Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: realmswalker on 06/06/2006 03:35:55

Title: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: realmswalker on 06/06/2006 03:35:55
So...
I think i have devised a perpetual motion device.
It uses a thing called ferrofluid, a liquid attracted to magnetic fields. A tube is filled with ferrofluid, and held there by permanent magnets. Then a ball less dense than the ferro fluid is placed a tthe bottum, it shoots to the top, because of boyancy. Once it reaches the top, it goes down another tube, from this fall it gains sufficient velocity to break through back into the ferrofluid, restarting the process.
Heres a picture i made:

The gray stuff is the ferrofluid, the black squares are magnets holding it in place. Of course it would be different proportions and sizes and such...but it gives you the general idea.
I donno why this wouldnt work...aside from that pesky first law of thermodynamics... (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg47.imageshack.us%2Fimg47%2F8941%2Fperpetualmotiondevice4lc.png&hash=b16b0e6f83f22edf68672dbdb0434388)
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: science_guy on 06/06/2006 19:18:46
What would the use for this kind of device be?  Maybe if you did it with liquids and turbines, you could generate electricity.  As for the design you have, i dont see how it wouldn't work.

E=MC2... m=deg/360 X C... C= PiD

therefore E=deg/360 X 2(PiD)
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: realmswalker on 07/06/2006 00:00:54
what use would there be for a perpetual motion device?
The ball could perhaps hit a paddle and turn a turbine while it was falling downwards.
heh
How would you say this wouldnt work? because by i cant figure out a reason why this wouldnt work...
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: science_guy on 07/06/2006 09:01:24
read carefully.  I never said it wouldn't work.  I said i cant see how it wouldn't work.  Good idea, though, you should patent it.

Oh! I see one problem:  Can you make it go around the tube fast enough to generate a significant amount of electricity?

E=MC2... m=deg/360 X C... C= PiD

therefore E=deg/360 X 2(PiD)
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Roy P on 07/06/2006 11:51:28
Surely the problem here is the weight of the ball -- having to break through, what would have to be, a pretty strong valve holding back the ferrofluid?

__________________________________________________________
Roy P
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Roy P on 07/06/2006 13:19:42
Plus, of course, the added problem of the drop in volume of the liquid as a ball is released. Actually there are lots of problems. The surface of the ferrofluid would have to be above the level of the tube that the ball is ejected into. You've cheated in your diagram; the ball exiting the fluid is magically rising above the level of ferrofluid.

__________________________________________________________
Roy P
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: science_guy on 07/06/2006 18:07:31
hmmm...

Thats a good point, Roy.  You would either have to have a dense ball to break into the ferrofluid at the bottom, making it not leave at the top, or have a less dense ball, so the force of the density differences would launce the ball up past the surface, but then it might not break through at the bottom.

E=MC2... m=deg/360 X C... C= PiD

therefore E=deg/360 X 2(PiD)
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: realmswalker on 07/06/2006 21:56:44
Roy, the ball would be launched slightly upward upon exiting the ferrofluid (which has a consistency of about that of oil).
Like science_guy said, the main problem i could see would be finding somthing able to pop out of the top enough to get over the hump, but dense enough to break back into the ferrofluid, im not sure what the surface tension would be like, but i might do some tests and figure it out when i get som excess cash (ferrofluid is  a tad expensive, about 25$ for 50 ml).
Im thinking perhaps a rubber bouncy ball would work, assuming it floats in oil(i dont know if it does).
Ill do some tests, and see if it works!
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: realmswalker on 07/06/2006 21:58:53
Oh and to science guys second post, about making it go around fast enough to generate signifigant electricity:
Well assuming this did work, then you could easily have tons of them all turning the same turbine, so the interval between each ball turning a fan thing would be small enough that it would work, probably
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: ukmicky on 07/06/2006 22:58:33
Your device uses Magnets and magnets contain stored energy ,the potental energy stored in the magnets is converted into kinetic energy in the fluid and will have to be replenished at some stage by replacing the magnets, therefore your device isn't a Perpetual motion Device...  if you use permanant magnets the viscosity of the ferrofluid would permanantly increase as the magnetic field is applied so the ball would probably not be able to penetrate it or float to the surface

Secondly your fluid levels in the diagram are not where they would naturally be as some would cling to the ball as it went over the top lowering the level and raising the height that the ball will have to jump.

Thirdly if the ball could jump and pop out of the fluid at the top , its going to go straight up and not straight up and a little bit over to the left.[:)]

And lastly you cant get free energy.

Michael
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 08/06/2006 00:20:33
That Micky is good, isn't he! [:)]

Brand new forum at
http://beaverlandforum.y4a.net
More than just science
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: ukmicky on 08/06/2006 00:23:22
NO


Michael
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: another_someone on 08/06/2006 00:29:10
quote:
Originally posted by ukmicky
And lastly the viscosity of the ferrofluid vastly increases as an magnetic field is applied so the ball would probably not be able to penetrate it or float to the surface.



The bigger problem is that as the ball penetrates the ferrofluid, it would have to displace some fluid – where does that fluid go, and whet energy is used to displace it?

It cannot display the fluid outward, since to do so it would risk losing the fluid from the column altogether, thus  the assumption must be the displacement must be upward (i.e. the ball would have to shift the whole column of ferrofluid up by enough to give it room to enter the column).  Although it will recover this energy (excluding anything lost to friction, viscosity, etc.) as it moves up the column, but in doing so, the journey up the column can only, at very best, recover energy it has had to use in entering the column; and thus, it is not gaining any new energy.



George
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: realmswalker on 08/06/2006 02:45:36
so why wouldnt this work then, what would happen, would it just slow down and stop?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: science_guy on 08/06/2006 18:19:05
maybe if you did a normal fluid, without magnets, and the balls are passing through some sort of a funnel that will let the ball through one way, but will not let the water out.  Any water spilled when the ball goes through can be collected in a drain and brought back to the top somehow.  That requires no magnetism, and the only energy used to pump the spilled water could be generated by the wheel istelf, and excess energy will be used in whatever you are powering.

And for the popping up, it could be easily solved by putting a board or plate at the top that will control the bounce with an angle.

E=MC2... m=deg/360 X C... C= PiD

therefore E=deg/360 X 2(PiD)
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: another_someone on 08/06/2006 18:45:01
quote:
Originally posted by science_guy

maybe if you did a normal fluid, without magnets, and the balls are passing through some sort of a funnel that will let the ball through one way, but will not let the water out.  Any water spilled when the ball goes through can be collected in a drain and brought back to the top somehow.  That requires no magnetism, and the only energy used to pump the spilled water could be generated by the wheel istelf, and excess energy will be used in whatever you are powering.



The problem of the displacement of fluid when the ball is inserted made no assumption about the influence of the magnetism itself, it was only about the energy required to insert the ball into the column of water (and assumed the magnetism was merely having the effect of a spring loaded valve).

As you say, you would use energy to pump the spillage back up to the top, but the assumption that you would have any excess energy with which to operate the pump I doubt will stand up to any rigorous analysis, although I don't myself have all the skills with which to do that analysis.

Assuming the device was totally 100% efficient, then I suspect you could maintain perpetual motion, but with an absolute energy balance, no excess and no loss.  In reality, the device will be subject to many sources of frictional loss which will rapidly dissipate the energy.

quote:

And for the popping up, it could be easily solved by putting a board or plate at the top that will control the bounce with an angle.



If you could generate enough inertia to be able to do that, then yes you could deflect the upward thrust to a sideways thrust (in exactly the same way that you are deflecting the downwards trajectory of the balls into a lateral movement in order to insert the balls back into the column).  I would not suggest a board, since that is likely to create more frictional losses, but if the balls themselves were magnetised, then you could use a magnetic field to deflect them.



George
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: ukmicky on 09/06/2006 00:14:36
quote:
And for the popping up, it could be easily solved by putting a board or plate at the top that will control the bounce with an angle.



Just by doing that one thing will make the mechanism less than 100 hundred percent efficient and therefore unworkable as the act of the ball hitting something as it pops out of the fluid will generate heat through friction which will then be lost from the system to the outside environment. Meaning the machine then has to generate energy from nothing and be say 101 percent efficient in order to make up the loses. It can't work


Michael
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 20/06/2006 21:42:13
Someone on another forum thought of something similar.

Take a large container of light oil.  At the top rim and bottom edge mount a wheel.  Take multiple steel balls containing nitrogen at normal atmospheric pressure and connect them using a strong rubber hose that also engulfs the steel buoys kinda like a sausage.  So you want it so the buoys enter the container from an opening at the bottom of the container and runs up through the oil to the top wheel then back down on the outside of the container to the bottom wheel.  You then have an inverted rubber cone with the wide end creating a seal with the bottom of the container and the point of the cone pointing up with an opening equal to that of the diameter of the hose connecting the buoys.  The weight of the oil will try to invert the cone but will be unable to.  The cone will be stretchy enough to allow the buoys to pass through while maintaining a seal with the engulfing hose.  The buoys will have buoyancy while on the inside of the container (creating lift) but will have weight and get pulled down by gravity on the outside of the container.  There will be resistance for the buoys to enter through this opening however this can be overcame by having a sufficiant number of buoys submerged at one time.  The combined force of buoyancy acting on each buoy can add up to overcome this resistance.  Gravity acting on them on the way down should be efficiant enough to overcome the friction in the bearing in each wheel.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: ukmicky on 20/06/2006 21:56:38
Draw it and we will tell you why it wont work

Michael
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: realmswalker on 20/06/2006 22:35:29
precursor your description made my mind spin in circles perpetually.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 20/06/2006 23:36:35
As I said it's not my design so I'll give ya the link they gave in the other forum.  

http://www.geocities.com/drypress/Inventions_PerpetualMotionMachine.html

I have my own ideas that I discussed briefly (I use that term loosely) on the other forum.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=6426&st=15
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 21/06/2006 00:36:19
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi8.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa8%2FKrysandjoe%2Funtitled.jpg&hash=7cc58b69464f023fa3ee1eb134c2837c)

Just thought I would help out your design there.  If one ball isn't heavy enough (even with the momentum) than more than one might work.  The weight of multiple balls on top my push the bottom one down into the fluid where buoyancy would take over.  The trick would be to find a ball that will be buoyant enough to contact the deflector and be sent forward but at the same time heavy enough that one, two or even three would provide enough force to penetrate the surface at the bottom.  If one or two makes it happen than put three in the system.  If three or four makes it work than put five.  If the ball(s) had a weak magnetism to them than you could use the magnet to aid in pulling the ball into the fluid so that buoyancy can take over.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: NCoppedge on 21/06/2006 01:19:45
I'd like to confirm that I am in fact the originator, or at least the only originator I know, of the cycling buoys continuous motion concept.

--Nathan Coppedge
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: NCoppedge on 21/06/2006 01:28:36
I have submitted an updated design, which is not posted on my website, to the Big Idea Group, with the hopes of receiving marketing and patenting assistance.

The updated design, along with the related data and equations, have been notarized, along with the date of notarization, with the hope of dissuading any would-be thieves.

Although I am new to the patenting process, I hope that any innovators will also notarize their work, and refrain from posting any designs they feel represent a finished and effective product.

Respectfully and with regards,

Nathan L. Coppedge, inventor
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 21/06/2006 01:59:51
Hey there.  Yeah it's a great design that you got.  So what did you go with to allow the buoys in but keep the water from coming out?  

Oh and as for what I am designing, I challenge anyone to pick it up, do some work and get it invented before me.  Just don't sell the patent if it works.  Make your fortune the hard way, through marketing of the product regardless of how much some company offers for it.  My goal is to see these oil companies burn (pardon the pun).

Too long have they controlled the market.  They create a world dependant on them then fill their pockets while the rest of us starve.  The so called war on terrorism is just a front for what the war is really about.  Oil.  Remember at the end of the gulf war multiple wells were set ablaze?  That's because Sadam couldn't get his hand on the wells after getting his butt whooped by the americans so he set them on fire.

I want these giants to fall hard.

[:(!]
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: ukmicky on 21/06/2006 02:33:34
Adding more balls wont make a difference.

Ferrofluid is made from oil which would coat everything slowing down the rate at which the ball would roll down the drop, also the viscosity of the ferrofluid even without the effects of the magnet would cause a slow rate of acceleration for the ball to achieve the required velocity upwards to jump out and hit the deflector. If you Increase the length of the tube to give the ball longer to speed up then the strength of the magnet would also have to be increased in order to hold the fluid in place at the bottom increasing the viscosity even further preventing the ball from moving anywhere. Also the effects of the magnet on the fluid would extend far beyond the bottom inlet and i doubt the ferrofluid would be able to be contained at the bottom like in the drawing.

One other thing ferrofluid contains tiny pieces of metal so wouldnt it all become magnetised after a period of time, and if so would the presence of a second magnetic field have a weakening effect on the first i.e the permanent magnet. (could be wrong)

Michael
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 21/06/2006 02:35:38
Nevermind I just checked the other forum where you mention what you used.[:D]
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: ukmicky on 21/06/2006 02:52:36
Precursor
I just looked at that design on the web link you posted.

Two questions if you know , how do they prevent the water from draining out of the hole at the bottom of the tank where the buoys enter. And secondly how do they prevent water sticking to the buoys as they leave the tank at the top and then evaporating away draing the tank. Because they can't top up and add water to the tank as by doing so would be basically adding energy to the system from an outside source.

Michael
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 21/06/2006 03:15:13
ukmicky your most likely correct but what is the viscosity of the fluid?  It would take a strong magnet (neodymium) to hold it at the bottom.  I think that if the fluid became magnetic itself than it would be more so attracted to the magnet and therefore more likely to retain it's shape.  Now as for the viscosity increasing due to the magnetic force that is false.  For the viscosity to increase you can't do it by compressing the fluid.  Good luck compressing a liquid.  The only way I know of changing the viscosity of any liquid (other than adding/removing a solvent) is to increase or decrease the temperature.  It would take way too much pressure to change the viscosity of the fluid by the use of pressure.  Since heat would be produced from the friction than this heat would aid in making the fluid less viscous.

Now for it to work the fluid itself has to be ferrous and not just because of some particles in the fluid.  If the fluid only has ferrous particles in it to make it ferrous than the particles would all be pulled toward the magnet side.  The dust would settle is a way of putting it.  This would leave the rest of the fluid to drop to the bottom messing up the whole rig.  I added something that may help reduce the resistance on the ball as it rises.

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi8.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa8%2FKrysandjoe%2Funtitled-1.jpg&hash=a4542ad5f2802c2771a6a2f2ab9adb53)

Since liquids are virtually uncompressable, with the ball rising forcefully through the fluid it would create a high pressure zone above the ball and a low pressure below the ball.  This would produce some nasty drag so by creating a path for the fluid to go than this eliminates that drag.  Now you get the system going and you will then develop momentum.  A current that will aid the ball to rise and may even push it of the edge onto the ramp if it's unable to hit the deflector.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 21/06/2006 03:25:58
You will have to ask Nathan.  He's the guy inventing it.  

