Perpetual motion "debunks" rant.

[MrDynamicMan]

A common way to debunk perpetual motion machines is "lol closed system, too much friction, eventually it will slow down" is that, especially on the ones wheres its a ball spinning in a track or similar, is that theres still gravity acting on it, so its not a closed loop.

 

tl:dr gravity makes perpetual motion pragmatically true.

[Curious Pineapple]

It's very possible to build a device that generates more energy that it wastes without using an external source. The problem is they have to be so light weight, it's impossible to use much of the excess energy generated. Magnet motors work great, until a load is applied. You could probably build an overnight phone charger with a magnet motor, but you would likely need to turn the damn thing off so tat all it is doing it charging the battery.

[bob345]

42 minutes ago, MrDynamicMan said:

tl:dr gravity makes perpetual motion pragmatically true.

Would you like to give a real explanation on that? Care to explain how nearly a century of work in physics is wrong? 

[MrDynamicMan]

12 minutes ago, bob345 said:

Would you like to give a real explanation on that? Care to explain how nearly a century of work in physics is wrong? 

Because multiple examples of perpetual motion are not closed loops. They have gravity acting on them, pulling thrm down, then they use a cone shape against a series of ramps to move forward, only using gravity. Its perpetual because there is a constant source of energy in the system; the downward acceleration of the con of gravity.

[bob345]

1 minute ago, MrDynamicMan said:

Because multiple examples of perpetual motion are not closed loops. They have gravity acting on them, pulling thrm down, then they use a cone shape against a series of ramps to move forward, only using gravity. Its perpetual because there is a constant source of energy in the system; the downward acceleration of the con of gravity.

Heres the thing, Gravity is NOT a constant source of energy. Gravity is a force. You never get more energy from the system than you put in.

give this a read, it might help you understand how gravity actually functions as a force.

 

http://sciencequestionswithsurprisinganswers.org/2014/01/08/since-gravity-is-unlimited-can-we-use-it-as-an-infinite-energy-source/

[MrDynamicMan]

10 minutes ago, bob345 said:

Heres the thing, Gravity is NOT a constant source of energy. Gravity is a force. You never get more energy from the system than you put in.

give this a read, it might help you understand how gravity actually functions as a force.

 

http://sciencequestionswithsurprisinganswers.org/2014/01/08/since-gravity-is-unlimited-can-we-use-it-as-an-infinite-energy-source/

That was a very well written article, kudos.

 

in that sense the the potential energy comes from the slope of the ramps.

[Dash Lambda]

No it doesn't.

The total energy in a system remains constant. When an object is in a gravitational field, it has kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy, and for one to increase the other must decrease. So, if an object falls some distance, then it generates an amount of kinetic energy equal to the gravitational energy lost. For it to then reverse its motion and return to its starting height, because the gravitational potential energy is only dependent on distance, it must lose the same amount of kinetic energy. It can never gain energy from that motion.

That's the principle that pendulums depend on, because if it didn't work like that, they wouldn't be able to keep reliable time.

 

If you have a restoring force, say a spring or a gravitational center in an orbit, then the energy can oscillate between kinetic and potential, but it requires a perfect system to keep drag from decreasing the total energy. Because of the minimal drag objects encounter in space, orbits can be very stable, lasting for billions of years -But they also decay.

 

ADDENDUM: I started writing this earlier, before @bob345 posted that article (had to walk a way for a bit). I haven't read it, so I don't know what it says, but if this explanation is redundant, then... Sorry, I had to.

 

1 hour ago, Curious Pineapple said:

It's very possible to build a device that generates more energy that it wastes without using an external source. The problem is they have to be so light weight, it's impossible to use much of the excess energy generated. Magnet motors work great, until a load is applied. You could probably build an overnight phone charger with a magnet motor, but you would likely need to turn the damn thing off so tat all it is doing it charging the battery.

That's not entirely correct. If that could happen, our world would look a lot different.

[Heesleemer]

the sheer lack of understanding in physics in the world terrifies me. 

[Curious Pineapple]

1 hour ago, Dash Lambda said:

That's not entirely correct. If that could happen, our world would look a lot different.

Yeh, we'd all have 12 hour slow phone chargers with an insane magnet field rotating around it!

 

I've been meaning to try and build one for the hell of it, there's a few designs out there that do rotate, but they ain't that fast and if they slow down they just stop dead.

[Dash Lambda]

5 minutes ago, Curious Pineapple said:

Yeah, we'd all have 12 hour slow phone chargers with an insane magnet field rotating around it!

No, we'd have access to free unlimited energy. If that technology existed, then we'd be able to make it more efficient and powerful just like any other power source -Just look at solar, it was uselessly inefficient for a long time, but now we could conceivably power the world with it.

It would also invalidate some of the most fundamental concepts in physics.

[Curious Pineapple]

1 minute ago, Dash Lambda said:

No, we'd have access to free unlimited energy. If that technology existed, then we'd be able to make it more efficient and powerful just like any other power source -Just look at solar, it was uselessly inefficient for a long time, but now we could conceivably power the world with it.

It would also invalidate some of the most fundamental concepts in physics.

Magnet motors do work, what they don't do is anything useful. Like a Stirling engine, they spin themselves but produce barely any access energy in the process. It's not a technology that can be developed as adding more, or more powerful magnets just results in the motor cogging and jamming up. Plus, magnets loose magnetism over time so they just get weaker and weaker.

[divito]

2 hours ago, bob345 said:

Gravity is a force.

I know this is somewhat derailing and nitpicking, but it's not really a force.

[bob345]

12 minutes ago, divito said:

I know this is somewhat derailing and nitpicking, but it's not really a force.

True, it's more of an effect caused by the deformation of space-time by objects with mass.

