Unlimited Energy: A Perfect Magnet-Powered Newton's Cradle in a Vacuum

  • Thread starter Thread starter rollcast
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Machine
AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the concept of a magnet-powered Newton's cradle operating in a perfect vacuum, inspired by a fictional representation from X-Men. It questions whether such a system could run indefinitely after an initial energy input. However, it highlights that due to Lenz's Law, the motion of metallic objects in a magnetic field generates an opposing induced magnetic field, which would eventually halt movement. Additionally, the cradle's collisions are not perfectly inelastic, resulting in energy loss with each impact. Therefore, the system would not be able to sustain perpetual motion.
rollcast
Messages
403
Reaction score
0
If we imagine a newtowns cradle now change it to be like the one from xmen without the strings, I know this was cgi but let's imagine it was placed in a perfect vacuum and was operated with permanent magnets that won't degrade.

Would this reamain running forever after the inital energy input
 
Physics news on Phys.org
rc1102 said:
If we imagine a newtowns cradle now change it to be like the one from xmen without the strings, I know this was cgi but let's imagine it was placed in a perfect vacuum and was operated with permanent magnets that won't degrade.

Would this reamain running forever after the inital energy input

When metallic objects move due to forces of a magnetic field, the metallic object also creates its own induced magnetic field (it's motion in the magnetic field induced a current that creates its own magnetic field - see Lenz's Law). This in turn will try to oppose its motion. So eventually, something like this will stop.

Zz.
 
Don't forget that the collisions between the balls in the Newton's cradle are not perfectly inelastic...so a little bit of energy is used up every time they collide.
 
comparing a flat solar panel of area 2π r² and a hemisphere of the same area, the hemispherical solar panel would only occupy the area π r² of while the flat panel would occupy an entire 2π r² of land. wouldn't the hemispherical version have the same area of panel exposed to the sun, occupy less land space and can therefore increase the number of panels one land can have fitted? this would increase the power output proportionally as well. when I searched it up I wasn't satisfied with...
Back
Top