If I were doing it I would use a flexible rubber seal in the shape of an inverted cone that that was fused to the bottom of the tank and had an opening at it's point (pointing upward)that was small enough to keep a seal and stretchy to allow the buoys to pass through.  I would also use a light oil rather than water and utilize this coating.  Oil doesn't evaperate like water and would coat the buoys allowing it to pass through the seal with more ease.  The reason for the cone shaped seal would be to utilize the pressure of the fluid on the cone to ensure a good seal.  You can then put the whole system in a nitrogen filled chamber with slightly increased pressure.  This pressure would hault any evaporation and if that chamber were sealed than it would maintain itself.  

However I have my own project utilizing magnets and the latest technology to create a near frictionless environment.  This one belongs to Nathan (see above posts).
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: ukmicky on 21/06/2006 03:40:43
quote:
For the viscosity to increase you can't do it by compressing the fluid. Good luck compressing a liquid. The only way I know of changing the viscosity of any liquid (other than adding/removing a solvent) is to increase or decrease the temperature.


OK But its not just a liquid its a ferrofluid full of (10 nm) particles coated with a dispersant molecular layer.Normally they are randomly placed but they join up into chains when presented with a magnetic field thickening up the ferrofluid making it harder to flow or for something to move through it.

Just read ferrofluids dont retain magnetism.

Michael
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: ukmicky on 21/06/2006 03:55:13
quote:
A stationary magnetic field induces an increase in the ferrofluid viscosity. An additional resistance to the flow occurs due to the field oriented magnetic particles impeded by free rotation in a vortex flow.
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PHFLE6000006000008002855000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

Michael
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: realmswalker on 21/06/2006 07:22:42


precourser thanks for updating my design!
i am not to artistic lol

also in my original design i had  multiple magnets holding  the ferrofluid im place all the way up, preventing the settling of the iron particles.

Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 21/06/2006 10:45:59
quote:
precourser thanks for updating my design!
i am not to artistic lol


NP [:D] Always glad to help out.

also in my original design i had multiple magnets holding the ferrofluid im place all the way up, preventing the settling of the iron particles.

Which ever way would work best.

quote:
OK But its not just a liquid its a ferrofluid full of (10 nm) particles coated with a dispersant molecular layer.Normally they are randomly placed but they join up into chains when presented with a magnetic field thickening up the ferrofluid making it harder to flow or for something to move through it.


Exactly, that's way I said that you would need a fluid that is ferrous itself and not just full of ferrous particles (which formes to the lines of flux).



Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 21/06/2006 10:48:16
wow bad spelling and a missed quote.  6:30 in the morning, not completely awake.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 22/06/2006 16:05:51
Just to further discuss the ferro fluid design.  Perhaps you don't need the ball(s) at all.  Have the magnet at the buttom to produce the verticle surface at the bottom and have gravity forming the horizontal surface at the top and over fill it.  The fluid will spill over the edge and take the plase of the ball following the path down untill it reaches the bottom where, under the influence of the magnet, will join back up with the main body.  This would create a constant flow, a current in the main body that can be tapped.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: another_someone on 22/06/2006 17:24:09
quote:
Originally posted by Precursor

Just to further discuss the ferro fluid design.  Perhaps you don't need the ball(s) at all.  Have the magnet at the buttom to produce the verticle surface at the bottom and have gravity forming the horizontal surface at the top and over fill it.  The fluid will spill over the edge and take the plase of the ball following the path down untill it reaches the bottom where, under the influence of the magnet, will join back up with the main body.  This would create a constant flow, a current in the main body that can be tapped.



The biggest problem I see with this is the assumption that the only force the magnets will have is in the horizontal plane.  Why would the magnets not also pull the fluid down towards it?

If the magnet is powerful enough to stop the fluid from flowing horizontally out of the column, despite the pressure of the fluid from above in the column, then would it not also be powerful enough to stop the fluid from climbing up the column in the first place?



George
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 22/06/2006 21:03:46
quote:
The biggest problem I see with this is the assumption that the only force the magnets will have is in the horizontal plane. Why would the magnets not also pull the fluid down towards it?

If the magnet is powerful enough to stop the fluid from flowing horizontally out of the column, despite the pressure of the fluid from above in the column, then would it not also be powerful enough to stop the fluid from climbing up the column in the first place?


More than likely but that can be corrected by supplying a shield made of a ferrous metal above the magnet.  Lines of flux (like electricity) follow the path of least resistance.  The shield would offer that path for the flux above the magnet (the flux that would influence the ferrous fluid higher up the tube) since the plate would have less resistance than air.

I thought of maybe making the tube longer but all that would do is introduce a geater wight of fluid meaning a stronger magnet.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Soul Surfer on 23/06/2006 00:04:22
Perpetual motion machines do not work!  there are two critical trigger points in the design.  The ball floating up and being deflected and the ball dropping down and penetrating far enough into the fluid to sart to float up the pipe my guesss is that where it fails is if it makes one of these trigger points successfully it wil not manage to make the other ie the ball is too heavy to pop out of the fluid or too light for its inertia to allow it to penetrate the fluid.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 23/06/2006 00:53:35
quote:
Perpetual motion machines do not work!


Johnson's Permanent Magnetic Motor. The patent now belongs to a Howard I believe.  Both people have created working models.  NO the magnets will not lose their magnetism.  I've seen that mentioned somewhere and I don't know where they got this but a permanent magnet's magnetic field can only be altered by either changing the temperature of the magnet or by using a more powerfull magnet.  

quote:
The ball floating up and being deflected and the ball dropping down and penetrating far enough into the fluid to sart to float up the pipe my guesss is that where it fails is if it makes one of these trigger points successfully it wil not manage to make the other ie the ball is too heavy to pop out of the fluid or too light for its inertia to allow it to penetrate the fluid.


Maybe, maybe not.  It depend on if you can find the middle point where the ball is light enough for one and heavy enough for the other.  How dense would the fluid actually get anyway?  Even if the ball doesn't work, use the over fill method to generate a current in the main body of fluid.  Get a strong enough current and you can use it to operate a turbine but even if you can't you still have perpetual motion.  

Perpetual motion does exist.  Energy can not be created nor destroyed and is always moving, that alone makes the universe itself one giant perpetual motion machine.  So perpetual motion is an essential rule of existance.  Also we exist in a sea of energy, the trick is knowing how to control it.  We have a few methods but are only scratching the surface.

quote:
God says so!


If god exists than so does mother goose.



Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: another_someone on 23/06/2006 01:09:51
quote:
Originally posted by Precursor
More than likely but that can be corrected by supplying a shield made of a ferrous metal above the magnet.  Lines of flux (like electricity) follow the path of least resistance.  The shield would offer that path for the flux above the magnet (the flux that would influence the ferrous fluid higher up the tube) since the plate would have less resistance than air.

I thought of maybe making the tube longer but all that would do is introduce a geater wight of fluid meaning a stronger magnet.



Well, not really.

Certainly, you may well be able to prevent the magnetic field lines from travelling up the column, but it will nonetheless impose a vertical force insofar as it goes.

The point is that the magnetic flux has to create a loop that travels through the fluid in the column, and that flux, in order to form a complete loop, would have to have a vertical component.

Put another way, if the magnet is capable of grabbing and holding the fluid sufficient that it will not leak out of the hole in the bottom, then it must also be able to grab and hold it so as to prevent it from travelling up the column.



George
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Roy P on 23/06/2006 12:36:14
quote:
Originally posted by another_someone
if the magnet is capable of grabbing and holding the fluid sufficient that it will not leak out of the hole in the bottom, then it must also be able to grab and hold it so as to prevent it from travelling up the column.

I was trying to work out a way of saying the same thing! Yup.

__________________________________________________________
Roy P
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 23/06/2006 13:49:25
Was gonna provide a diagram but photo bucket is under maintainance.

If you use a strong magnet just at the bottom of the main body of fluid and put a ferrous shield over the top than the lines of flux that come off the south pole would enter the bottom of the fluid (more specifically at the bottom edge closest to the magnet), travel up through the fluid pulling the fluid toward the magnet but wouldn't continue up the body of fluid.  Once the lines of flux got to the point to where the ferrous shield is right outside than these lines of flux would jump out of the fluid and into the end of the shield and travel through the shield until they reached the point of the shield directly above the north pole of the magnet.  The lines of flux would then jump from the shield to the magnet.

Now you ask; If the magnet is strong enough to pull the fluid in and create a vertical surface, wouldn't it be strong enough to keep the fluid from rising?  Well the answer is which attraction is stronger?  A simple experiment.  Take a magnet and stick it to the fridge (the stronger the magnet the better) and then try to pull the magnet directly away.  Now stick that same magnet to the fridge and remove it by sliding it to the edge of the fridge.  The stronger the magnet the more you will notice that sliding it off the edge is easier than pulling it straight off.  

The same goes for the fluid.  It's easier for the fluid to travel away from the magent by travelling parallel to it than it is for the fluid to travel away perpendicular to it.  This will make the attracting force on the fluid entering from the bottom stronger than the attracting force that would hold the fluid from rising.  So the magnet pulls the fluid in creating an increase in pressure, this pressure is instantly transfered through the fluid (since fluids are not compressable) and will travel the path of least resistance. UP.  So once the fluid enters at the bottom there is now too much and the fluid will spill over at the top, run down the tube, and get pulled back into the main body to repeat the cycle all over again.

Now what I described had the north pole of the magnet pointing up and south pole pointing down so that the magnet was parallel to the fluid but the poles are stronger than the sides so it would be more effective if the north or south pole of the magnet ran perpendicular to the main body of fluid with one of the poles pressed up against the side of the tube.

Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: another_someone on 23/06/2006 17:31:18
quote:
Originally posted by Precursor
Now you ask; If the magnet is strong enough to pull the fluid in and create a vertical surface, wouldn't it be strong enough to keep the fluid from rising?  Well the answer is which attraction is stronger?  A simple experiment.  Take a magnet and stick it to the fridge (the stronger the magnet the better) and then try to pull the magnet directly away.  Now stick that same magnet to the fridge and remove it by sliding it to the edge of the fridge.  The stronger the magnet the more you will notice that sliding it off the edge is easier than pulling it straight off.  

The same goes for the fluid.  It's easier for the fluid to travel away from the magent by travelling parallel to it than it is for the fluid to travel away perpendicular to it.  This will make the attracting force on the fluid entering from the bottom stronger than the attracting force that would hold the fluid from rising.  So the magnet pulls the fluid in creating an increase in pressure, this pressure is instantly transfered through the fluid (since fluids are not compressable) and will travel the path of least resistance. UP.  So once the fluid enters at the bottom there is now too much and the fluid will spill over at the top, run down the tube, and get pulled back into the main body to repeat the cycle all over again.

Now what I described had the north pole of the magnet pointing up and south pole pointing down so that the magnet was parallel to the fluid but the poles are stronger than the sides so it would be more effective if the north or south pole of the magnet ran perpendicular to the main body of fluid with one of the poles pressed up against the side of the tube.



It isn't about the direction of the flux, but about the shape of the solid components involved.

Firstly, when you slide a flat magnet down a the front of the fridge, you are not actually moving away from the fridge door, you are just replacing one piece of metal with another.

It is true that you could argue that with the ferrofluid, you would be replacing one piece of fluid with another (i.e. the fluid coming down the return channel would replace the fluid travelling up the column), but all that would cause is a pool of fluid that is balanced between the return channel and the column (i.e. fluid is as likely to travel up (or down) one as the other).  On the fridge door, the direction of movement is driven by your hand, or by gravity, the same forces that will drive the fluid, but will drive it equally through both channels, and not necessarily cause a preference for one channel (i.e. the column) over the other (i.e. the return channel).  When you slide the magnet off the edge of the fridge, it still requires force to do so, but less force that it would require to pull the magnet directly from the fridge door, because you are not pulling the complete magnet at once, but are sliding one millimetre of magnet at a time off the edge.  With a liquid, there is no different between a millimetre at a time of all at once.



George
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: NCoppedge on 24/06/2006 02:04:28
quote:
Perpetual motion machines do not work! there are two critical trigger points in the design. The ball floating up and being deflected and the ball dropping down and penetrating far enough into the fluid to sart to float up the pipe my guesss is that where it fails is if it makes one of these trigger points successfully it wil not manage to make the other ie the ball is too heavy to pop out of the fluid or too light for its inertia to allow it to penetrate the fluid.


I'd like to make a note that in my first iteration of the rising and free-falling buoys design the force of the rising buoys contributes to pull only because they are strung together, either by chain links or a continuous cable. There is no "deflection shield" or the like, since such a thing would inevitably wear down with continuous use. When there is a toothed wheel at the upper and lower end, gravity assists in pulling one or three buoys that are not buoyant over the top, and buoyancy potentially coupled with gravity contributes to pulling the lowest buoy through the membrane or watertight seal.

I hope this clears up any issues with the design I posted on the web.

If you want to see my design as it stands, from the source, you should see my website at

http://www.geocities.com/drypress/Inventions_PerpetualMotionMachine.html

However my most successful design is not public.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Roy P on 24/06/2006 14:05:56
Great idea, NC, but how do the little buoys get access to the water in the tank from below?

__________________________________________________________
Roy P
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: ukmicky on 24/06/2006 15:05:56
Roy

I dont think he's thought it through properly as it would require an elastic type seal which closed up once the buoy is through , however energy would have to be used and would therefore be lost from the system in order for the buoy to force its way through the seal and together with ALL the other frictional loses it wouldnt work.
There would also be leakage from the tank from the bottom inlet/seal and from the top outlet as the buoys exit and draw fluid out with them meaning the tank would need to be constantly topped up and as it would need constant addition of fluid it cant be classed as a perpetual motion device as the system isnt self contained

Michael
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: NCoppedge on 24/06/2006 20:56:21
I refer those who are new to this dialogue to the other forum where I first discussed my idea:

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=6426&st=15

First of all, I think its important to realize that most perpetual motion machines do not get to this stage. They fail in principle and not because of a (what I believe to be minor) physical design flaw.

addressed to ukmicky in particular:

Friction only effects forces in motion. Try to describe to me how I am "giving this machine a push" in a way that is not recouped when a single buoy passes through the lower seal! The truth is that as long as a buoy can be fed through the lower seal once, the machine is again at full strength. That's the only reason it might work, and it is imperative that you understand that if you are to be considered a serious critic.

There are numerous ways to confront the problem (of the lower seal).

I'd like to make a note that

1. On a large scale the machine might produce more than enough power to pump the spilled water back in. This makes sense, because buoys of proportionally larger diameter would have greater buoyancy relative to the size of the guide-wheels.

2. As Precedent has described, it might be possible to produce a sort of sphincter which closes around the cable or links inbetween buoys. Yet there are also other ways to reduce water spillage.

3. If such a sphincter requires too much force to pass through (which may not be so due to the large number of buoys that are rising relative to the single buoy entering) an alternate design, which I thought of myself, is simply to place the lower wheel in such a position at the convergence of the lower column of air and the lower column of water that the wheel itself, or the portion of the wheel currently feeding the lowest buoy, is itself watertight. If viscosity of that boundary becomes an issue over time, it seems permissable that the machine have some minor maintenance, so long as it does not entail plugging it into an electric socket or otherwise relying on outside power.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 25/06/2006 00:05:35
Well the position of the magnet would have it's north pole pressed up against the side of the container.  A magnets attraction is strongest at the poles where the lines of flux are dense and weaker at it's sides.  A magnets strength is also greater the closer you are to it.  If the magnet was strong enough to create a horizontal surface at the bottom of the return line and you shielded the lines of flux from rising up the tube than the pull pulling the fluid that comes down the return line would be stronger than the pull at the point where the fluid passes the shield.  Would it pass the shield?  It would have to.  The magent is strong enough to create a horizonal surface so any fluid that comes down the return line would get pulled in to once again create that horizontal surface.  You couldn't have the surface without fluid being let go further up the tube where the magnetic attraction is weaker.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Roy P on 25/06/2006 12:10:34
Re the buoys: The simplest way to illustrate the problem is to imagine, not buoys, but a single, malleable, looped tube, such as a nosepipe, with sealed sections inside. The 'smooth' exterior would help to solve the problem of an efficient seal at the entrance to the base.

