You guys are gonna think im either stupid or crazy

[Antonio Lao]

Too many factors even for a physisist.

Not for an economist. For him, the more factors there are the merrier it gets. These factors are what keep them busy and employed. They even can win the Nobel Prize. So all economists won't like what your machine can do.

 

[Arsonade]

i'm not sure myself but i thought perpetual motion machine meant that you put energy into it once and it would continue forever, not that it got its motive energy from an infinite or permanent source.

if you're getting your energy from magnets then what you have is a magnetic motion machine, not a perpetual motion machine.

if you're putting power into a closed system and the net result is some form of positive "work" such that you remove the power and work continues "perpetually" then you would have a PMM.

i designed a perpetual motion machine once but never got around to building it.

consisted of magnets, a surface almost frictionless, and some toggles.

[N-o-S] (_____________________[N---S]__)[S-o-N]

3 magnets, 2 on the outside and one inside a near frictionless container.

the magnet in the center would move away from the "like pole" on the right and accelerate to the other end attracted to the opposing pole. when it hit the end it would also hit a toggle that would rotate the magnets on both ends 180 degrees. maybe add some springs in the ends of the tubes to return some of the force from hitting the ends.

in any case when i presented this as a PMM to my physics prof he said it wouldn't be a real PMM because it uses magnetic force

First of all, where does it say that a perpetual motion mechine cannot use magnetic force? why not? it the thing runs forever and give off electricity, who cares what's making it go providing that it is self contained? fine, if you would like to put the definition of "magnetic motion mechine" go right ahead, the fact is that this thing runs forever and gives off energy forever, I see no reason why a PMM can't use magnetic force."i'm not sure myself but i thought perpetual motion machine meant that you put energy into it once and it would continue forever" no, that's not a nececaty.

Adam

P.S. hey, you know what, i know why ur PMM wouldn't work, it would require more energy to flip those two magnets than could possibly be produced in getting the centrel magnet to move, thin bout it, if there's a north and south pole together, the energy produced will not be nearly enough to flip one over against it's "will", plus flip the magnet on the other side, no, this PMM wouldn't work, it would take too much energy to flip the magnets.

P.P.S by the way, you may have it in a vacume, but the thing that that central magnet is sliding on provides friction, evertually, if the outer magnets did flip, the constant force of the magnet smashing into the side of the containor coupled with the drag of the central magnet on the floor of the containor would eventually smash your centrel magnets to bits. bottomline- this PMMidea has more holes in it than swiss cheese in a gun fight, sorry.

 

[Arsonade]

Not for an economist. For him, the more factors there are the merrier it gets. These factors are what keep them busy and employed. They even can win the Nobel Prize. So all economists won't like what your machine can do.

well, honestly, what would happen is that money would be taken away from almost all energy situations except for maybe dams and wind power, instead to be replaced my me. It would not be a monopoly because no one would be forced to use my source of energy, it would just be more efficient, less wastefull, and cheeper than everything elce.

Adam

 

[Antonio Lao]

That's the promise land in this ocean of energy instability!

 

[Arsonade]

That's the promise land in this ocean of energy instability!

I sure hope so lol, only if i can get the money and the pattent needed to get us all there.

Adam

 

[Antonio Lao]

I'll be hoping to see you in the land of enchanting PMMs, if I live long enough, since I'm not wearing the ring of power or immortality like what Frodo Baggins had done.

 

[Arsonade]

I'll be hoping to see you in the land of enchanting PMMs, if I live long enough, since I'm not wearing the ring of power or immortality like what Frodo Baggins had done.

lol man I am just going to assume ur not makin fun of me aight lol, i think that after i get a car/insurence ect, ill start gettin $ together for the parts,it'l be a chalenge but i can do this.

Adam

 

[Antonio Lao]

May the force be with you, always.

 

[Arsonade]

May the force be with you, always.

...lol ok

Adam

 

[Antonio Lao]

The vacuum is the opposite to your PMM. The vacuum is a machine of perpetual no motion but the mystery is that it can still fluctuate. And this fluctuation is also perpetual.

The vacuum does contain an infinite amount of zero-point energy. If these can be added together then it is the same as a PMM. Right now nobody know how to add all these zero-point energy. This is because energy density as a physical concept cannot be quantified by addition.

 

[Arsonade]

The vacuum is the opposite to your PMM. The vacuum is a machine of perpetual no motion but the mystery is that it can still fluctuate. And this fluctuation is also perpetual.

The vacuum does contain an infinite amount of zero-point energy. If these can be added together then it is the same as a PMM. Right now nobody know how to add all these zero-point energy. This is because energy density as a physical concept cannot be quantified by addition.

