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

Principles of Pseudo perpetual motion

  1. Jun 6, 2004 #1
    HI Guys,

    I have nothing to do ( home with the flue ) so I thought I'd post this and discuss the principles of PPM devices.

    From what I understand the only way to acheive PPM is to generate a continuously changing event horizon ( Action horison )
    This can be shown by example using solar temps and shade at the web page link below


    Any one wanting to seriously discuss the principles I am suggesting or talk about some of their own is most welcome to do so.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 6, 2004 #2
    heck if you're gonna use the sun for power, any solar cell will do...

    not sure i'm reading the proposition correctly :O
  4. Jun 6, 2004 #3
    Ram, the diagrams shown are only to help describe the principles behind pseudo perp.Motion......The sun is shown as a way of using a freely available energy to change the magnets attraction.
    The diagram is just a way of showing the three principles that i think are essential to acheiving a ppm.

    Another way of creating the magnetic differential for example is to alter the distance between the disc(s) and the cavity plates preferably with out using inputed energy such as a magnetic seperator device of some sort that does the same job as the temperature.
    Instead of showing a change in attraction I showed it as a change in temperature. So if you read the numbers and give them a magnetic atttraction value you will see what I mean.
    Or maybe there is another way of acheiving a contiously changing action horizon?
  5. Jun 7, 2004 #4
    I think strongly that magnetic field are in continuous motion. But the way to detect this motion is by placing an electric charge particle such as an electron in the field. This electron spiral around a magnetic force line. The stronger (denser) the force lines, the smaller the radius of spiral. But this motion is the motion of charge not the motion of magnetic poles (monopoles). My question is how do we detect the motion of magnetic poles. Do they move at all? Why can't we isolate them? Somehow the motion of magnetic poles is related to some sort of perpetual motion.

    But it is also true that magnetic field can exist only if there is some charges moving (current density). But in "empty" space, there is no charge and no current yet there is electromagnetic field. Since there must be some sort of "charge" or "current" in vacuum in order for the EM field to exist, these "charge" and "current" must be some kind of properties of space itself. For purposes of distinction, we can call them "space charge" and "space current."

    Regardless of its mass and size, The space charge always have the absolute value of 1/6. So a particle like an electron is composed of 7 (-1/6) and 1 (+1/6) space charge giving a net charge of -1. The photon is made up of 4 (-1/6) and 4 (+1/6) giving a net charge of zero. The up quark is 5 (+1/6) and 1 (-1/6) net of +2/3. The down quark is 3 (-1/6) and 1 (+1/6) net of -1/3. The families of fermions came about by their mass differences. This mass difference is made possible by the existence of energy level for the space charge. For example, the electron has a charge of -1 can exist in a variety of energy levels that give them different mass values. The higher masses of the electron are known as the muon and the tau.
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2004
  6. Jun 7, 2004 #5
    I have for a long time now held the belief that a magnet is an object that fails to conform to the space it takes up thus it's field is actually space time distortion.

    Just as an example of abstract application
    If we imagne
    The north pole of a magnet is "future space time" and the south pole is "Past space time"

    The reason the south and north poles are attracted to each other is that when they get together the centre of time exists between the two attracted poles. The poles are both attracted to iron because the steel offers a centre of time to both poles.

    The reason why using both poles in a PPM device fails is that the poles only seek one thing and that is the centre of time. Thus time and movement is conserved and they eventually become still.

    Just talking a little sh*t here Ok...not too serious.

    With PMM devices removing the need for poles is the first step. If you need to reverse poles you are on your way to a stationary mobile.
  7. Jun 7, 2004 #6
    i think the space distortion is a good idea to run with

    take it a little more serious and see where you end up with it

    i bet that can take you to some interesting hypothesis
  8. Jun 7, 2004 #7
    the reason why we can't insulate magnetic fields properly is to do so we would have to mitigate a space time distortion...hard to do hey?

    Bythe same token if we can learn how a magnet does this we would then know how to manipulate space time......and this has certain interesting ramifications I think
  9. Jun 7, 2004 #8
    any ideas as to how to show a magnetis field as a space time distortion in a scientific way? Prove that it is a space time distortion?

    Do magnetic fields bend light for example?

    Just looking at a strong magnet gives no indication of light distortion ( poss. to small to see maybe)
  10. Jun 7, 2004 #9
    well gravity bending light you need something as powerful as a black hole.

    so you'd probably need a big freaking magnet.

    earth sized like creating aurora borealis... mebbe
  11. Jun 7, 2004 #10
    The magnetic force is given by [itex]F_B = q v \times B [/itex] where [itex]q[/itex] is the electric charge, [itex] v [/itex] is the velocity of the charge, [itex] B [/itex] is the magnetic field.