However, I just *cannot* accept that the inner buoyancy would be enough to counteract the the level of pressure required to close that bloody seal!

Also: how would an inner section of the 'hosepipe' know that it was at a certain depth inside the tank?

__________________________________________________________
Roy P
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: NCoppedge on 26/06/2006 22:06:36
quote:
Re the buoys: The simplest way to illustrate the problem is to imagine, not buoys, but a single, malleable, looped tube, such as a nosepipe, with sealed sections inside. The 'smooth' exterior would help to solve the problem of an efficient seal at the entrance to the base.

However, I just *cannot* accept that the inner buoyancy would be enough to counteract the the level of pressure required to close that bloody seal!

Also: how would an inner section of the 'hosepipe' know that it was at a certain depth inside the tank?


Certainly a smooth tube would have no buoyancy, as it would be equivalent to a pipe strung from the bottom of the tank to the top...

My latest design predicts at least 400% higher pull than entry resistance, depending on the size of the buoys and height of the tank. However I agree that the design I have presented here does not confront the problem adequately.

Your last question puzzles me. I don't see how any buoy must "know" where it is; its an inert tool and nothing more... Maybe I miss your point.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Roy P on 26/06/2006 23:12:44
quote:
Originally posted by NCoppedge
Your last question puzzles me. I don't see how any buoy must "know" where it is; its an inert tool and nothing more... Maybe I miss your point.

I'm not too good at explaining myself, NC, but what I'm trying to point out is that you are trying to connect two separately enclosed systems. You will not be able to combine them successfully.

__________________________________________________________
Roy P
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: ukmicky on 27/06/2006 00:31:09
quote:
On a large scale the machine might produce more than enough power to pump the spilled water back in. This makes sense, because buoys of proportionally larger diameter would have greater buoyancy relative to the size of the guide-wheels.


Turn a generator by hand and see how much resistance you encounter.

quote:
Friction only effects forces in motion. Try to describe to me how I am "giving this machine a push" in a way that is not recouped when a single buoy passes through the lower seal!


The wheels are turning and the buoys are moving against the seal and you also have to take into account that as soon as the buoys exit the water and before they get to TDC of the wheel their weight is trying to pull them back into the water. Also as well as the buoys having to push their way through the seal they also have to be lifted up after they have reached BDC just before they enter the tank.

 Also as the buoy is attempting to enter the tank the water in the tank will be attempting to exit placing a downwards force onto the buoy. Basically the water in the tank will be trying to push any buoy trying to enter through the seal back out increasing the energy required to get the buoy through the seal and the larger the tank the the more water presure their will be.

On the smooth tube issue.

If i we're to get a piece of non sinking fishing line ,the type which is less dense than water and is designed to float and strung it around your apparatus would it revolve ON ITS OWN. Same principle

My answer is no, due to frictional losses and because at certain points just before TDC and just after BDC the line has to be lifted up opposing the full force of gravity pulling it down.

Also if you increase the buoyancy force of the buoys by making the walls thinner increasing the internal void  they will then weigh less once out of the water decreasing the level of kinetic energy they will have on the downward drop, so by added on one side your taking from the other.

And increasing the number of buoys wouldnt help either, there will be no extra energy available to the system, even if you had 5,000,000 buoys strung round you apparatus, because any increase in the buoyancy force would be completely opposed by all the extra negative weight and friction you've added to the system.


You can't get something from nothing.
Michael
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 27/06/2006 16:41:48
Ok first lets look at the resistance of the buoys being lifted out of the water and pushed up to the seal.  If the buoy only has to rise a foot to get to the top of the wheel and get pushed a foot from the lower most point up to the seal that means you have two feet of gravity working against you.  Take that two feet and put it up against the (for example sake) 10 feet that the buoys will be travelling down with gravety.  If the buoys are spaced so there is one for every foot than you have the weight of 10 buoys being pulled by gravity working against two.  The ten wins out.  So the two working against you will cancel out two working for you leaving you with eight to be used to over come other frictions within the system.  The wheels will rotate on a bearing so only the weight of one buoy being pulled down by gravity can over come both wheels and then some.  So you are left with the weight of seven buoys working in unison with the buoyancy of the buoys inside to overcome the resistance to enter the system at the bottom.  

Linking multiple buoys is not the same as just having a hollow tube.  Each buoy is a seperate entity and will portray buoyancy.  Having them linked together allows them to combine their buoyancy.  To work together.  The reaso why one works and not the other is because with the buoys air is trapped within each buoy where if you just had a hollow tube than the air isn't trapped.  Buoyancy exists when you have air trapped and submerged.  Without one or the other than you won't have buoyancy.  

Now it's not my design but if I were to design it I would go with a stiff rubber shell for the buoy and would link them by stuffing them into a stretchy tube.  Between each buoy with in the tube I would fill the space with the same substance as the buoys will be travelling through.  In the buoys I would go with nitrogen.  The fluid I would go with is a light oil that way the oil would coat the line adding to the weight on the downward and would allow for less resistance to enter the system at the bottom by the seal.  Also you don't have to worry about evaporation.  For the seal I would use an inverted, smooth rubber cone type that way there is very little resistance by the seal itself.  The weight of the fluid acting upon the seal would ensure a tight seal between the seal and the buoy containing, rubber tube.  

So that would really only leave the resistance from the fluid to be overcome.  The combined buoyancy of the buoys within the fluid should be greater than this resistance.  Even if it can't be more and only the same than you still have the weight of the seven buoys being pulled down by gravity on the outside to turn the device.

As for any leakage that is bound to happen.  Well if this device is hooked up to produce electricity than a drip pan with a floater switch should be more than enough.  That way when the pan becomes full the switch turns on a pump and sends the leakage back into the main tank.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: NCoppedge on 27/06/2006 19:00:54
quote:
If i we're to get a piece of non sinking fishing line ,the type which is less dense than water and is designed to float and strung it around your apparatus would it revolve ON ITS OWN...



Thanks, precursor, for being reasonable and seeing that there is no applicable connection between a string of buoys and a buoyant fishing line. While a buoyant fishing line suffers from the same dilemma of equal force on opposite sides that plagues many past perpetual motion designs, this is only because it is inert relative to the capacity of floating and free-falling buoys.

quote:

Also if you increase the buoyancy force of the buoys by making the walls thinner increasing the internal void they will then weigh less once out of the water decreasing the level of kinetic energy they will have on the downward drop, so by added on one side your taking from the other.



While lighter buoys do decrease downward force, they also increase upward buoyancy. The result is that weight has much less effect in this system than usual (partly because there is buoyancy, and partly because the full gravity is only used in the portion that is free-falling).

quote:

And increasing the number of buoys wouldnt help either, there will be no extra energy available to the system, even if you had 5,000,000 buoys strung round you apparatus, because any increase in the buoyancy force would be completely opposed by all the extra negative weight and friction you've added to the system.


Notice again that the buoys with full gravity are FALLING, contributing to force.

Buoys with a wider diameter may not be proportionally lighter when out of water, but they certainly have considerably more buoyancy when submerged.

Once again I'll emphasize that I don't believe the design I posted here necessarily works, but there is a modification of it which I believe can achieve over unity.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: ukmicky on 27/06/2006 23:00:56
quote:
Originally posted by Precursor

Johnson's Permanent Magnetic Motor. The patent now belongs to a Howard I believe.  Both people have created working models.  NO the magnets will not lose their magnetism.  I've seen that mentioned somewhere and I don't know where they got this but a permanent magnet's magnetic field can only be altered by either changing the temperature of the magnet or by using a more powerfull magnet.  
Howard johnson has never built a working perpetual motion device.

And if anybody wishes to prove that perpetual motion is possible then i suggest you attempt to build a working device, good luck





Michael
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Atomic-S on 28/06/2006 07:12:45
quote:
maybe if you did a normal fluid, without magnets, and the balls are passing through some sort of a funnel that will let the ball through one way, but will not let the water out. Any water spilled when the ball goes through can be collected in a drain and brought back to the top somehow. That requires no magnetism, and the only energy used to pump the spilled water could be generated by the wheel istelf, and excess energy will be used in whatever you are powering.
That will not work because as soon as the ball enters the fluid through the one-way valve, it displaces a volume of that fluid which is equal to its own volume. It does so at the point of highest pressure, meaning that it must do work on the fluid equal to that pressure times its volume. Then it floats up, recovering exactly this energy (less viscous drag as well as the mgh figure for the ball, etc) by the time it reaches the top. Result: Zero net energy generated.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 28/06/2006 11:03:28
I was wrong with the Permanent Magnetic Motor.  Howard is Johnson.  However Howard Johnson doesn't own the patent anymore and the website I came across (which for some reason I can't find it anymore) had the math and graphs with readings taken from a working model along with a link to a video.  So I've came across websites that had Howard having built a working model but with no evidence and then came across this one site that had some proof.

quote:
maybe if you did a normal fluid, without magnets, and the balls are passing through some sort of a funnel that will let the ball through one way, but will not let the water out. Any water spilled when the ball goes through can be collected in a drain and brought back to the top somehow. That requires no magnetism, and the only energy used to pump the spilled water could be generated by the wheel istelf, and excess energy will be used in whatever you are powering.


The design introduced by realmswalker is the one that uses magnets where it's NCoppedge's design doesn't use magnets and is the one that has the buoys entering from the bottom.  Two different designs.

quote:
That will not work because as soon as the ball enters the fluid through the one-way valve, it displaces a volume of that fluid which is equal to its own volume. It does so at the point of highest pressure, meaning that it must do work on the fluid equal to that pressure times its volume. Then it floats up, recovering exactly this energy (less viscous drag as well as the mgh figure for the ball, etc) by the time it reaches the top. Result: Zero net energy generated.


Even if it is pressure times volume if the tank of water is kept narrow as to allow only one string of buoys through than this will reduce the bottom pressure.  Reduce it enough that it would be no different than the pressure at the top.  Besides the resistance would be the weight of water (assuming water is the fluid used) that is equal to the diameter of the buoy minus the diameter of the connecting line and having the height of the water.  So if the buoy is 5 in. dia. and the connecting line is 1 in. and the depth of the water is 5 ft. than the resistance would be the weight of water that has the dimentions of 4 in. dia. and 5 ft. high.  If each buoy is 5 in. dia. and the depth of the water is 5 ft. than you can have quite a few buoys in the water.  Enough to pull the next one through the seal.  Even if it doesn't work out to be more.  That the combined pull of the buoys in the water will only equal the resistance than you still have x amount of buoys being pulled down by gravity.

Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Roy P on 28/06/2006 11:42:20
My 'hosepipe-with-internal-sealed-pockets' notion was used only to illustrate the problem.

Look. It doesn't matter how many buoys are used -- two, or, as someone else has already pointed out, a million, it will not work!

OK: Start from the beginning, using only two buoys -- one entering the base of the liquid, and one just about to descend. Would that work? Of course it wouldn't!

Now try it with FOUR buoys equidistant from each other. Same problem!

It's a no goer!

__________________________________________________________
Roy P
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 28/06/2006 13:45:30
quote:
Start from the beginning, using only two buoys -- one entering the base of the liquid, and one just about to descend. Would that work? Of course it wouldn't!


There's your problem.  Yes that would not work because it requires the force of multiple buoys in the water to pull the next one through the seal.  One about to enter while the other is about to descend?  That's your example as to why it wouldn't work?  Seeing as how you don't have any other buoys applying any type of force than yes it won't work.  The system would work because of multiple buoys.  

Lets look at the resistances.  

The two wheels resistance to turn,
The drag on the buoys as they pass through the water,
The drag on the buoys as they fall outside the tank,
The buoys that have to be lifted up out of the water,
The buoys that have to be lifted up to the seal,
The buoys that have to pass through the seal,
The buoys have to work against the water above.

Now lets look at the forces that will run and help run the machine.

Buoyancy,
Gravity,
Current.

So starting with the wheels resistance to turn, provided they are equipped with a bearing than they would be much like a bike tire.  The weight of one buoy being pulled by gravity is enough to overcome this resistance.  Plus once the wheels are turning it requires less force to keep them going at a constant speed.

The drag put on them as they rise.  The fact that each buoy is able to ascend rather rapidly as I have seen myself by simply taking a volleyball under water and letting it go, this drag will not have an impact.  Also once a current is developed than this drag is reduced.

The drag with the air on the way down.  Drop a volleyball from any distance and see how fast it drops.  Drag from the air will have even less impact than the drag from the water.

The buoys being lifted up out of the water and the buoys being lifted up to the seal.  This combined distance working against gravity would be easily compensated by the buoys being pulled down by gravity.  With lots to spare.

Passing through the seal.  This would have to be the second biggest influence when it comes to going against operation.  Now I recomment a light oil or maybe even soapy water instead of regular water.  This way both the buoys and the seal will get rather slippery and reduce much of the resistance with the seal.  So the only real resistance is stretching the seal.  The seal can be made rather flexable easing this resistance and still hold a seal and the water with its shape.  If an inverted cone shaped seal is used than the pressure of the water will ensure a good seal.  It will still require x number of buoys submerged at one time but I think the excess weight on the outside of the tank may be enough to take care of the seal resistance.

This leaves the number one resistance.  Weight of the water acting upon the seal.  It will require x number of buoys submerged at any one time to overcome this resistance.  From experiments I did in a pool, I'm convince that this resistance can easily be overcome by the combined buoyancy of multiple buoys in the water.  The current that will develop will aid in pulling the next buoy up through the seal.

Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: ukmicky on 28/06/2006 22:04:53
quote:
Originally posted by Precursor

Ok first lets look at the resistance of the buoys being lifted out of the water and pushed up to the seal.  If the buoy only has to rise a foot to get to the top of the wheel and get pushed a foot from the lower most point up to the seal that means you have two feet of gravity working against you.  Take that two feet and put it up against the (for example sake) 10 feet that the buoys will be travelling down with gravety.  If the buoys are spaced so there is one for every foot than you have the weight of 10 buoys being pulled by gravity working against two.  The ten wins out.  So the two working against you will cancel out two working for you leaving you with eight to be used to over come other frictions within the system.  The wheels will rotate on a bearing so only the weight of one buoy being pulled down by gravity can over come both wheels and then some.  So you are left with the weight of seven buoys working in unison with the buoyancy of the buoys inside to overcome the resistance to enter the system at the bottom.



Add to one thing and you take from another.

