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 machine

  1. Oct 6, 2005 #1
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 6, 2005 #2
    I guess I'm not all too clear with that drawing versus your statements.
    In other words, what stops the system from reaching a static equilibrium?
     
  4. Oct 6, 2005 #3

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yeah, if the energy comes from the magnetic fields, and the magnetic fields deminish(sic), then the energy diminishes, too. Hence, you do not have a perpetual motion machine.
     
  5. Oct 6, 2005 #4
    Isn't that what I said?
     
  6. Oct 6, 2005 #5

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No, what you said is consistent with everything in my quote that comes before the word "Hence". You of course did not explicitly conclude that this is not the design of a bona fide perpetual motion machine. All you said about that is the title of the thread, which led me to assume that you believe that this is a design of such a machine.
     
  7. Oct 6, 2005 #6

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I didn't find Trilairian's statement ambiguous.

    By stating where the energy ultimately comes from, he is clearly disqualilfying it as a PMM.
     
  8. Oct 6, 2005 #7

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Neither did I. He clearly stated that the fields are being diminished.

    By stating where the energy ultimately comes from, he is clearly stating where the energy ultimately comes from. :biggrin: Nothing more.

    It's not that what he wrote is unclear, it's that he didn't complete the thought. And it's not at all obvious from what was written that the correct "if...then" inference was meant. Indeed, the thread title seemed to indicate the opposite.
     
  9. Oct 7, 2005 #8
  10. Oct 7, 2005 #9

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The left N repels the N-charged shuttle, then the right N repels the N-charged shuttle. Yes, it would merely stop at equilibrium.

    If it were possible to build such a device.

    Which it isn't.

    The device requires a monopole - if such a thnig were actually found or manufactured, we would be well on our way to a new technological revolution.
     
  11. Oct 7, 2005 #10

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Would it work (seek equilibrium, that is) if that were the end view of 3 bar magnets riding in horizontal slots?
     
  12. Oct 7, 2005 #11
    What you're describing could be made fairly easily. 3 bar magnets with all N ends and all S ends together. If the end magnets were fixed and the middle magnet could slide, the middle magnet would behave exactly like a spring if pulled to one side and released. It would eventually come to rest more or less equidistant from the end magnets.
     
  13. Oct 7, 2005 #12

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Thanks, Zoob. That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure if some other effect might interfere when there were 3 magnets instead of just 2.
     
  14. Oct 8, 2005 #13

    Mk

    User Avatar

    Zoob is zooby is zoobie.
     
  15. Oct 8, 2005 #14
    The only Known Perpetual Motion 'Machine' is the Universe itself, going on since time = 0 stopping at time = ∞ or who knows?
     
  16. Oct 8, 2005 #15

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    :uhh: :uhh: :confused: That's possibly misleading. Technically correct, I guess, since time in our universe began with the same incident as everything else, but there was still a beginning and eventually there'll be some kind of end when entropy has fulfilled it's duties. (I think...:confused: )
     
  17. Oct 8, 2005 #16
    But it has NEVER stopped moving, BILLIONS of Years of Motion, all of the atoms, Molecules, masses, moving, all the time, has been that way since the beginning .. .. .. .. .. till the end .. .. .. .. ..
     
  18. Oct 8, 2005 #17

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Aye, there's the rub. 'Perpetual' means 'without end'.:approve:
     
  19. Oct 8, 2005 #18
    .. .. .. .. And if the end, and the beginning, are the same thing, then it is Peeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrpetual! We will all Need to wait just a Little bit to find that out .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

    LD
    .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..... .. .. .. .. ..
     
  20. Oct 8, 2005 #19

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You've got me a bit confused there, but I wonder if this might be starting to drift into philosophy. Defining the beginning and end of time is probably beyond the scope of this forum.
    By the way, why on Earth do you keep leaving that trail of Trix behind you?
     
  21. Oct 9, 2005 #20
    Look! is' ****

    I haven't defined it, simply noted that they could be the same thing, so the 'perpetual' is beyond the scope of human thought. :bugeye:

    As for the trail of trix as you so quaintly put it, it isn't "Trix" it is a Rabbit's footprints 'hopping along' and the other part, is a remnant of my diet! :yuck: :tongue2: :tongue: :blushing: :surprised :biggrin:
    :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Perpetual motion machine
Loading...