Im not sure where this particular convo came from but i do know that hundeds of microscopic particles pop in and out of existence canstantly in vacumes, is that what you meen? and what does this have to do w/ my PMM?

Adam

 

[Antonio Lao]

A force cannot be detected within the vacuum. So it's a no-force situation. On the hand, a PMM, at the least, has to have a constant force forever.

 

[Arsonade]

A force cannot be detected within the vacuum. So it's a no-force situation. On the hand, a PMM, at the least, has to have a constant force forever.

are you trying to tell me that in a vacuum there can be no magnetic force? and if so why in the world is that? magnets don't need air or a certain amount of presure to work

Adam

 

[baffledMatt]

Interesting thread.

Adam, I think you really should go to an open minded professional physicist you trust, make them sign a non-disclosure form (just in case?), and have them take you through why it won't work. If you turn out to be right then good for you and I wish you every success and Nobel prize (at least physics and peace will be yours) in the future. And if you are wrong then hopefully you should really learn something from the experience - not to mention a bucket load of physics.

Just remember that we all learn from our mistakes!

Matt

p.s. if you don't know how to write/obtain a non-disclosure form simply ask the professional physicist as this is the sort of thing they often deal with as part of their job.

 

[Arsonade]

Interesting thread.

Adam, I think you really should go to an open minded professional physicist you trust, make them sign a non-disclosure form (just in case?), and have them take you through why it won't work. If you turn out to be right then good for you and I wish you every success and Nobel prize (at least physics and peace will be yours) in the future. And if you are wrong then hopefully you should really learn something from the experience - not to mention a bucket load of physics.

Just remember that we all learn from our mistakes!

Matt

p.s. if you don't know how to write/obtain a non-disclosure form simply ask the professional physicist as this is the sort of thing they often deal with as part of their job.

Thanks i will, unfortunately i have yet to meet a physisist i can trust because other than you guys i know no physicists lol. I honestly have looked at this problem at every posible angle and i truly believe that i have it, Now i do actually know someone in the statistics department of physics whom i can most likely trst, but I am not sure he would be the right person to ask, any ideas on this?

Adam

 

[baffledMatt]

Thanks i will, unfortunately i have yet to meet a physisist i can trust because other than you guys i know no physicists lol

Trusting the physicist is not your biggest concern as a properly written non-disclosure should protect you pretty well. Your main problem will be finding someone willing to take the time to look at the thing and then have the patience to explain to your satisfaction why it won't work. Sounds like your statistics person may be able to help locate someone perhaps?

I honestly have looked at this problem at every posible angle and i truly believe that i have it

Which is why it is so important you find out why you are wrong.

Well, good luck anyway.

Matt

 

[Antonio Lao]

are you trying to tell me that in a vacuum there can be no magnetic force? and if so why in the world is that? magnets don't need air or a certain amount of presure to work

The magnetic field of the vacuum cannot be separated from the electric field. Both appear together as electromagnetic field of the vacuum where both

\nabla \cdot E = 0

and

\nabla \cdot B = 0

That is to say that both electric and magnetic field are sourceless. The charge density is zero and the current density is also zero in vacuum. In matter, it's a different story altogether.

 

[baffledMatt]

are you trying to tell me that in a vacuum there can be no magnetic force? and if so why in the world is that? magnets don't need air or a certain amount of presure to work

And to further confound matters you can even have 'EM' effects when there is no E or B field at all! This leads to something called the Aharonov Bohm effect which was predicted in the late 50's and observed in the 80's. Pretty weird stuff.

Matt

 

[Arsonade]

The magnetic field of the vacuum cannot be separated from the electric field. Both appear together as electromagnetic field of the vacuum where both

\nabla \cdot E = 0

and

\nabla \cdot B = 0

That is to say that both electric and magnetic field are sourceless. The charge density is zero and the current density is also zero in vacuum. In matter, it's a different story altogether.

"And to further confound matters you can even have 'EM' effects when there is no E or B field at all! This leads to something called the Aharonov Bohm effect which was predicted in the late 50's and observed in the 80's. Pretty weird stuff.

Matt"


im still not completely sure of your points, magnets have worked in vacumes before.

Adam

 

[Arsonade]

Trusting the physicist is not your biggest concern as a properly written non-disclosure should protect you pretty well. Your main problem will be finding someone willing to take the time to look at the thing and then have the patience to explain to your satisfaction why it won't work. Sounds like your statistics person may be able to help locate someone perhaps?



Which is why it is so important you find out why you are wrong.

Well, good luck anyway.