You can’t use gravity to overcome your friction loses as the buoys will then be to heavy to be buoyant. You can’t have weight and buoyancy in your system.

quote:
Linking multiple buoys is not the same as just having a hollow tube.  Each buoy is a seperate entity and will portray buoyancy.  Having them linked together allows them to combine their buoyancy.  To work together.  The reaso why one works and not the other is because with the buoys air is trapped within each buoy where if you just had a hollow tube than the air isn't trapped.  Buoyancy exists when you have air trapped and submerged.  Without one or the other than you won't have buoyancy.
 

Yes it is, your buoys are all connected to one line,one continuous circuit.  The only difference is that the buoyancy force is more evenly spread with the tube.
Also a bouyancy force is created when the density of the submerged object is less than that of the fluid that it is displacing.



 
quote:
So that would really only leave the resistance from the fluid to be overcome.  The combined buoyancy of the buoys within the fluid should be greater than this resistance.  Even if it can't be more and only the same than you still have the weight of the seven buoys being pulled down by gravity on the outside to turn the device.

Your sitting their thinking that an air filled buoy or ten air filled buoys will provide enough buoyancy to overcome all the energy loses without measuring or knowing the actual loses involved or at what points your loses are made,if you were look at the design properly you would realize that at every single point of the buoys travel around the system energy is being lost or should i say converted, even their movement through the air will cause the system to lose something, in some places they maybe minor and not measurable by you but add everything together and you would see that in order for the loop of buoys to turn energy would have to be added to the system from an outside source.
quote:

This leaves the number one resistance. Weight of the water acting upon the seal. It will require x number of buoys submerged at any one time to overcome this resistance. From experiments I did in a pool, I'm convince that this resistance can easily be overcome by the combined buoyancy of multiple buoys in the water. The current that will develop will aid in pulling the next buoy up through the seal.

This plus the weight of the water pushing against the buoy trying to enter the tank would be enough to halt the system alone. Also a volletball may rise quickly in water but imagine trying to push a volley ball through a open volleyball size hatch in a submarine with ten foot of water above you trying to come in.



Michael
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 29/06/2006 11:11:15
quote:
You can’t use gravity to overcome your friction loses as the buoys will then be to heavy to be buoyant. You can’t have weight and buoyancy in your system.


LOL oh my.  So the buoys would be weightless would they?  That if they weren't tied down they would float away?  I suppose those big steel buoys found in high traffic boating areas  must be weightless too if they can float.

quote:
Yes it is, your buoys are all connected to one line,one continuous circuit. The only difference is that the buoyancy force is more evenly spread with the tube.
Also a bouyancy force is created when the density of the submerged object is less than that of the fluid that it is displacing.


Take a 10 lb weight and put it on the bottom of a pool.  Add a buoy that has a buoyant force of 3 lbs.  The weight will keep the buoy down.  Add two more and the weight will keep all three down.  Add a fourth and the weight will be lifted to the surface.  The buoyancy of the buoys add together.  The weight will be lifted off the bottom with an upwards force of 2 lbs.  So no it's not the same thing.  The buoys individually will have buoyancy and when linked together they combine their efforts.  Yes buoyancy is when you have something that is less dense submerged in something that is more but for the example you gave the difference as to why one would work and not the other is the trapped air.  More specifically it's specific gravity.  Water has a specific gravity of one, anything will less will float and anything with higher will sink.

quote:
Your sitting their thinking that an air filled buoy or ten air filled buoys will provide enough buoyancy to overcome all the energy loses without measuring or knowing the actual loses involved or at what points your loses are made,if you were look at the design properly you would realize that at every single point of the buoys travel around the system energy is being lost or should i say converted, even their movement through the air will cause the system to lose something, in some places they maybe minor and not measurable by you but add everything together and you would see that in order for the loop of buoys to turn energy would have to be added to the system from an outside source.


First it's called life experience.  I live next to the ocean and have been swimming my entire life and I can tell you that the wheels would have such little resistance that the weight of just one buoy would be enough to turn them.  Air drag will have an unmeasurable affect and the distance where the buoys have to go against gravity will be overcome by the increased distance where the buoys are getting pulled down by gravity.  As for knowing where and what the loss are I listed them or atleast the one that will have the most effect.  I then explained how each factor would be overcome.  Like drag with the air will have almost no effect.

quote:
This plus the weight of the water pushing against the buoy trying to enter the tank would be enough to halt the system alone. Also a volletball may rise quickly in water but imagine trying to push a volley ball through a open volleyball size hatch in a submarine with ten foot of water above you trying to come in.


This is the weight of the water pushing against the buoy there is no 'plus' about it.  Your adding the same thing to itself.  As for trying to open a hatch with ten feet of water above it, as long as that ten feet only has a diameter of two feet then opening the hatch would require some effort but is more than possible.  

Now I'm just curious but what level of science have you taken?  What grade are you in?  Because all that I quoted was babble.


Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Roy P on 29/06/2006 13:38:24
quote:
Originally posted by Precursor
and the distance where the buoys have to go against gravity will be overcome by the increased distance where the buoys are getting pulled down by gravity.

This is another mistake in your reasoning. You forget that both sides of the line contain the same amount of buoys and are therefore equal in 'weight'.

__________________________________________________________
Roy P
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 29/06/2006 14:19:41
quote:
This is another mistake in your reasoning. You forget that both sides of the line contain the same amount of buoys and are therefore equal in 'weight'.


Wrong.  One side is submerged and therefore has buoyancy so only one side is being pulled down by gravity.  The buoyancy of those submerged not only counter any gravitational pull upon them but also provide considerable lift.  So it can be said that while those on the outside have weight, those on the inside have negetive weight.  Negetive weight equivalent to their buoyancy.  I have seen myself by taking a ball (about the size of a volleyball) to the bottom of a pool (15 feet) that the buoyancy is greater than that of the weight of the ball.  It is actually the weight of water equal to the volume of the ball or put another way, equal to the amount of water displaced.  So when the outside has weight pulling down by gravity, the inside will have negetive weight equal to the amount of displaced fluid the buoys are submerged in.  So while a volleyball sized buoy may way 2 or 3 lbs being pulled by gravity they will have closer to 15 lbs of negetive weight (buoyancy) while submerged.  If you have 10 buoys submerged at one time with their buoyancy all working together to pull the next buoy through the seal that is 150 lbs of pull.  Would 150 lbs be enough?  Absolutely.

If you were to go with what I suggested (what NCoppedge goes with is entirely up to him since it's his idea) than the seal doesn't have to stretch that much.  My suggestion is to take the buoys and stuff them into a tube.  So you have eight inch buoys stuffed into a three inch stretch (yet strong) tube.  You then fill the gaps in the tube between each buoy with the same fluid the buoys are submerged in.  What this will do is add to the weight on the outside being pulled down by gravity while having no negetive effect on the inside,  reduce the amount of stretching the seal has to do to let the next buoy in and provide a nice smooth curve of a surface around the buoys so the seal keeps the seal.

Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Roy P on 29/06/2006 14:47:09
quote:
Originally posted by Precursor
Wrong.  One side is submerged and therefore has buoyancy

Nope, you are wrong. They are equally balanced. The inner buoys will be *pulling* the exterior buoys down.
quote:
You then fill the gaps in the tube between each buoy with the same fluid the buoys are submerged in.

Don't be silly. That's like a piston. The buoys will have to 'lift' the water as well as themselves.

__________________________________________________________
Roy P
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 29/06/2006 16:42:54
quote:
Nope, you are wrong. They are equally balanced. The inner buoys will be *pulling* the exterior buoys down


Ok first you said that those on the inside and those on the outside would be balanced and therefore not go anywhere.  That is wrong.  Yes gravity is still acting upon the ones on the inside but buoyancy dominates.  So the weight of the buoys become not only inverted but addition force is applied.  In short the 2 to 3 pounds that the buoy weighs will become 15 pounds of lift when submerged.  Assuming that a buoy filled with the fluid rather than air weighs 15 pounds. To say otherwise is like saying that a ball when tossed into the water will sink instead of float.  That is just idiotic.

Now you say that the buoys inside would get held back by the ones on the outside falling.  Not only is this also wrong but it goes against what you first said.  It's wrong because any object with buoyancy is capable of falling at a faster rate than ascending.  Take a ball and take it down 15 ft in a pool as I did and let it go.  The ball will reach a terminal velocity.  A velocity at which the ball can not go any faster because the increased drag (that comes with the increased speed) with the water is great enough to counter further acceleration.  Take the same ball and drop it from 15 ft up in the air.  The ball dropped from 15 ft above the pool will reach the surface faster than the one taken 15 ft under and let go.  This is because air is less dense than water and therefore the ball is able to reach a faster terminal velocity.  So will the submerged buoys be working to pull the ones on the outside down?  NO.  It will actually be the opposite.  The weight of the buoys would help pull the ones submerged up.  So really the buoys getting pulled down by gravity would be held back by the buoys that are submerged.  This works in favor of the system working.

quote:
Don't be silly. That's like a piston. The buoys will have to 'lift' the water as well as themselves.


There is a short distance where the buoys have to go against the pull of gravity without being under the influence of buoyancy.  Say that the buoys are spaced a foot apart and that there are ten feet and therefore ten buoys getting pulled down by gravity.  Lets also say that with the diameter of the wheels that there is a combined total of 2 feet and therefore 2 buoys getting lifted against gravity.  Lets add the fluid (equal to that of which the buoys are submerged) into the tube that contains the buoys to fill in the gaps between buoys.  So you have two buoys and two gaps of fluid going against gravity but you also have ten buoys and ten gaps of fluid being pulled by gravity.  Two out of the ten will cancel out the two on the other side of the equation.  That leaves you with 8 buoys and gaps of fluid being pulled down by gravity.  The weight of one buoy is enough to turn the wheels so you are left with seven buoys and eight gaps of fluid being pulled down by gravity.  Here is the key factor.  When the buoys enter the fluid, the gaps filled with the same fluid become weightless.  So you have additional weight being pulled down by gravity and the same amount of buoyancy with the submerged buoys.  

Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 29/06/2006 18:39:17
I think I know where you are getting confused with the fluid in between the buoys.  When I say the fluid in between the buoys being equal to the fluid the buoys are submerged in I mean that the substance is the same.  That if you use water in the tank than use water to fill the spaces in the tube in between the buoys.  If you use vegetable oil than use vegetable oil to fill the gaps in the tube.  That's all.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Roy P on 29/06/2006 20:24:58
quote:
Originally posted by Precursor
Ok first you said that those on the inside and those on the outside would be balanced and therefore not go anywhere. That is wrong.

No. What I am saying is that, without the water, the buoys are equally balanced. So your assumption that 'weight' is a factor is *wrong*.
quote:
Now you say that the buoys inside would get held back by the ones on the outside falling.

I did not say that.

As far as the tube is concerned -- it's a no-brainer.

Look. Any momentum gained by an ascending buoy will be counteracted both by the force required to lift a buoy out of the liquid, and the force required to insert a buoy into the base.

It's an elegant proposal on paper, but practically unworkable -- sorry.

__________________________________________________________
Roy P
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 29/06/2006 20:44:37
Since NCoppedge has forwarded his final design I am gonna post two pics of what I think would be a working design.

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi8.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa8%2FKrysandjoe%2FCombinedForces.jpg&hash=91f5f63fd9ec7f08a4402e3be854d4ac)

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi8.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa8%2FKrysandjoe%2FCombinedForces2.jpg&hash=a88fd45b3eb03134651f63cb121289f7)

Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Roy P on 29/06/2006 21:03:32
Oh dear; can you not see that your 'tube' filled with water is almost exactly the same as a 'hosepipe' with sealed inner sections, which I used as an illustration in a previous post? It does not work!!

Nice illustration, btw.

__________________________________________________________
Roy P
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 29/06/2006 21:58:50
The first pic shows the complete design including what I'm talking about with the buoys in the tube and the same fluid filling the gaps between the buoys in the tube.

The eight buoys submerged, provided they displace 15 pounds of fluid each, will have a combined buoyant force of 120 pounds.  This is more simply shown in the second pic on the left side.  Do their buoyancy combine?  Yes it does as I explained with the weight and four buoys.

Now pay close attention to the buoys around the wheels.  The two that are getting lifted out of the water and the two getting lifted to the seal are neutralized by the buoys on the other side.  This is more clearly shown in the second pic at the top and bottom.

Now you have the eight buoys that are on the outside.  These are not submerged and gravity can take over to pull them down.  So as the second pic shows you have one side buoyant and wants to rise, the other side is being successfully pulled down by gravity with buoyancy out of the picture since they are not submerged and you have the two wheels.  The buoys on either side of the wheel will balance the other out creating neutral points.  So there are four areas; one going up, one going down and two that have neither force.

Now for the fluid filling the gaps within the tube between the buoys.  Outside the main body of fluid the fluid in the gaps will have weight.  Possibly more weight than the buoys themselves.  So the fluid filled gaps outside the neutral points will aid in the chain getting pulled down by gravity.  However once the fluid filled gaps enter the main body of fluid they become weightless.  Lets say that the weight of the fluid within one gap is half that of weight of fluid displaced by a buoy.  So that is 7 1/2 lbs.  Going by the first pic the buoys will have the combined buoyant force of 120 lbs with each buoy displacing 15 lbs each.  That means since the nitrogen in the buoys will become weightless outside the fluid, the fluid in the gaps that were once weightless while submerged now have a combined weight of 7 gaps that are outside the neutral points and not submerged getting pulled down by gravity. So that is a combined weight of 52.5 lbs.  Even though it will only take the weight of one buoy to turn both wheels I will say it takes the weight of two.  So out of the eight buoys getting pulled down by gravity two go towards turning the wheels leaving you six.  Lets say that each buoy filled with nitrogen has the weight of three pounds.  That leaves you 18 lbs to be added to the 52.5 lbs for a total of 70.5 lbs.  

So with drag being too weak to even consider and the wheels are able to be turned by the weight of two buoys what's left?  The seal and weight of the fluid.  Now if each buoy has a diameter of eight inches and the thinnest part of the tube (since it will curve inward) is 3 inches in diameter than the seal only has to stretch a total amount of 5 inches.  This may sound like quite a bit but you have to keep in mind that you have to divide this in half so each point circumferencely around the seal only has to travel 2 1/2 inches.  As for the weight of the fluid acting against the buoy trying to enter the system through the seal.  That resistance is equal to the weight of fluid with dimentions equal to the diameter of expansion (5 inches) and the hight of the water from bottom to surface.  Now with the total buoyancy at 120 lbs and the total weight of the line (buoys and fluid filled gaps) at 70.5 lbs means you have 190.5 lbs of force working for you to push the next buoy through the seal against the weigh of the fluid as specified.  Is that amount of weight enough?  Yes.

Going by the first pic and having each buoy at eight inches in diameter than the gap between buoys is eight inches.  With eight buoys and eight gaps submerged that means the depth of the main body of fluid is 128 inches or 10 2/3 feet.  So if the buoy has a diameter of 8 inches than the volume of that buoy is 2145 cubic inches (rounded to the nearest whole number).  If the fluid displaced by the buoy has the weight of 15 lbs than the water acting against the buoy (with a volume of 10053 cubic inches rounded to the nearest whole number) will have a total weight of 70 lbs (rounded to the nearest whole number.  

