A perpetual machine model that sets me thinking

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of perpetual motion machines (PMMs) and the inherent impossibility of their existence. A proposed design involving magnets and a ferromagnetic substance was presented, claiming that the arrangement would allow for continuous rotation. However, the consensus is that energy must be input to move the wheel, and it will ultimately reach a state of minimum potential energy, leading to a halt. The topic of PMMs is explicitly banned on the Physics Forums due to its established scientific consensus against the feasibility of such machines.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic physics principles, particularly energy conservation
  • Familiarity with magnetism and ferromagnetic materials
  • Knowledge of potential energy concepts
  • Experience with online forum etiquette and rules
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the laws of thermodynamics, specifically the first and second laws
  • Explore the principles of magnetism and their applications in mechanical systems
  • Investigate historical attempts and theories surrounding perpetual motion machines
  • Learn about energy input requirements for mechanical systems and their implications
USEFUL FOR

Physics enthusiasts, educators, and students interested in understanding the principles of energy conservation and the scientific reasoning behind the impossibility of perpetual motion machines.

cng99
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Now I'm not a PMI (perpetual machine inventor). In fact I'm quite convinced that there is no such thing as that. But a while ago, I saw the schematics of a perpetual machine that is hard to debate.

Well this is how the machine worked. The inventor argued that if you have two magnets as arranged in figure A, with a ferromagnetic substance in between, the magnets will be attracted toward the metal. But as you bring the objects upwards, they'll repel each other as the metal gets thinner and the end is reached.

Now based on this argument, he created an arrangement as shown in B and argues that these wheels would rotate forever, as the magnet's attract at the bottom of the metal piece and repel towards the top.

KdrEX.png


Now this looks very convincing. Can anyone resolve this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
And also, do tell me how to rotate an image by 45 degrees in Windows 7 Paint, if you know.
 
E N E R G Y

is always why it won't work. It always is.

Forget the forces that you think you can see operating. To get the wheel from that position to the next, you need to put energy IN. The wheel will reach an angle where the Potential energy is at a minimum and it will stay there (or oscillate about the position, finally coming to a halt).Windows Paint sucks. Get a decent free drawing package like Open Office and that will do all the simple (vector) drawing you need. Much better.
 
cng99 said:
Now I'm not a PMI (perpetual machine inventor). In fact I'm quite convinced that there is no such thing as that. But a while ago, I saw the schematics of a perpetual machine that is hard to debate.

Well this is how the machine worked. The inventor argued that if you have two magnets as arranged in figure A, with a ferromagnetic substance in between, the magnets will be attracted toward the metal. But as you bring the objects upwards, they'll repel each other as the metal gets thinner and the end is reached.

Now based on this argument, he created an arrangement as shown in B and argues that these wheels would rotate forever, as the magnet's attract at the bottom of the metal piece and repel towards the top.

KdrEX.png


Now this looks very convincing. Can anyone resolve this?

We do not waste people's time discussing PMMs here on the PF. That is why it is on the Banned Topics list at the Rules link at the top of the page. Please read some of the old locked PMM threads to find out why they don't/can't work.

PF Rules said:
Perpetual motion and "free energy" discussions

Search PF and you will find many threads that have been closed in a number of forums. As for S&D, any claim of this nature would be reproducible and/or testable by the scientific community; hence there is no need for debate.
EDIT by berkeman -- here are some recent locked PMM threads:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=522548
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=520290
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=7735
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=515402
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=403572
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K