Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Perpetual Motion by Gravity

  1. Nov 5, 2003 #1
    I recently looked into a general theory of Perpetual Motion by using the gravity of some nearby large celestial object like the sun or perhaps for it being so close the moon. I attempted to solve that puzzeling mystey myself but got myself confused with equations and thoughts about Force, Gravity, Velocity, Inertia, and Momentum. Then I lost track of where I was. Do any of you think it is possible by relation to my theory to have Pepetual Motion?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 5, 2003 #2

    mathman

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I don't know what your theory is, but perpetual motion is impossible. The closest to it is the planets and moons in orbit. However even this won't last forever.
     
  4. Nov 5, 2003 #3

    jcsd

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No, if a theory enables perpetual motion then that is seen as a serious flaw. Without an explanation I can only make a guess at where you went wrong, perhaps you failed to take into account GPE?
     
  5. Nov 5, 2003 #4
    i think you can get almost perpetual movement quite easy by means of using the coriolis force.

    if you have a column of closed water and by means of a tube flush it way up it will go as high as the level of the column of water

    but if you form a fast vortex (the faster and the more to the north the more coriolis effect) which makes also the surface of the water form an angle whose center is the vortex, the flush of water could be made to reenter the column of water since the extra coriolis force and the angle of the water creating a perpetual movement i dont know but if the conditions are adequate i suppose so since theres an extra coriolis force produce by the spin of earth

    this would explain shaubergers claim of perpetual movement in their vortex devices the lift force would be explained by the different centrifugal force of the many revolutions within the vortex and the few in the outside one goes vertical the other goes downwards.

    it came to my mind the article about free energy 2 dollar device, the fire of alchemists of which i read something in the mutus liber and fleishman electrolisis of heavy water with palladium and platinum i think (when he claimed to have got cold fusion):

    i dont know maybe the electrolisis of my device could reach cold fusion

    maybe fleishman got a vortext during an instant (with the correct solar alinagtion)

    maybe thats why alchemists picked up morning dew in special seasons (heavy water)

    but then again if this tecnology is discovered will be used first to go to the starts or will be used to destroy ourselfs

    would they let gold be nothing but a heavy metal and burning petrol useless besides making hunger disappear by burning water in the coast to let the winds turn africas desserts into forests by letting the cold fusion out or would they prefer to keep it secret as a weapon

    anyhow what i wish is that we can conquest the star the sooner the better
     
  6. Nov 5, 2003 #5
    I'd say you need to know more conventional physics before going into alternative physics. I know for a fact that that would have to be a cylinder many miles wide to even notice the coriolis effect and it would be powered by the Earth's limited rotational energy.
    I don't mean to be a downer, I actively research these free energy claims, since it doesn't cost me much and the pay off would be huge :smile:.
    I have heard of this two dolar free energy device, how does it work, how do you make it?
    I do think there was something to the schaburger(misspell?) theory, but I don't think he really understood it. I also think that at high rotational velocities, with water doped with free charges (say salt water), one could get one heck of a high voltage out of his devices and I think this avenue should be researched.
    I will now note for the critics that I don't know if any device will be made that at least seems for all intents and purposes to create energy, but I do know that we already have a whole bunch of free energy devices: wind, water, solar, and tidal power, and it don't cost us a penny! (Of course ignoring maintainence and original construction.)
     
  7. Nov 6, 2003 #6
    i dont know this device shoud be first have an anticavitant propeller ( V shaped) to get the fluid lets say 500 miles per hour (in linear velocity) The faster the speed the higher the coriolis correction (in planes with the sextant) , isuppose thats why shauberger used air because you can get higher speeds

    anyhow you are totally right i should know more physiscs, but my teacher is a bastard,
     
  8. Nov 6, 2003 #7
    or maybe you could give the 2 dollar device an extra speed boost just by spinning it like when you spin a bottle to empty it first (by centrifugal forces), increasing the speed of the fluid increases the coriolis force

    ps:
    since i dont have to type my password to post i cant choose to post with my other name raaaid anybody knows how to solve this?
     
  9. Nov 6, 2003 #8
    already solved the name thing
     
  10. Dec 6, 2003 #9
    no perpetual motion possible even with gravity all have a start and a end.you can create motion but will stop eventualy.on earth if you use gravity and weight to make motion you need the same force to pull up so it even think to a stop motion sorry...
     
  11. Dec 6, 2003 #10
    A completely isolated system with internal motion will keep it's motion and can express this over time as different ways of feedbacking energy. (conservation of energy). An example is our universe.
     
  12. Dec 6, 2003 #11
    this universe started some how
     
  13. Dec 6, 2003 #12
    :smile: ... what makes to say that ...? That seems to me contradiction the conservation of energy. Going against some fundamental laws?
     
  14. Dec 6, 2003 #13

    LURCH

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Finding a way to tap the kinetic energy of planetary movement would not be perpetual motion in the strictest sence. However, in practical terms it would be close enough, because it would be motion that is self-sustaining (or at least, sustained) for as long as the planets conitinue to move, and by the time they stop, we'll have much bigger concerns than where to plug in our appliances.
     
  15. Dec 6, 2003 #14

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Regardless of whether that machine you speak of could work, that isn't perpetual motion. Perpetual motion doesn't just mean its capable of moving forever, it means its capable of moving forever while POWERING ITSELF.
    ...which doesn't exist in reality...
    The universe currently exists and evidence suggests it has not always existed. Thus it must have started at some point in time. And the current theory for how it started (Big Bang) also says that before a certain point just after it, the laws of phyics break down. So no, it doesn't break conservation of energy - conservation of energy doesn't apply.
     
  16. Dec 6, 2003 #15
    Of course I know those theories, but there are also other points of view. It all depends from your starting point and the mechanism that can provide the start. You can also ask - related to Big Bang - ' what caused the 'BB-start'? IMO A question never asked.
    My point of view comes from the observation ... we can calculate that this universe contains 'action'. We can and do measure that. So movement is one of the parameters or actors. We can say even that's a repeatable fact. Then the question comes: What is (are) the other parameter(s)? Is it a point of singularity or is it a reshaped previous ... something?.
     
  17. Dec 6, 2003 #16
    It seems your are very well informed. What makes you say that?
    And POWERING ITSELF ... yes I was talking about that. An isolated feedback system can do that. Maths should prove your that. 1=1. Either it is 1=2-1, or 1= 1.5 + 0.5 -1, or ... KE can become EM, TD, Rad or even Love. In a closed system energy stays energy.
     
  18. Dec 7, 2003 #17

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    You have mixed two separate and unrelated quotes of mine together, so I don't know what you are talking about. Could you clarify please?
     
  19. Dec 7, 2003 #18
    do not say perpetual motion with gravity you can say create motion with gravity this is possible .perpetual motion mean a system that soon as it been created will start to operate on is own will generate is energy to keep motion for EVER...this system is imposible.our universe is not that system because it started very hot and is getting colder and will stop exsist in time .this universe was created by a other system that we do not anderstan and that systeme probabely create other universe.
     
  20. Dec 7, 2003 #19
    Thermodynamics ... locally created by kinetics (friction) of the gravitational spacetime ( or 'Feld' - the gravitational 'field' if you prefer).
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Perpetual Motion by Gravity
  1. Perpetual Motion. (Replies: 4)

  2. Perpetual Motion (Replies: 2)

  3. Perpetual "Motion" (Replies: 11)

  4. Perpetual motion (Replies: 3)

Loading...