That means the 70.5 lbs of weight created by gravity acting on the buoys and fluid filled gaps outside the main body of fluid is enough to counter the weight of the fluid pushing down on the next buoy trying to enter the system.  This leaves you with the 120 lbs of lift.  Do you really think that the stretchiness of the seal can hold back 120 lbs of force?  Not on your life.  Lets leave no margin for error and say that it will take 100 lbs.  This will leave you with 20 lbs of force free to move the buoys.

Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Roy P on 29/06/2006 22:17:23
You don't read a word of my posts do you?

__________________________________________________________
Roy P
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 29/06/2006 22:25:44
quote:
Oh dear; can you not see that your 'tube' filled with water is almost exactly the same as a 'hosepipe' with sealed inner sections, which I used as an illustration in a previous post? It does not work!!


Lets take a look.

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi8.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa8%2FKrysandjoe%2FCompared.jpg&hash=8e5f5dfa50d8bb2f4f5f3c40b53e4475)

It could be that either one can work.  The blue is the fluid that is used to in the main body. Now if the segmented tube acts in the same manner than the sleeved buoys than this may work in the favor of the device.  The seal doesn't have to expand so it only leaves you with the weight of the fluid above.  I will have to look into more on how the shape of a buoyant object affects it's buoyancy.  I can see the tube working because the fluid in the tube (being the same as the main body of fluid) becomes weightless when submerged leaving you with 'square?' buoys.  The fluid in the gap can equal to the space in the buoys rather than half increasing to the pull by gravity.  However the displacement is changed.  The fluid filled gaps now displace the same amount of fluid as the buoys and this is what can make it not work.  Having the buoys larger than the tube and stuffed into a stretchy tube this means the buoys displace more fluid than the fluid filled gaps.  Provided that the displacement of the fluid filled gaps counters the displacement of the buoys (although I fail to see how) than than the straight tube won't work where the buoys stuffed tube will.  The buoys would have a buoyancy equal to a buoy of five inches in diameter rather than eight assuming the diameter of the tube at it's narrowest point is three inches in diameter.  This will cut the buoyancy of each buoy from 15 lbs down to 8 each.  With 8 buoys submerged at one time then you have a combined force of 64.  Now I had it so that it takes 100 lbs to stretch the seal but that was to ensure there was no error.  It will take considerably less than 100 lbs to stetch the seal from the 3 inchs diameter to 5 inches in diameter.  I can tell you right now that it will take less than 64 lbs.  As a technician in the military I have dealt with my fair share of seals in regards to hydrolics.  It will take close to 10 lbs to stretch the seal that is needed.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 29/06/2006 22:26:50
Is there an edit? I don't see one.

quote:
Nice illustration, btw


Thanx [:D]
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 29/06/2006 23:09:04
Ok I looked into it more and found out that he tube will not work but the curved tube will.  The reason for this has to do with how buoyancy is created.  In a straight tube the force of the fluid acts on the tube equally circumferencely around the tube while gradually increasing as you go down the tube.  Because the tube is straight and vertical then there is no way that the force of the fluid can act under or over each pocket of air.  This is what creates buoyancy.  Because of gravity acting on the fluid the pressure increases with depth.  Since the pressure of the fluid will act on all points of all sides of the buoy at right angle to it's surface than you have an equal force acting on all sides.  Now add to that the increase in pressure with depth and this will actually give you more pressure acting on the buoy from below than what is acting on it from above.  This doesn't mean that buoyancy increase with depth because as you go down the pressure acting from above increases at the same rate as the bottom.  So the influencing factor when it comes to buoyancy is the size of the buoy.  This of course increase how much fluid is displaced and it just so happens that the force of ascent is equal to that amount of fluid displaced.

So the straight tube is not the same as the design I have suggested because the design I suggest provide an area below and above the buoy which will give it lift.  This lift of course would be equal to a buoy the size of 5 inches in diameter assuming we are working with an eight inch buoy in a tube whose narrowest point is 3 inches in diameter.  Now that I think about it, this may not be the case.  Since the tube is flexible than the pressure acting on the wall of this flexible tube would get transferred through the fluid in these gaps and will then meet up with the shell of the buoy inside the tube.  The pressure would get transferred undiminished as the laws of hydraulics dictate.  So really the diameter of the buoy, as far as buoyancy is concerned, will be eight inches minus the total area the thickness of the sleeve covers.  I estimate around one inch so the buoyant diameter of the buoy will be seven inches.  It's still not eight but it's better than 5.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: thebrain13 on 29/06/2006 23:23:43
you had me stumped for awhile, but i know why this wouldn't work. The reason is, whatever object you put into the ferrofluid will not be bouyant. Let me explain why. lets say for example you were swimming in a giant pool of water in outer space away from any gravitational field. You would no longer sink or float based on your density, because there is simply no gravity to pull you down, and no gravity to pull water under you with more force either. So since this ferrofluid resists the force of gravity using the magnets, it is no longer able to provide a bouyant force on the object submerged in it. So no matter how dense the object in the ferrofluid is it will sink to the bottom. ...sorray[:(]
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 30/06/2006 00:13:14
Well the ferro fluid design actually got forgotten.  This design with the buoys have nothing to do with ferro fluid.

quote:
So since this ferrofluid resists the force of gravity using the magnets


There is your mistake.  Ferro fluid doesn't resist the force of gravity actually gravity will still be acting on the fluid as per normal.  The magnet doesn't make it defy gravity, not in the way you suggested atleast.  The pull of the magnet is merely strong enough to pull the fluid up against it (or atleast the wall of the tube closest to the magnet)creating a horizontal surface at the bottom opening.  Now normally it would be impossible to create such a horizontal surface since the magnet would be acting upon the ferro fluid going up the tube pulling it down so both the top surface and the bottom would balance out at equal distances away from the magnet.  This would be bad so a shield is use to guide the lines of flux away from the tube to prevent it from travelling up the tube and therefore preventing the magnet from pulling the fluid down.  So with the magnet acting on the fluid at the very bottom of the tube only than as long as the magnet is strong enough it will pull the fluid toward it with enough force to create a horizontal surface.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: ukmicky on 30/06/2006 00:23:22
quote:
LOL oh my.  So the buoys would be weightless would they?  That if they weren't tied down they would float away?  I suppose those big steel buoys found in high traffic boating areas  must be weightless too if they can float.


Did I say weightless, don’t think so.

Also look how big your big steel shipping buoys need to be  to attain the required internal volume in order for them to have a lower density than the water their displacing due to their dry weight and for your design to revolve any buoys incorporated in it would need to be small and slim line otherwise your going to have a nightmare trying to design the components which the buoys have to pass through or over .
It’s a catch 22 situation if you want high buoyancy to lift and pull everything through or around everthing you need big buoys which you cant have.

And how many of them large steel shipping  buoys do you think will be needed to lift the dry weight of the four in your drawing that are rising and are not in the water, and also then pull  each one  through a seal being held close not just by its own spring but also by the weight of the water above , your tank would need to be so tall to accommodate the number of buoys required that the seal wouldn’t open due to the weight of the water above holding it closed and would probably be destroyed in the process.

quote:
Take a 10 lb weight and put it on the bottom of a pool.  Add a buoy that has a buoyant force of 3 lbs.  The weight will keep the buoy down.  Add two more and the weight will keep all three down.  Add a fourth and the weight will be lifted to the surface.  The buoyancy of the buoys adds together.  The weight will be lifted off the bottom with an upwards force of 2 lbs.  So no it's not the same thing.  The buoys individually will have buoyancy and when linked together they combine their efforts.  Yes buoyancy is when you have something that is less dense submerged in something that is more but for the example you gave the difference as to why one would work and not the other is the trapped air.  More specifically it's specific gravity.  Water has a specific gravity of one; anything will less will float and anything with higher will sink.
you’re not lifting buoys in water as they are lifting themselves. what you have to lift is the dry weight of the buoys that haven’t entered through the seal yet and the buoys which have exited the water but haven’t reached TDC yet.


quote:
First it's called life experience.  I live next to the ocean and have been swimming my entire life and I can tell you that the wheels would have such little resistance that the weight of just one buoy would be enough to turn them.

I hope you never go for a job in R&D; they would laugh you out the door.

Maybe you could add extra pulleys at the top, making it easier for the buoys dropping down to lift the other buoys rising up[:)] joking


quote:
As for trying to open a hatch with ten feet of water above it, as long as that ten feet only has a diameter of two feet then opening the hatch would require some effort but is more than possible.  
Try it.


Michael
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: ukmicky on 30/06/2006 00:43:36
quote:
More specifically it's specific gravity. Water has a specific gravity of one, anything will less will float and anything with higher will sink.


I think you will find that the specific gravity of water changes with its temperature.

The density of water also changes with its temperature ,as it  gets colder it becomes less dense

Michael
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: thebrain13 on 30/06/2006 00:47:14
by the magnet pulling up on the fluid with more force than gravity pulls down causes the object to not be bouyant. It doesn't need to "stop" gravity or whatever you were suggesting I was saying. In this case the ferrofluid is suspended in the air, more than counteracting the force of gravity, which caused the bouyancy in the first place. To elaborate, lets say you had a cup full of ferrofluid, a magnet on the bottom which pulled the ferrofluid twice as hard as gravity. If you measured the bouyant force, when the cup was upside down, the force would be negative, or the object would move downwards against gravity, if you turned it rightside up, the bouyant force would be three times the usual all upward acting.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: ukmicky on 30/06/2006 00:57:52
You can't win give up,i have finally.[:)]  its like the plane on a backwards moving walkway , some people get it and understand how it will still take off, whereas others just cant.

Michael
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 30/06/2006 02:03:25
quote:
Also look how big your big steel shipping buoys need to be to attain the required internal volume in order for them to have a lower density than the water their displacing due to their dry weight and for your design to revolve any buoys incorporated in it would need to be small and slim line otherwise your going to have a nightmare trying to design the components which the buoys have to pass through or over .


Ok the size doesn't matter.  When it comes to the big steel buoys if made small would have less weight and would require less air trapped inside to keep it buoyant.  As for saying they were weightless?  Yes you did.  Here is what you said.


quote:
You can’t use gravity to overcome your friction loses as the buoys will then be to heavy to be buoyant.


So with what you said there you are suggesting that anything that is buoyant would have no weight since you can't have weight and buoancy at the same time as you put it.  That you can't have one without the other.  That would mean by what YOU said all those buoys when out of water are weightless since as you put it if they had weight then they wouldn't be buoyant.  The friction losses that the weight of the buoys over come are the wheels that would take the weight of one buoy (roughly 3 lbs) and the air drag (that isn't big enough to even be even looked at) that can be easily over come by a fraction of the weight of just one buoy.  So to say that I can't use gravity to overcome these friction points because I wouldn't have buoyancy would mean that for the buoys to be buoyant in the water would have to be weightless when out of the water.  Besides most of the weight while outside comes from the fluid filled gaps that once they become submerged do become weightless.

quote:
And how many of them large steel shipping buoys do you think will be needed to lift the dry weight of the four in your drawing that are rising and are not in the water


You obviously didn't read it.  I said that the four that are rising and are not submerged are counter balanced by the four on the other side of the wheels that are on their way down.  It's called the neutral point around the wheels that I was talking about.  If you had bothered to read than you have realized that the buoyancy of the buoys submerged is not used to lift any buoy except the one that is entering through the seal.  Plus the buoys used in the design won't be big steel buoys.  I have repeatedly said that they would be buoys of eight inch diameter with a shell that is stiff rubber material.

quote:
you’re not lifting buoys in water as they are lifting themselves. what you have to lift is the dry weight of the buoys that haven’t entered through the seal yet and the buoys which have exited the water but haven’t reached TDC yet.



Again you said the same thing that I have already said was wrong.  If you had bothered to read the long post I made after the last two pics I did some simple math.  It turns out that roughly the weight of the buoys and fluid filled gaps can not only turn the wheels but can lift the buoys that have reached the surface of the main body of fluid, lift the buoys up to the seal and counter the weight of fluid pushing down on the buoy trying to enter.  The ONLY force that buoyancy drives is stretching the seal and move the system.

quote:
Try it.


Again look at my post with the math.  5 inch (not two feet) diameter "hatch" is needed to allow the buoys in and a cylinder of fluid that is five inches in diameter and 128 inches high (10 1/2 feet) will weight 70 pounds provided that the fluid weights .007 pounds per cubic inch.  Pick up a cubic inch of vegetable oil (since I believe that would work best) and feels how much it weights.  Sure it will have more weight than .007 pounds but the weight works for and against in such a way to cancel each other out so it doesn't really matter.  Oh and as for try it?  True stories of men in subs deep under the surface.  Hull rips open, water poors in at a pressure of that of a few atmospheres (many times more than a two foot wide ten foot high cylinder of water).  Takes about three men to shut a three foot hatch with cubic feet rushing through it.  So can it be done with as little water as been mentioned here?  Just as long as my two feet are planted on a firm surface.  I can lift with my legs alone somewhere up to 250 to 275 lbs.  A volume of water that is 10 feet high with a two foot diameter weights about that.

quote:
I think you will find that the specific gravity of water changes with its temperature.



Here is a quote from an encyclopedia;

quote:
specific gravity, ratio of the weight of a given volume of a substance to the weight of an equal volume of some reference substance, or, equivalently, the ratio of the masses of equal volumes of the two substances.


Since mass is related to density than yes the specific gravity will change but not in the same way as density since you have to factor in volume with density to get your mass.  Anyway it doesn't even matter.  Makes no difference.



Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 30/06/2006 02:20:39
quote:
by the magnet pulling up on the fluid with more force than gravity pulls down causes the object to not be bouyant. It doesn't need to "stop" gravity or whatever you were suggesting I was saying. In this case the ferrofluid is suspended in the air, more than counteracting the force of gravity, which caused the bouyancy in the first place. To elaborate, lets say you had a cup full of ferrofluid, a magnet on the bottom which pulled the ferrofluid twice as hard as gravity. If you measured the bouyant force, when the cup was upside down, the force would be negative, or the object would move downwards against gravity, if you turned it rightside up, the bouyant force would be three times the usual all upward acting.


Ok it doesn't matter since when it comes to the ferro fluid design it would be better not to use any floats at all.  To use the fluid itself instead of the floats.  As in when the fluid gets pulled in toward the magnet the tube containing the fluid becomes over filled by a little bit.  This will create spillage at the top and this spillage (due to gravity) will travel down the chutes provided away from the field of the magnet but will in the end return back into range of the magnet to get pulled back into the fluid to create the over fill once again.  Why doesn't the magnet keep the fluid from spilling?  Because the magnetic shield keeps the magnet from influencing the fluid above it.  Why wouldn't the magnet keep the fluid from passing the shield in the first place?  Because a magnets attraction is strongest at the poles and with the pole pressed up against the wall of the tube of fluid than this is what pulls the fluid in to create the horizontal surface at the bottom.  Now it's easier for the fluid to travel with the lines of flux than against them and this is what allows the fluid to travel up the tube.  Because it is easier for the fluid to follow the lines of flux (travel up the tube) than work against them (back through the opening at the bottom) that means when the fluid coming down the line combines back with the main body of fluid it is easier for this increased pressure to travel up instead of directly away.  Now once this pressure reaches the shield it is far enough that it will keep on going.  So really the path up the tube is the path of least resistance when it comes to the two ways the fluid can travel and since fluids are uncompressable than when the spillage meets back up with the main body, the main body instantly becomes over filled.  Kinda like that toy with the steel balls.  Lift the one at the end and let it go, as soon as the ball hits the next one the energy is instantly transmitted to the last ball on the other end.  Same Idea with the ferro fluid.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 30/06/2006 02:35:05
Just like to add once again that energy can neither be created nor destroyed and can only change forms.  This has been proven time and time again.  With this rule of physics alone it proves that the universe itself is a perpetual motion machine.  So perpetual motion is a rule of our existence.  To say perpetual motion is impossible is to say the universe does not exist.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: thebrain13 on 01/07/2006 02:48:03
with this ferrofluid design of spillage. Bottom line youve got to forces. the magnet and gravity which ever one is stronger is where the ferrofluid would hang out, slanting towards the weaker force, it has no reason to spin or start spinning.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 01/07/2006 15:55:14
quote:
with this ferrofluid design of spillage. Bottom line youve got to forces. the magnet and gravity which ever one is stronger is where the ferrofluid would hang out, slanting towards the weaker force, it has no reason to spin or start spinning.


