A perpetual machine model that sets me thinking

[cng99]

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.

Now this looks very convincing. Can anyone resolve this?

 

[cng99]

And also, do tell me how to rotate an image by 45 degrees in Windows 7 Paint, if you know.

 

[sophiecentaur]

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.

 

[berkeman]

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.

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.

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

 

[pmacias]

I appreciate the curiosity and critical thinking that this perpetual machine model sets off. However, it is important to approach such claims with a scientific mindset and evaluate them based on established principles and laws of physics.

Firstly, the concept of a perpetual machine goes against the fundamental law of thermodynamics, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed from one form to another. Therefore, it is impossible for a machine to generate infinite energy without any external input.

In the case of the perpetual machine described, the energy required to initially set the magnets in motion and overcome friction would eventually be depleted, resulting in the machine coming to a stop. This is because the magnetic force between the two magnets would eventually weaken as they move further apart, and the energy required to maintain the rotation would exceed the energy produced by the system.

Additionally, the arrangement shown in figure B does not take into account the effects of gravity and other external forces that would also impact the motion of the machine. These factors would further limit the machine's ability to produce perpetual motion.

In conclusion, while the perpetual machine model may seem convincing at first glance, it is important to critically evaluate it and consider the laws of physics before coming to any conclusions. As scientists, it is our responsibility to question and test such claims in order to advance our understanding of the world.