    The magnetic force increases if the amount of charge increases, or the velocity of charge increases, or the magnetic field increases. There does not exist in nature a charge as big as a marble. The unit of electric charge is [itex] 1.6 \times 10^{-19}[/itex] coulomb. The maximum speed is the speed of light in vacuum, a very big magnet is required for high magnetic field. Although a magnetic force is [itex] 10^{34}[/itex] stronger than gravity, it would still need a big magnet to lift an object the size of a house unless a way is found to increase the magnetic flux density at the local region of the house and another thing the house must have a net electric charge or ferromagnetic.
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2004
  12. Jun 7, 2004 #11
    magnets are used to attract or distract cathode rays yes? Thinking CRT or even a TV....( I don't know the basic principles here but maybe you do?)
  13. Jun 7, 2004 #12
    nah, they attract or repel electrons which make light by hitting the phosphor capsules inside the screen

    there's an emitter and a magnetic director then the electons fly out in a "scan" pattern to hit the screen.

    would be interesting to make the biggest most efficient most powerful electromagnet ever and then put things in front of it to see how they're affected.
  14. Jun 7, 2004 #13
    A brief account of how I do this in the following:

    Assumptions: An electric force exists, [itex]F_E[/itex]. A magnetic force exists, [itex]F_B[/itex]. A unit of electric charge exists, [itex]q[/itex]. The complete electromagnetic force is given by Lorentz force:

    [tex] F_L = qE + qv \times B [/tex]

    But the gravity force is proportional to the difference of electric and magnetic force by:

    [tex] F_G = k(F_E - F_B) = k(qE - qv \times B) = kq(E - v \times B) [/tex]


    the square energy quantum given by

    [tex] E^2 = \psi_E \times F_E \cdot \psi_B \times F_B [/tex]

    expanding by Lagrange's identity gives a term factor as [itex]( \psi_E \cdot \psi_B ) (F_E \cdot F_B ) [/itex] where [itex] \psi_E \cdot \psi_B [/itex] indicates the spacetime distortion relating to the spacetime interval and curvature.
  15. Jun 7, 2004 #14
    I don't get the term "pseudo perpetual motion". How do you define it? Are you simply talking about something that looks like it is running with no imput of energy?

    About magnetic fields:

    Magnetic fields are made of electric fields. Every electron radiates an electric field. You can imagine the electric field as invisible hairs that radiate out from the electron, from all parts of it equally out in all directions. The length of all the "hairs" of any electron is from the electron to infinity. The electric lines of force (the hairs) always try to maintain an equal distance from all other electric lines of force. They can never touch or cross. When you accelerate an electron, a wave of energy travels down the electric lines of force. That wave is electromagnetic energy. The wave has different energy depending on how sharply the electron was accelerated, starting with radio waves, through visible light, up to gamma rays. This is why there can be electromagnetic energy in space with no electrons. The electric lines from electrons are attracted to protons. Most electric lines radiating from most electrons are not flailing around loose in space, but are tied up by their attraction to protons.

    The analogy to lines or hairs only goes so far, though. In some situations it can almost be taken literally. In others the lines are better taken conceptually as representing the direction in which the influence of the electron will act.
  16. Jun 7, 2004 #15
    I guess it is all about the extreme uses of the word "perpetual"
    The only entity that comes close to being perpetual and even that has been doubted is the universe itself.

    I suppoose the best way to put is in terms of energy cost.

    If I built a device that ran with out cost to me other than by the construction of such then I would consider it as a pseudo perpetual device.An example of a device that would produce output with out input of energy can be seen at this link if you are ineterested.

    Whilst this application of forces generates the Ideal PPM and whilst it has not actually been built and tested it is deemed to fail because the forces would equalise each other and the mobile will become still. ( yet to be proven )

    I drew this up about 2 years ago as a classic PPM device. To demonstrate some fundemental principles which is the subject of this thread. There is a solution to it's design, but I haven't worked out how to apply it yet.

    So I am suggesting that PPM devices can range from self contained closed systems with energy output (the ideal) to open systems, such as tidal and solar which are really almost as good ( ideal )
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2004
  17. Jun 7, 2004 #16
    i don't think that one would work

    it would have to be a frictionless interior. with any friction (or say a turbine to extract energy) the system would soon come to a rest state where the downward force of gravity equals the side pulling force against the wall at a certain angle, creating equilibrium and stopping the machine.
  18. Jun 7, 2004 #17
    You may have seen a "Crookes glass". It's a glass bulb with the air evacuated. Inside is a rotor with four vanes. The vanes are painted silver on on side and black on the other.
    As long as it is in a reasonably warm room the rotor turns non stop. It looks like perpetual motion but one side of each vane gets hotter than the other because it is painted black. The little bit of air left in the bulb is continually being heated when it touches the black side of the vanes and pushes against them, moving the rotor.

    Buy one of these. 5 or 6 dollars. It will run for the rest of your life at no cost to you.
  19. Jun 7, 2004 #18
    But can you see just how close it comes to functioning.

    The inner cylinder will find a point that I would call a teeter point eventually and would sit there reacting to any external forces by wobbling a little.

    In other words the device is too stable and too symetrical. Another actvity has to be taking place simultaneously to provoke constant rolling.
  20. Jun 7, 2004 #19
    Can't say that I have but it sounds plausable.
  21. Jun 7, 2004 #20
    this reminds me og that old chinese device that employs a few candles that set up an updraft turning a propeller

    But crookes glass uses ambient temp so it woudl fall into a different category.

    What would physics call this device ( crooles glass)....a perpetum mobile?
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Principles of Pseudo perpetual motion
  1. Perpetual Motion. (Replies: 4)

  2. Perpetual Motion (Replies: 2)

  3. Perpetual "Motion" (Replies: 11)

  4. Perpetual motion (Replies: 3)