So your just going to ignore the shielding altogether are you.  Well I'm not about to explain any further if your not going to lisen.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: ukmicky on 01/07/2006 16:57:05
The ferro fluid is going to go everywhere, it will coat the ball and be transfered to places you dont want it lowering the level more and more in the part where the ball needs to rise and jump out.

Michael
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 02/07/2006 03:58:17
quote:
The ferro fluid is going to go everywhere, it will coat the ball and be transfered to places you dont want it lowering the level more and more in the part where the ball needs to rise and jump out.


Like I said, I'm not even gonna bother explaining it further if your not going to even bother to listen.  Latest discussion on the ferro fluid design doesn't have a ball, not one.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: thebrain13 on 02/07/2006 04:30:01
how can you get the fluid to move through a magnetic shield?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 03/07/2006 00:25:51
It's a matter of path of least resistance.  The magnet is strong enough to create a horizontal surface.  Since the magnet is strong enough to do this than it will do this.  If by the magnet doing this cause the main tube to become overfull then a little bit will spill at the top (where the magnet has no influence because the the magnetic shield) and run down the spillway.  Once the spillage gets to the bottom of the spillway it enters the range of the magnet and gets pulled in.  Once it gets pulled in the magnet will create the horizontal surface once again because it has the strength to.  However this will cause the tube to become over full.  The only way for the main tube not to become over full is if the spillage doesn't enter the horizontal surface.  But the stongest point of a magnet is its poles and with the pole pulling the spillage in then the path of least resistance is up the tube since the magnetic pull pulling the fluid down (below the shield) is weaker than the magnetic pull pulling in the spillage.  Path of least resistance.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 03/07/2006 15:09:26
quote:
how can you get the fluid to move through a magnetic shield?


The shield is on the outside of the tube.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 28/06/2006 11:03:28
I was wrong with the Permanent Magnetic Motor.  Howard is Johnson.  However Howard Johnson doesn't own the patent anymore and the website I came across (which for some reason I can't find it anymore) had the math and graphs with readings taken from a working model along with a link to a video.  So I've came across websites that had Howard having built a working model but with no evidence and then came across this one site that had some proof.

quote:
maybe if you did a normal fluid, without magnets, and the balls are passing through some sort of a funnel that will let the ball through one way, but will not let the water out. Any water spilled when the ball goes through can be collected in a drain and brought back to the top somehow. That requires no magnetism, and the only energy used to pump the spilled water could be generated by the wheel istelf, and excess energy will be used in whatever you are powering.


The design introduced by realmswalker is the one that uses magnets where it's NCoppedge's design doesn't use magnets and is the one that has the buoys entering from the bottom.  Two different designs.

quote:
That will not work because as soon as the ball enters the fluid through the one-way valve, it displaces a volume of that fluid which is equal to its own volume. It does so at the point of highest pressure, meaning that it must do work on the fluid equal to that pressure times its volume. Then it floats up, recovering exactly this energy (less viscous drag as well as the mgh figure for the ball, etc) by the time it reaches the top. Result: Zero net energy generated.


Even if it is pressure times volume if the tank of water is kept narrow as to allow only one string of buoys through than this will reduce the bottom pressure.  Reduce it enough that it would be no different than the pressure at the top.  Besides the resistance would be the weight of water (assuming water is the fluid used) that is equal to the diameter of the buoy minus the diameter of the connecting line and having the height of the water.  So if the buoy is 5 in. dia. and the connecting line is 1 in. and the depth of the water is 5 ft. than the resistance would be the weight of water that has the dimentions of 4 in. dia. and 5 ft. high.  If each buoy is 5 in. dia. and the depth of the water is 5 ft. than you can have quite a few buoys in the water.  Enough to pull the next one through the seal.  Even if it doesn't work out to be more.  That the combined pull of the buoys in the water will only equal the resistance than you still have x amount of buoys being pulled down by gravity.

Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Roy P on 28/06/2006 11:42:20
My 'hosepipe-with-internal-sealed-pockets' notion was used only to illustrate the problem.

Look. It doesn't matter how many buoys are used -- two, or, as someone else has already pointed out, a million, it will not work!

OK: Start from the beginning, using only two buoys -- one entering the base of the liquid, and one just about to descend. Would that work? Of course it wouldn't!

Now try it with FOUR buoys equidistant from each other. Same problem!

It's a no goer!

__________________________________________________________
Roy P
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 28/06/2006 13:45:30
quote:
Start from the beginning, using only two buoys -- one entering the base of the liquid, and one just about to descend. Would that work? Of course it wouldn't!


There's your problem.  Yes that would not work because it requires the force of multiple buoys in the water to pull the next one through the seal.  One about to enter while the other is about to descend?  That's your example as to why it wouldn't work?  Seeing as how you don't have any other buoys applying any type of force than yes it won't work.  The system would work because of multiple buoys.  

Lets look at the resistances.  

The two wheels resistance to turn,
The drag on the buoys as they pass through the water,
The drag on the buoys as they fall outside the tank,
The buoys that have to be lifted up out of the water,
The buoys that have to be lifted up to the seal,
The buoys that have to pass through the seal,
The buoys have to work against the water above.

Now lets look at the forces that will run and help run the machine.

Buoyancy,
Gravity,
Current.

So starting with the wheels resistance to turn, provided they are equipped with a bearing than they would be much like a bike tire.  The weight of one buoy being pulled by gravity is enough to overcome this resistance.  Plus once the wheels are turning it requires less force to keep them going at a constant speed.

The drag put on them as they rise.  The fact that each buoy is able to ascend rather rapidly as I have seen myself by simply taking a volleyball under water and letting it go, this drag will not have an impact.  Also once a current is developed than this drag is reduced.

The drag with the air on the way down.  Drop a volleyball from any distance and see how fast it drops.  Drag from the air will have even less impact than the drag from the water.

The buoys being lifted up out of the water and the buoys being lifted up to the seal.  This combined distance working against gravity would be easily compensated by the buoys being pulled down by gravity.  With lots to spare.

Passing through the seal.  This would have to be the second biggest influence when it comes to going against operation.  Now I recomment a light oil or maybe even soapy water instead of regular water.  This way both the buoys and the seal will get rather slippery and reduce much of the resistance with the seal.  So the only real resistance is stretching the seal.  The seal can be made rather flexable easing this resistance and still hold a seal and the water with its shape.  If an inverted cone shaped seal is used than the pressure of the water will ensure a good seal.  It will still require x number of buoys submerged at one time but I think the excess weight on the outside of the tank may be enough to take care of the seal resistance.

This leaves the number one resistance.  Weight of the water acting upon the seal.  It will require x number of buoys submerged at any one time to overcome this resistance.  From experiments I did in a pool, I'm convince that this resistance can easily be overcome by the combined buoyancy of multiple buoys in the water.  The current that will develop will aid in pulling the next buoy up through the seal.

Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: ukmicky on 28/06/2006 22:04:53
quote:
Originally posted by Precursor

Ok first lets look at the resistance of the buoys being lifted out of the water and pushed up to the seal.  If the buoy only has to rise a foot to get to the top of the wheel and get pushed a foot from the lower most point up to the seal that means you have two feet of gravity working against you.  Take that two feet and put it up against the (for example sake) 10 feet that the buoys will be travelling down with gravety.  If the buoys are spaced so there is one for every foot than you have the weight of 10 buoys being pulled by gravity working against two.  The ten wins out.  So the two working against you will cancel out two working for you leaving you with eight to be used to over come other frictions within the system.  The wheels will rotate on a bearing so only the weight of one buoy being pulled down by gravity can over come both wheels and then some.  So you are left with the weight of seven buoys working in unison with the buoyancy of the buoys inside to overcome the resistance to enter the system at the bottom.



Add to one thing and you take from another.

You can’t use gravity to overcome your friction loses as the buoys will then be to heavy to be buoyant. You can’t have weight and buoyancy in your system.

quote:
Linking multiple buoys is not the same as just having a hollow tube.  Each buoy is a seperate entity and will portray buoyancy.  Having them linked together allows them to combine their buoyancy.  To work together.  The reaso why one works and not the other is because with the buoys air is trapped within each buoy where if you just had a hollow tube than the air isn't trapped.  Buoyancy exists when you have air trapped and submerged.  Without one or the other than you won't have buoyancy.
 

Yes it is, your buoys are all connected to one line,one continuous circuit.  The only difference is that the buoyancy force is more evenly spread with the tube.
Also a bouyancy force is created when the density of the submerged object is less than that of the fluid that it is displacing.



 
quote:
So that would really only leave the resistance from the fluid to be overcome.  The combined buoyancy of the buoys within the fluid should be greater than this resistance.  Even if it can't be more and only the same than you still have the weight of the seven buoys being pulled down by gravity on the outside to turn the device.

Your sitting their thinking that an air filled buoy or ten air filled buoys will provide enough buoyancy to overcome all the energy loses without measuring or knowing the actual loses involved or at what points your loses are made,if you were look at the design properly you would realize that at every single point of the buoys travel around the system energy is being lost or should i say converted, even their movement through the air will cause the system to lose something, in some places they maybe minor and not measurable by you but add everything together and you would see that in order for the loop of buoys to turn energy would have to be added to the system from an outside source.
quote:

This leaves the number one resistance. Weight of the water acting upon the seal. It will require x number of buoys submerged at any one time to overcome this resistance. From experiments I did in a pool, I'm convince that this resistance can easily be overcome by the combined buoyancy of multiple buoys in the water. The current that will develop will aid in pulling the next buoy up through the seal.

This plus the weight of the water pushing against the buoy trying to enter the tank would be enough to halt the system alone. Also a volletball may rise quickly in water but imagine trying to push a volley ball through a open volleyball size hatch in a submarine with ten foot of water above you trying to come in.



Michael
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 29/06/2006 11:11:15
quote:
You can’t use gravity to overcome your friction loses as the buoys will then be to heavy to be buoyant. You can’t have weight and buoyancy in your system.


LOL oh my.  So the buoys would be weightless would they?  That if they weren't tied down they would float away?  I suppose those big steel buoys found in high traffic boating areas  must be weightless too if they can float.

quote:
Yes it is, your buoys are all connected to one line,one continuous circuit. The only difference is that the buoyancy force is more evenly spread with the tube.
Also a bouyancy force is created when the density of the submerged object is less than that of the fluid that it is displacing.


Take a 10 lb weight and put it on the bottom of a pool.  Add a buoy that has a buoyant force of 3 lbs.  The weight will keep the buoy down.  Add two more and the weight will keep all three down.  Add a fourth and the weight will be lifted to the surface.  The buoyancy of the buoys add together.  The weight will be lifted off the bottom with an upwards force of 2 lbs.  So no it's not the same thing.  The buoys individually will have buoyancy and when linked together they combine their efforts.  Yes buoyancy is when you have something that is less dense submerged in something that is more but for the example you gave the difference as to why one would work and not the other is the trapped air.  More specifically it's specific gravity.  Water has a specific gravity of one, anything will less will float and anything with higher will sink.

quote:
Your sitting their thinking that an air filled buoy or ten air filled buoys will provide enough buoyancy to overcome all the energy loses without measuring or knowing the actual loses involved or at what points your loses are made,if you were look at the design properly you would realize that at every single point of the buoys travel around the system energy is being lost or should i say converted, even their movement through the air will cause the system to lose something, in some places they maybe minor and not measurable by you but add everything together and you would see that in order for the loop of buoys to turn energy would have to be added to the system from an outside source.


First it's called life experience.  I live next to the ocean and have been swimming my entire life and I can tell you that the wheels would have such little resistance that the weight of just one buoy would be enough to turn them.  Air drag will have an unmeasurable affect and the distance where the buoys have to go against gravity will be overcome by the increased distance where the buoys are getting pulled down by gravity.  As for knowing where and what the loss are I listed them or atleast the one that will have the most effect.  I then explained how each factor would be overcome.  Like drag with the air will have almost no effect.

quote:
This plus the weight of the water pushing against the buoy trying to enter the tank would be enough to halt the system alone. Also a volletball may rise quickly in water but imagine trying to push a volley ball through a open volleyball size hatch in a submarine with ten foot of water above you trying to come in.


This is the weight of the water pushing against the buoy there is no 'plus' about it.  Your adding the same thing to itself.  As for trying to open a hatch with ten feet of water above it, as long as that ten feet only has a diameter of two feet then opening the hatch would require some effort but is more than possible.  

Now I'm just curious but what level of science have you taken?  What grade are you in?  Because all that I quoted was babble.


Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Roy P on 29/06/2006 13:38:24
quote:
Originally posted by Precursor
and the distance where the buoys have to go against gravity will be overcome by the increased distance where the buoys are getting pulled down by gravity.

This is another mistake in your reasoning. You forget that both sides of the line contain the same amount of buoys and are therefore equal in 'weight'.

__________________________________________________________
Roy P
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 29/06/2006 14:19:41
quote:
This is another mistake in your reasoning. You forget that both sides of the line contain the same amount of buoys and are therefore equal in 'weight'.


Wrong.  One side is submerged and therefore has buoyancy so only one side is being pulled down by gravity.  The buoyancy of those submerged not only counter any gravitational pull upon them but also provide considerable lift.  So it can be said that while those on the outside have weight, those on the inside have negetive weight.  Negetive weight equivalent to their buoyancy.  I have seen myself by taking a ball (about the size of a volleyball) to the bottom of a pool (15 feet) that the buoyancy is greater than that of the weight of the ball.  It is actually the weight of water equal to the volume of the ball or put another way, equal to the amount of water displaced.  So when the outside has weight pulling down by gravity, the inside will have negetive weight equal to the amount of displaced fluid the buoys are submerged in.  So while a volleyball sized buoy may way 2 or 3 lbs being pulled by gravity they will have closer to 15 lbs of negetive weight (buoyancy) while submerged.  If you have 10 buoys submerged at one time with their buoyancy all working together to pull the next buoy through the seal that is 150 lbs of pull.  Would 150 lbs be enough?  Absolutely.

If you were to go with what I suggested (what NCoppedge goes with is entirely up to him since it's his idea) than the seal doesn't have to stretch that much.  My suggestion is to take the buoys and stuff them into a tube.  So you have eight inch buoys stuffed into a three inch stretch (yet strong) tube.  You then fill the gaps in the tube between each buoy with the same fluid the buoys are submerged in.  What this will do is add to the weight on the outside being pulled down by gravity while having no negetive effect on the inside,  reduce the amount of stretching the seal has to do to let the next buoy in and provide a nice smooth curve of a surface around the buoys so the seal keeps the seal.

Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Roy P on 29/06/2006 14:47:09
quote:
Originally posted by Precursor
Wrong.  One side is submerged and therefore has buoyancy

Nope, you are wrong. They are equally balanced. The inner buoys will be *pulling* the exterior buoys down.
quote:
You then fill the gaps in the tube between each buoy with the same fluid the buoys are submerged in.

Don't be silly. That's like a piston. The buoys will have to 'lift' the water as well as themselves.

__________________________________________________________
Roy P
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 29/06/2006 16:42:54
quote:
Nope, you are wrong. They are equally balanced. The inner buoys will be *pulling* the exterior buoys down


Ok first you said that those on the inside and those on the outside would be balanced and therefore not go anywhere.  That is wrong.  Yes gravity is still acting upon the ones on the inside but buoyancy dominates.  So the weight of the buoys become not only inverted but addition force is applied.  In short the 2 to 3 pounds that the buoy weighs will become 15 pounds of lift when submerged.  Assuming that a buoy filled with the fluid rather than air weighs 15 pounds. To say otherwise is like saying that a ball when tossed into the water will sink instead of float.  That is just idiotic.

Now you say that the buoys inside would get held back by the ones on the outside falling.  Not only is this also wrong but it goes against what you first said.  It's wrong because any object with buoyancy is capable of falling at a faster rate than ascending.  Take a ball and take it down 15 ft in a pool as I did and let it go.  The ball will reach a terminal velocity.  A velocity at which the ball can not go any faster because the increased drag (that comes with the increased speed) with the water is great enough to counter further acceleration.  Take the same ball and drop it from 15 ft up in the air.  The ball dropped from 15 ft above the pool will reach the surface faster than the one taken 15 ft under and let go.  This is because air is less dense than water and therefore the ball is able to reach a faster terminal velocity.  So will the submerged buoys be working to pull the ones on the outside down?  NO.  It will actually be the opposite.  The weight of the buoys would help pull the ones submerged up.  So really the buoys getting pulled down by gravity would be held back by the buoys that are submerged.  This works in favor of the system working.

quote:
Don't be silly. That's like a piston. The buoys will have to 'lift' the water as well as themselves.


There is a short distance where the buoys have to go against the pull of gravity without being under the influence of buoyancy.  Say that the buoys are spaced a foot apart and that there are ten feet and therefore ten buoys getting pulled down by gravity.  Lets also say that with the diameter of the wheels that there is a combined total of 2 feet and therefore 2 buoys getting lifted against gravity.  Lets add the fluid (equal to that of which the buoys are submerged) into the tube that contains the buoys to fill in the gaps between buoys.  So you have two buoys and two gaps of fluid going against gravity but you also have ten buoys and ten gaps of fluid being pulled by gravity.  Two out of the ten will cancel out the two on the other side of the equation.  That leaves you with 8 buoys and gaps of fluid being pulled down by gravity.  The weight of one buoy is enough to turn the wheels so you are left with seven buoys and eight gaps of fluid being pulled down by gravity.  Here is the key factor.  When the buoys enter the fluid, the gaps filled with the same fluid become weightless.  So you have additional weight being pulled down by gravity and the same amount of buoyancy with the submerged buoys.  

Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 29/06/2006 18:39:17
I think I know where you are getting confused with the fluid in between the buoys.  When I say the fluid in between the buoys being equal to the fluid the buoys are submerged in I mean that the substance is the same.  That if you use water in the tank than use water to fill the spaces in the tube in between the buoys.  If you use vegetable oil than use vegetable oil to fill the gaps in the tube.  That's all.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Roy P on 29/06/2006 20:24:58
quote:
Originally posted by Precursor
Ok first you said that those on the inside and those on the outside would be balanced and therefore not go anywhere. That is wrong.

No. What I am saying is that, without the water, the buoys are equally balanced. So your assumption that 'weight' is a factor is *wrong*.
quote:
Now you say that the buoys inside would get held back by the ones on the outside falling.

I did not say that.

As far as the tube is concerned -- it's a no-brainer.

Look. Any momentum gained by an ascending buoy will be counteracted both by the force required to lift a buoy out of the liquid, and the force required to insert a buoy into the base.

It's an elegant proposal on paper, but practically unworkable -- sorry.

__________________________________________________________
Roy P
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 29/06/2006 20:44:37
Since NCoppedge has forwarded his final design I am gonna post two pics of what I think would be a working design.

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi8.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa8%2FKrysandjoe%2FCombinedForces.jpg&hash=91f5f63fd9ec7f08a4402e3be854d4ac)

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi8.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa8%2FKrysandjoe%2FCombinedForces2.jpg&hash=a88fd45b3eb03134651f63cb121289f7)

Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Roy P on 29/06/2006 21:03:32
Oh dear; can you not see that your 'tube' filled with water is almost exactly the same as a 'hosepipe' with sealed inner sections, which I used as an illustration in a previous post? It does not work!!

Nice illustration, btw.

__________________________________________________________
Roy P
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 29/06/2006 21:58:50
The first pic shows the complete design including what I'm talking about with the buoys in the tube and the same fluid filling the gaps between the buoys in the tube.

The eight buoys submerged, provided they displace 15 pounds of fluid each, will have a combined buoyant force of 120 pounds.  This is more simply shown in the second pic on the left side.  Do their buoyancy combine?  Yes it does as I explained with the weight and four buoys.

Now pay close attention to the buoys around the wheels.  The two that are getting lifted out of the water and the two getting lifted to the seal are neutralized by the buoys on the other side.  This is more clearly shown in the second pic at the top and bottom.

Now you have the eight buoys that are on the outside.  These are not submerged and gravity can take over to pull them down.  So as the second pic shows you have one side buoyant and wants to rise, the other side is being successfully pulled down by gravity with buoyancy out of the picture since they are not submerged and you have the two wheels.  The buoys on either side of the wheel will balance the other out creating neutral points.  So there are four areas; one going up, one going down and two that have neither force.

Now for the fluid filling the gaps within the tube between the buoys.  Outside the main body of fluid the fluid in the gaps will have weight.  Possibly more weight than the buoys themselves.  So the fluid filled gaps outside the neutral points will aid in the chain getting pulled down by gravity.  However once the fluid filled gaps enter the main body of fluid they become weightless.  Lets say that the weight of the fluid within one gap is half that of weight of fluid displaced by a buoy.  So that is 7 1/2 lbs.  Going by the first pic the buoys will have the combined buoyant force of 120 lbs with each buoy displacing 15 lbs each.  That means since the nitrogen in the buoys will become weightless outside the fluid, the fluid in the gaps that were once weightless while submerged now have a combined weight of 7 gaps that are outside the neutral points and not submerged getting pulled down by gravity. So that is a combined weight of 52.5 lbs.  Even though it will only take the weight of one buoy to turn both wheels I will say it takes the weight of two.  So out of the eight buoys getting pulled down by gravity two go towards turning the wheels leaving you six.  Lets say that each buoy filled with nitrogen has the weight of three pounds.  That leaves you 18 lbs to be added to the 52.5 lbs for a total of 70.5 lbs.  

So with drag being too weak to even consider and the wheels are able to be turned by the weight of two buoys what's left?  The seal and weight of the fluid.  Now if each buoy has a diameter of eight inches and the thinnest part of the tube (since it will curve inward) is 3 inches in diameter than the seal only has to stretch a total amount of 5 inches.  This may sound like quite a bit but you have to keep in mind that you have to divide this in half so each point circumferencely around the seal only has to travel 2 1/2 inches.  As for the weight of the fluid acting against the buoy trying to enter the system through the seal.  That resistance is equal to the weight of fluid with dimentions equal to the diameter of expansion (5 inches) and the hight of the water from bottom to surface.  Now with the total buoyancy at 120 lbs and the total weight of the line (buoys and fluid filled gaps) at 70.5 lbs means you have 190.5 lbs of force working for you to push the next buoy through the seal against the weigh of the fluid as specified.  Is that amount of weight enough?  Yes.

Going by the first pic and having each buoy at eight inches in diameter than the gap between buoys is eight inches.  With eight buoys and eight gaps submerged that means the depth of the main body of fluid is 128 inches or 10 2/3 feet.  So if the buoy has a diameter of 8 inches than the volume of that buoy is 2145 cubic inches (rounded to the nearest whole number).  If the fluid displaced by the buoy has the weight of 15 lbs than the water acting against the buoy (with a volume of 10053 cubic inches rounded to the nearest whole number) will have a total weight of 70 lbs (rounded to the nearest whole number.  

That means the 70.5 lbs of weight created by gravity acting on the buoys and fluid filled gaps outside the main body of fluid is enough to counter the weight of the fluid pushing down on the next buoy trying to enter the system.  This leaves you with the 120 lbs of lift.  Do you really think that the stretchiness of the seal can hold back 120 lbs of force?  Not on your life.  Lets leave no margin for error and say that it will take 100 lbs.  This will leave you with 20 lbs of force free to move the buoys.

Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Roy P on 29/06/2006 22:17:23
You don't read a word of my posts do you?

__________________________________________________________
Roy P
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 29/06/2006 22:25:44
quote:
Oh dear; can you not see that your 'tube' filled with water is almost exactly the same as a 'hosepipe' with sealed inner sections, which I used as an illustration in a previous post? It does not work!!


Lets take a look.

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi8.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa8%2FKrysandjoe%2FCompared.jpg&hash=8e5f5dfa50d8bb2f4f5f3c40b53e4475)

It could be that either one can work.  The blue is the fluid that is used to in the main body. Now if the segmented tube acts in the same manner than the sleeved buoys than this may work in the favor of the device.  The seal doesn't have to expand so it only leaves you with the weight of the fluid above.  I will have to look into more on how the shape of a buoyant object affects it's buoyancy.  I can see the tube working because the fluid in the tube (being the same as the main body of fluid) becomes weightless when submerged leaving you with 'square?' buoys.  The fluid in the gap can equal to the space in the buoys rather than half increasing to the pull by gravity.  However the displacement is changed.  The fluid filled gaps now displace the same amount of fluid as the buoys and this is what can make it not work.  Having the buoys larger than the tube and stuffed into a stretchy tube this means the buoys displace more fluid than the fluid filled gaps.  Provided that the displacement of the fluid filled gaps counters the displacement of the buoys (although I fail to see how) than than the straight tube won't work where the buoys stuffed tube will.  The buoys would have a buoyancy equal to a buoy of five inches in diameter rather than eight assuming the diameter of the tube at it's narrowest point is three inches in diameter.  This will cut the buoyancy of each buoy from 15 lbs down to 8 each.  With 8 buoys submerged at one time then you have a combined force of 64.  Now I had it so that it takes 100 lbs to stretch the seal but that was to ensure there was no error.  It will take considerably less than 100 lbs to stetch the seal from the 3 inchs diameter to 5 inches in diameter.  I can tell you right now that it will take less than 64 lbs.  As a technician in the military I have dealt with my fair share of seals in regards to hydrolics.  It will take close to 10 lbs to stretch the seal that is needed.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 29/06/2006 22:26:50
Is there an edit? I don't see one.

quote:
Nice illustration, btw


Thanx [:D]
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 29/06/2006 23:09:04
Ok I looked into it more and found out that he tube will not work but the curved tube will.  The reason for this has to do with how buoyancy is created.  In a straight tube the force of the fluid acts on the tube equally circumferencely around the tube while gradually increasing as you go down the tube.  Because the tube is straight and vertical then there is no way that the force of the fluid can act under or over each pocket of air.  This is what creates buoyancy.  Because of gravity acting on the fluid the pressure increases with depth.  Since the pressure of the fluid will act on all points of all sides of the buoy at right angle to it's surface than you have an equal force acting on all sides.  Now add to that the increase in pressure with depth and this will actually give you more pressure acting on the buoy from below than what is acting on it from above.  This doesn't mean that buoyancy increase with depth because as you go down the pressure acting from above increases at the same rate as the bottom.  So the influencing factor when it comes to buoyancy is the size of the buoy.  This of course increase how much fluid is displaced and it just so happens that the force of ascent is equal to that amount of fluid displaced.

So the straight tube is not the same as the design I have suggested because the design I suggest provide an area below and above the buoy which will give it lift.  This lift of course would be equal to a buoy the size of 5 inches in diameter assuming we are working with an eight inch buoy in a tube whose narrowest point is 3 inches in diameter.  Now that I think about it, this may not be the case.  Since the tube is flexible than the pressure acting on the wall of this flexible tube would get transferred through the fluid in these gaps and will then meet up with the shell of the buoy inside the tube.  The pressure would get transferred undiminished as the laws of hydraulics dictate.  So really the diameter of the buoy, as far as buoyancy is concerned, will be eight inches minus the total area the thickness of the sleeve covers.  I estimate around one inch so the buoyant diameter of the buoy will be seven inches.  It's still not eight but it's better than 5.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: thebrain13 on 29/06/2006 23:23:43
you had me stumped for awhile, but i know why this wouldn't work. The reason is, whatever object you put into the ferrofluid will not be bouyant. Let me explain why. lets say for example you were swimming in a giant pool of water in outer space away from any gravitational field. You would no longer sink or float based on your density, because there is simply no gravity to pull you down, and no gravity to pull water under you with more force either. So since this ferrofluid resists the force of gravity using the magnets, it is no longer able to provide a bouyant force on the object submerged in it. So no matter how dense the object in the ferrofluid is it will sink to the bottom. ...sorray[:(]
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 30/06/2006 00:13:14
Well the ferro fluid design actually got forgotten.  This design with the buoys have nothing to do with ferro fluid.

quote:
So since this ferrofluid resists the force of gravity using the magnets


There is your mistake.  Ferro fluid doesn't resist the force of gravity actually gravity will still be acting on the fluid as per normal.  The magnet doesn't make it defy gravity, not in the way you suggested atleast.  The pull of the magnet is merely strong enough to pull the fluid up against it (or atleast the wall of the tube closest to the magnet)creating a horizontal surface at the bottom opening.  Now normally it would be impossible to create such a horizontal surface since the magnet would be acting upon the ferro fluid going up the tube pulling it down so both the top surface and the bottom would balance out at equal distances away from the magnet.  This would be bad so a shield is use to guide the lines of flux away from the tube to prevent it from travelling up the tube and therefore preventing the magnet from pulling the fluid down.  So with the magnet acting on the fluid at the very bottom of the tube only than as long as the magnet is strong enough it will pull the fluid toward it with enough force to create a horizontal surface.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: ukmicky on 30/06/2006 00:23:22
quote:
LOL oh my.  So the buoys would be weightless would they?  That if they weren't tied down they would float away?  I suppose those big steel buoys found in high traffic boating areas  must be weightless too if they can float.


Did I say weightless, don’t think so.

Also look how big your big steel shipping buoys need to be  to attain the required internal volume in order for them to have a lower density than the water their displacing due to their dry weight and for your design to revolve any buoys incorporated in it would need to be small and slim line otherwise your going to have a nightmare trying to design the components which the buoys have to pass through or over .
It’s a catch 22 situation if you want high buoyancy to lift and pull everything through or around everthing you need big buoys which you cant have.

