.us/icbBhq.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It will not work. The force provided by the attraction of 2 magnets is then required to break those magnets apart again. Or in your case the energy used to push them together is equal to the energy you would get out of them repelling. Hence no net energy. Perpetual motion will NOT work, period. I suggest you don't even waste your time.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
804
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
6K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
12K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K