Matt

Ya ok thanks ill do that

Adam

 

[energia]

you could call my girlfriend's mouth a perpetual motion machine

 

[Arsonade]

you could call my girlfriend's mouth a perpetual motion machine

ya but i think only you could harness that energy lolololol

Adam

 

[Antonio Lao]

Without going too far afield, the stars are really PMMs. They are sustained by very strong magnetic field to balance the forces from gravity and radiation.

 

[Arsonade]

Without going too far afield, the stars are really PMMs. They are sustained by very strong magnetic field to balance the forces from gravity and radiation.

lol no theyre not, stars will either burn up or explode, they don't last forever, if you meen the process of stars exploding, then forming nebulas, then forming new stars being perpetual, yeah i guess, but then, isn't the water cycle also pertpetual motion? those are very general descriptions of Perpetual motion.

Adam

 

[berty]

Fully closed system or not?

i know about einstein's theory of relativity and the first 2 laws of thermodynamics, but believe it or not i have made a perpetual motion mechine. at this point, i bet most of you are thinking about closing this message, but i really would like some feedback on your reasoning about my invention

For a perpetual motion machine to work you have to satisfy all the restraints placed on such a machine by the laws of physics, especially entropy. This means that you have to take into account all the factors present in the only fully closed system we know of which is the entire Universe. When all relevant factors are considered, it is discovered that it is never possible to extract more energy from such a machine than is lost.
But is this strictly true .....?

As various respondents have pointed out the Universe has no actual edge. Therefore, as the initial expansion of the Universe was faster than light, there is probably something beyond the "event horizon" of the Universe.

If this is true can the Universe be accurately described as being fully closed?

Also, would it be possible that under this premise entropy may not always lead to complete disorder and that it may, in principle, be possible to a contruct a perpetual motion machine?

 

[Antonio Lao]

Malfunction stars explode because they are sick. The balance of forces cannot be maintained. All machines, artificial (man-made) or natural, are subject to imperfection, defect, internal flaw, and chemical impurities, crystal lattice deformation and many other imperfections of structural configuration. In this sense, even the universe is not perfect. The universe will eventually suffer the consequence of the "heat death" at maximum entropy. Then it will start to contract.

 

[Arsonade]

For a perpetual motion machine to work you have to satisfy all the restraints placed on such a machine by the laws of physics, especially entropy. This means that you have to take into account all the factors present in the only fully closed system we know of which is the entire Universe. When all relevant factors are considered, it is discovered that it is never possible to extract more energy from such a machine than is lost.
But is this strictly true .....?

As various respondents have pointed out the Universe has no actual edge. Therefore, as the initial expansion of the Universe was faster than light, there is probably something beyond the "event horizon" of the Universe.

If this is true can the Universe be accurately described as being fully closed?

Also, would it be possible that under this premise entropy may not always lead to complete disorder and that it may, in principle, be possible to a contruct a perpetual motion machine?

Have you read the rest of this post yet? entropy has come up, yes this is in a closed system, i recognise your logic that there really is no such thing as a closed system, but it only needs to be relitively closed so that air cannot get in and that if aitr does get in, it is imidiatly sucked out. my PMM would not put out as much energy as was put into it in say a minute, but it would keep going, for example, let's say that the energy in the magnets used are 12,000 watts, my PMM would probably put out only 10,000 watts, the point is however, while the 12,000 watts is applied ony once to the magnets, it keeps the flow of 10,000 watts flowing long after the first 12,000 are created, its like I am getting as much energy as i can and then hitting the reset buton, not losing the energy intiially put out.

Adam

P.S. if this confused anyone, i am just saying that it would take a short amount of time to create the same amount of energy that went into making these magnets, but after the amount of energy has been met, it will continue to give off energy, thus creating more energy than put into the magnets.

 

[Arsonade]

Malfunction stars explode because they are sick. The balance of forces cannot be maintained. All machines, artificial (man-made) or natural, are subject to imperfection, defect, internal flaw, and chemical impurities, crystal lattice deformation and many other imperfections of structural configuration. In this sense, even the universe is not perfect. The universe will eventually suffer the consequence of the "heat death" at maximum entropy. Then it will start to contract.

...ok...but what does this have to do with my PMM?

Adam

 

[Alkatran]

So, let me get this straight. You're Perpetual motion machine, which is powered by magnets (a magnetic field requires an electric current?), is given X energy then gives out Y energy/sec.

I can't think of any way to do this. How are you supposed to get the energy out? Wouldn't this mean taking energy from the contraption? Wouldn't this have the opposite effect of giving the contraption energy (slowing it down, instead of speeding it up).

I submit that if it worked the way you said, it wouldn't gain energy due to energy being entered, for the same reason it woudn't lose energy from having energy harnessed from it.

 

[Antonio Lao]

...ok...but what does this have to do with my PMM?

When the universe dies, so will your PMM.