[kingkickolas]

33 minutes ago, Curious Pineapple said:

Magnet motors do work, what they don't do is anything useful. Like a Stirling engine, they spin themselves but produce barely any access energy in the process. It's not a technology that can be developed as adding more, or more powerful magnets just results in the motor cogging and jamming up. Plus, magnets loose magnetism over time so they just get weaker and weaker.

They work in that they might produce almost all of the energy they consume (very low loss). What they don't do is produce more energy than they consume. That would violate a lot of known laws.

 

 

Dash's post is quite good.

1 hour ago, Dash Lambda said:

No it doesn't.

The total energy in a system remains constant. When an object is in a gravitational field, it has kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy, and for one to increase the other must decrease. So, if an object falls some distance, then it generates an amount of kinetic energy equal to the gravitational energy lost. For it to then reverse its motion and return to its starting height, because the gravitational potential energy is only dependent on distance, it must lose the same amount of kinetic energy. It can never gain energy from that motion.

That's the principle that pendulums depend on, because if it didn't work like that, they wouldn't be able to keep reliable time.

 

If you have a restoring force, say a spring or a gravitational center in an orbit, then the energy can oscillate between kinetic and potential, but it requires a perfect system to keep drag from decreasing the total energy. Because of the minimal drag objects encounter in space, orbits can be very stable, lasting for billions of years -But they also decay.

 

ADDENDUM: I started writing this earlier, before @bob345 posted that article (had to walk a way for a bit). I haven't read it, so I don't know what it says, but if this explanation is redundant, then... Sorry, I had to.

 

That's not entirely correct. If that could happen, our world would look a lot different.

 

[Dash Lambda]

37 minutes ago, Curious Pineapple said:

Magnet motors do work, what they don't do is anything useful. Like a Stirling engine, they spin themselves but produce barely any access energy in the process. It's not a technology that can be developed as adding more, or more powerful magnets just results in the motor cogging and jamming up. Plus, magnets loose magnetism over time so they just get weaker and weaker.

I'm having difficulty finding good documentation, could you please explain exactly how a magnet motor is supposed to work?

And on the topic of Stirling engines, I don't think that's the best example, since the Stirling cycle is actually quite useful.

[Curious Pineapple]

1 minute ago, Dash Lambda said:

I'm having difficulty finding good documentation, could you please explain exactly how a magnet motor is supposed to work?

And on the topic of Stirling engines, I don't think that's the best example, since the Stirling cycle is actually quite useful.

They generally use magnets fixed to the stator like a brushless motor, but instead of field windings, they have more permanent magnets. By using a cam or pushrod to move the "field" magnets further from the stator just before the magnets align, it allows the stator magnet to pass without stopping when the 2 magnets align. Needs fairly weak magnets to work, meaning very little output power.

[AshleyAshes]

4 hours ago, MrDynamicMan said:

A common way to debunk perpetual motion machines is "lol closed system, too much friction, eventually it will slow down" is that, especially on the ones wheres its a ball spinning in a track or similar, is that theres still gravity acting on it, so its not a closed loop.

 

tl:dr gravity makes perpetual motion pragmatically true.

So... What you're trying to say is, you don't understand the arguments at all here, but want to feign intellectual superiority anyway. Got it.

[dalekphalm]

52 minutes ago, Curious Pineapple said:

Magnet motors do work, what they don't do is anything useful. Like a Stirling engine, they spin themselves but produce barely any access energy in the process. It's not a technology that can be developed as adding more, or more powerful magnets just results in the motor cogging and jamming up. Plus, magnets loose magnetism over time so they just get weaker and weaker.

I'm not sure what a Stirling Engine has to do with perpetual motion? A Stirling Engine needs external heat to sustain the process. A perpetual motion machine, by definition, requires no external force.

[Curious Pineapple]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

I'm not sure what a Stirling Engine has to do with perpetual motion? A Stirling Engine needs external heat to sustain the process. A perpetual motion machine, by definition, requires no external force.

I meant as a comparison for power output. Add any real load and it will struggle.

[Clanscorpia]

*off topic* but my schools priest compared "Gods" love to a perpetual motion machine lol

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, Curious Pineapple said:

I meant as a comparison for power output. Add any real load and it will struggle.

Depends on what you mean by "real load". Stirling Engines have a wide range of practical applications. In fact, there were some Swedish diesel submarines in the 1990's that used Stirling Engines to charge the batteries during submersed activity.

[Curious Pineapple]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

Depends on what you mean by "real load". Stirling Engines have a wide range of practical applications. In fact, there were some Swedish diesel submarines in the 1990's that used Stirling Engines to charge the batteries during submersed activity.

It was a bad comparison really

[corrado33]

This thread exemplifies the problem with many people today. They use ignorance as an argument against science. Then, they stick with ignorance in defiance of any evidence to the contrary thrown their way. People honestly believe they are smarter than the scientists paid to study this stuff.

 

"Science says perpetual motion machines are impossible." 

 

Ignorant pleb: "Well I don't believe all that science mumbo jumbo, I watched a video on youtube!"

 

You can't argue with that.

 

So the ignorance is spread because science doesn't have a counter-argument to "I don't believe in science."

[dalekphalm]

4 minutes ago, Curious Pineapple said:

It was a bad comparison really

I'll agree with that statement.

 

You're still going to have to provide additional sources and/or evidence for a Magnet based motor creating surplus power - WITHOUT using an external power/fuel source.

[Curious Pineapple]

I'll have evidence if I make a working one. Don't really trust the one-video youtube accounts that show them, but it's something I thought may work many years ago, just not really had much motivation to bother as at best, it will very slowly charge a battery or possibly light an LED. Been thinking of attaching a small generator to the hamster wheel to see how much energy it can generate. Maybe do a comparison. Is the future magnets or hamsters?