And how many of them large steel shipping  buoys do you think will be needed to lift the dry weight of the four in your drawing that are rising and are not in the water, and also then pull  each one  through a seal being held close not just by its own spring but also by the weight of the water above , your tank would need to be so tall to accommodate the number of buoys required that the seal wouldn’t open due to the weight of the water above holding it closed and would probably be destroyed in the process.

quote:
Take a 10 lb weight and put it on the bottom of a pool.  Add a buoy that has a buoyant force of 3 lbs.  The weight will keep the buoy down.  Add two more and the weight will keep all three down.  Add a fourth and the weight will be lifted to the surface.  The buoyancy of the buoys adds together.  The weight will be lifted off the bottom with an upwards force of 2 lbs.  So no it's not the same thing.  The buoys individually will have buoyancy and when linked together they combine their efforts.  Yes buoyancy is when you have something that is less dense submerged in something that is more but for the example you gave the difference as to why one would work and not the other is the trapped air.  More specifically it's specific gravity.  Water has a specific gravity of one; anything will less will float and anything with higher will sink.
you’re not lifting buoys in water as they are lifting themselves. what you have to lift is the dry weight of the buoys that haven’t entered through the seal yet and the buoys which have exited the water but haven’t reached TDC yet.


quote:
First it's called life experience.  I live next to the ocean and have been swimming my entire life and I can tell you that the wheels would have such little resistance that the weight of just one buoy would be enough to turn them.

I hope you never go for a job in R&D; they would laugh you out the door.

Maybe you could add extra pulleys at the top, making it easier for the buoys dropping down to lift the other buoys rising up[:)] joking


quote:
As for trying to open a hatch with ten feet of water above it, as long as that ten feet only has a diameter of two feet then opening the hatch would require some effort but is more than possible.  
Try it.


Michael
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: ukmicky on 30/06/2006 00:43:36
quote:
More specifically it's specific gravity. Water has a specific gravity of one, anything will less will float and anything with higher will sink.


I think you will find that the specific gravity of water changes with its temperature.

The density of water also changes with its temperature ,as it  gets colder it becomes less dense

Michael
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: thebrain13 on 30/06/2006 00:47:14
by the magnet pulling up on the fluid with more force than gravity pulls down causes the object to not be bouyant. It doesn't need to "stop" gravity or whatever you were suggesting I was saying. In this case the ferrofluid is suspended in the air, more than counteracting the force of gravity, which caused the bouyancy in the first place. To elaborate, lets say you had a cup full of ferrofluid, a magnet on the bottom which pulled the ferrofluid twice as hard as gravity. If you measured the bouyant force, when the cup was upside down, the force would be negative, or the object would move downwards against gravity, if you turned it rightside up, the bouyant force would be three times the usual all upward acting.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: ukmicky on 30/06/2006 00:57:52
You can't win give up,i have finally.[:)]  its like the plane on a backwards moving walkway , some people get it and understand how it will still take off, whereas others just cant.

Michael
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 30/06/2006 02:03:25
quote:
Also look how big your big steel shipping buoys need to be to attain the required internal volume in order for them to have a lower density than the water their displacing due to their dry weight and for your design to revolve any buoys incorporated in it would need to be small and slim line otherwise your going to have a nightmare trying to design the components which the buoys have to pass through or over .


Ok the size doesn't matter.  When it comes to the big steel buoys if made small would have less weight and would require less air trapped inside to keep it buoyant.  As for saying they were weightless?  Yes you did.  Here is what you said.


quote:
You can’t use gravity to overcome your friction loses as the buoys will then be to heavy to be buoyant.


So with what you said there you are suggesting that anything that is buoyant would have no weight since you can't have weight and buoancy at the same time as you put it.  That you can't have one without the other.  That would mean by what YOU said all those buoys when out of water are weightless since as you put it if they had weight then they wouldn't be buoyant.  The friction losses that the weight of the buoys over come are the wheels that would take the weight of one buoy (roughly 3 lbs) and the air drag (that isn't big enough to even be even looked at) that can be easily over come by a fraction of the weight of just one buoy.  So to say that I can't use gravity to overcome these friction points because I wouldn't have buoyancy would mean that for the buoys to be buoyant in the water would have to be weightless when out of the water.  Besides most of the weight while outside comes from the fluid filled gaps that once they become submerged do become weightless.

quote:
And how many of them large steel shipping buoys do you think will be needed to lift the dry weight of the four in your drawing that are rising and are not in the water


You obviously didn't read it.  I said that the four that are rising and are not submerged are counter balanced by the four on the other side of the wheels that are on their way down.  It's called the neutral point around the wheels that I was talking about.  If you had bothered to read than you have realized that the buoyancy of the buoys submerged is not used to lift any buoy except the one that is entering through the seal.  Plus the buoys used in the design won't be big steel buoys.  I have repeatedly said that they would be buoys of eight inch diameter with a shell that is stiff rubber material.

quote:
you’re not lifting buoys in water as they are lifting themselves. what you have to lift is the dry weight of the buoys that haven’t entered through the seal yet and the buoys which have exited the water but haven’t reached TDC yet.



Again you said the same thing that I have already said was wrong.  If you had bothered to read the long post I made after the last two pics I did some simple math.  It turns out that roughly the weight of the buoys and fluid filled gaps can not only turn the wheels but can lift the buoys that have reached the surface of the main body of fluid, lift the buoys up to the seal and counter the weight of fluid pushing down on the buoy trying to enter.  The ONLY force that buoyancy drives is stretching the seal and move the system.

quote:
Try it.


Again look at my post with the math.  5 inch (not two feet) diameter "hatch" is needed to allow the buoys in and a cylinder of fluid that is five inches in diameter and 128 inches high (10 1/2 feet) will weight 70 pounds provided that the fluid weights .007 pounds per cubic inch.  Pick up a cubic inch of vegetable oil (since I believe that would work best) and feels how much it weights.  Sure it will have more weight than .007 pounds but the weight works for and against in such a way to cancel each other out so it doesn't really matter.  Oh and as for try it?  True stories of men in subs deep under the surface.  Hull rips open, water poors in at a pressure of that of a few atmospheres (many times more than a two foot wide ten foot high cylinder of water).  Takes about three men to shut a three foot hatch with cubic feet rushing through it.  So can it be done with as little water as been mentioned here?  Just as long as my two feet are planted on a firm surface.  I can lift with my legs alone somewhere up to 250 to 275 lbs.  A volume of water that is 10 feet high with a two foot diameter weights about that.

quote:
I think you will find that the specific gravity of water changes with its temperature.



Here is a quote from an encyclopedia;

quote:
specific gravity, ratio of the weight of a given volume of a substance to the weight of an equal volume of some reference substance, or, equivalently, the ratio of the masses of equal volumes of the two substances.


Since mass is related to density than yes the specific gravity will change but not in the same way as density since you have to factor in volume with density to get your mass.  Anyway it doesn't even matter.  Makes no difference.



Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 30/06/2006 02:20:39
quote:
by the magnet pulling up on the fluid with more force than gravity pulls down causes the object to not be bouyant. It doesn't need to "stop" gravity or whatever you were suggesting I was saying. In this case the ferrofluid is suspended in the air, more than counteracting the force of gravity, which caused the bouyancy in the first place. To elaborate, lets say you had a cup full of ferrofluid, a magnet on the bottom which pulled the ferrofluid twice as hard as gravity. If you measured the bouyant force, when the cup was upside down, the force would be negative, or the object would move downwards against gravity, if you turned it rightside up, the bouyant force would be three times the usual all upward acting.


Ok it doesn't matter since when it comes to the ferro fluid design it would be better not to use any floats at all.  To use the fluid itself instead of the floats.  As in when the fluid gets pulled in toward the magnet the tube containing the fluid becomes over filled by a little bit.  This will create spillage at the top and this spillage (due to gravity) will travel down the chutes provided away from the field of the magnet but will in the end return back into range of the magnet to get pulled back into the fluid to create the over fill once again.  Why doesn't the magnet keep the fluid from spilling?  Because the magnetic shield keeps the magnet from influencing the fluid above it.  Why wouldn't the magnet keep the fluid from passing the shield in the first place?  Because a magnets attraction is strongest at the poles and with the pole pressed up against the wall of the tube of fluid than this is what pulls the fluid in to create the horizontal surface at the bottom.  Now it's easier for the fluid to travel with the lines of flux than against them and this is what allows the fluid to travel up the tube.  Because it is easier for the fluid to follow the lines of flux (travel up the tube) than work against them (back through the opening at the bottom) that means when the fluid coming down the line combines back with the main body of fluid it is easier for this increased pressure to travel up instead of directly away.  Now once this pressure reaches the shield it is far enough that it will keep on going.  So really the path up the tube is the path of least resistance when it comes to the two ways the fluid can travel and since fluids are uncompressable than when the spillage meets back up with the main body, the main body instantly becomes over filled.  Kinda like that toy with the steel balls.  Lift the one at the end and let it go, as soon as the ball hits the next one the energy is instantly transmitted to the last ball on the other end.  Same Idea with the ferro fluid.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 30/06/2006 02:35:05
Just like to add once again that energy can neither be created nor destroyed and can only change forms.  This has been proven time and time again.  With this rule of physics alone it proves that the universe itself is a perpetual motion machine.  So perpetual motion is a rule of our existence.  To say perpetual motion is impossible is to say the universe does not exist.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: thebrain13 on 01/07/2006 02:48:03
with this ferrofluid design of spillage. Bottom line youve got to forces. the magnet and gravity which ever one is stronger is where the ferrofluid would hang out, slanting towards the weaker force, it has no reason to spin or start spinning.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 01/07/2006 15:55:14
quote:
with this ferrofluid design of spillage. Bottom line youve got to forces. the magnet and gravity which ever one is stronger is where the ferrofluid would hang out, slanting towards the weaker force, it has no reason to spin or start spinning.


So your just going to ignore the shielding altogether are you.  Well I'm not about to explain any further if your not going to lisen.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: ukmicky on 01/07/2006 16:57:05
The ferro fluid is going to go everywhere, it will coat the ball and be transfered to places you dont want it lowering the level more and more in the part where the ball needs to rise and jump out.

Michael
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 02/07/2006 03:58:17
quote:
The ferro fluid is going to go everywhere, it will coat the ball and be transfered to places you dont want it lowering the level more and more in the part where the ball needs to rise and jump out.


Like I said, I'm not even gonna bother explaining it further if your not going to even bother to listen.  Latest discussion on the ferro fluid design doesn't have a ball, not one.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: thebrain13 on 02/07/2006 04:30:01
how can you get the fluid to move through a magnetic shield?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 03/07/2006 00:25:51
It's a matter of path of least resistance.  The magnet is strong enough to create a horizontal surface.  Since the magnet is strong enough to do this than it will do this.  If by the magnet doing this cause the main tube to become overfull then a little bit will spill at the top (where the magnet has no influence because the the magnetic shield) and run down the spillway.  Once the spillage gets to the bottom of the spillway it enters the range of the magnet and gets pulled in.  Once it gets pulled in the magnet will create the horizontal surface once again because it has the strength to.  However this will cause the tube to become over full.  The only way for the main tube not to become over full is if the spillage doesn't enter the horizontal surface.  But the stongest point of a magnet is its poles and with the pole pulling the spillage in then the path of least resistance is up the tube since the magnetic pull pulling the fluid down (below the shield) is weaker than the magnetic pull pulling in the spillage.  Path of least resistance.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Precursor on 03/07/2006 15:09:26
quote:
how can you get the fluid to move through a magnetic shield?


The shield is on the outside of the tube.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: rcoyle13 on 14/08/2006 23:20:47
PerpetualMotion.

Icannot believe you are thinking about using buoyancy for P/M.

Ihave been knocking down doors everywhere trying to be heard.

I have been developing this theory for ayear HARD.And no-one willagree (or disagree)

Ihope to post my theory soon on this site. I could use some help as well. i think we can solve this thing. Perhaps we have.
Soon come !  
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: realmswalker on 15/08/2006 07:53:29
How come so many people who post on this board seem to have english as a second language?

But yeh, im realyl glad that people here, like precourser, have taken my idea so far!
Its really fascinating...i cannot think of a flaw yet...
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: B_Sharp on 16/08/2006 03:10:54
Reasons Magnetic Perpetual Motion won't work

1) Magnets are non-linear
2) Friction loss
3) Magnets are polar so each attraction has an opposite repulsion
4) Magnetism is a field not energy.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: shpixi on 10/10/2006 22:06:11
Greatings to all belivers of perpetual motion.
I'm glad that i'm not the only and lonly crazy man whoo *thinks*
that PMotion *thing* can be Solved and worked on it,>> in this *late*  21st-century....

Go a head Gyes the univers work like that. no gass, no oil, no air.
P.S im i newbee, and i will stick to this FAQ.

Kosova
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Tess on 21/10/2006 15:40:49
quote:
Originally posted by ukmicky

Quote
Originally posted by Precursor

And if anybody wishes to prove that perpetual motion is possible then i suggest you attempt to build a working device, good luck


Michael



It depends on how you define "perpetual". If we can agree for the purpose of these inventions, that "perpetual" means "for a long long period of time" as opposed to "until the end of Time", then it's easy to build a Perpetual Motion Machine.
I built one about 18 months ago, using a rope and a sealed plastic bottle. I put the bottle into the sea, using the rope to tie to a pier.  Due to the force of the waves, the bottle has been moving constantly for 18 months now.  It will stop moving when the rope rots, or when the moon's gravitational pull stops affecting the sea, but that won't be for a long time yet.



Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: ukmicky on 21/10/2006 17:01:05
quote:
Originally posted by Tess

quote:
Originally posted by ukmicky

Quote
Originally posted by Precursor

And if anybody wishes to prove that perpetual motion is possible then i suggest you attempt to build a working device, good luck


Michael



It depends on how you define "perpetual". If we can agree for the purpose of these inventions, that "perpetual" means "for a long long period of time" as opposed to "until the end of Time", then it's easy to build a Perpetual Motion Machine.
I built one about 18 months ago, using a rope and a sealed plastic bottle. I put the bottle into the sea, using the rope to tie to a pier.  Due to the force of the waves, the bottle has been moving constantly for 18 months now.  It will stop moving when the rope rots, or when the moon's gravitational pull stops affecting the sea, but that won't be for a long time yet.





:) Very clever and welcome to the forum


Michael
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: science_guy on 27/10/2006 01:46:58
perhaps if you have something like a tube, like this:
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
if the magnetic ball at the top rolled around, then was attracted to the south pole of the magnet, and then with the combined momentum and repulsion of the north magnet pole, it could make it back up the hill to start the cycle all over again.

comments, criticisms?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Walker on 08/01/2013 22:08:36
Have you tried this and has it worked?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Raphael on 16/01/2013 15:46:09
Draw it and we will tell you why it wont work

Michael

Michael can you draw me a picture of an electron, a proton, or the Higgs field or model me an atom everybody can agree on?

thanks

Title: Re: Perpetual motion Device...
Post by: Raphael on 16/01/2013 15:54:27
perhaps if you have something like a tube, like this:
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
if the magnetic ball at the top rolled around, then was attracted to the south pole of the magnet, and then with the combined momentum and repulsion of the north magnet pole, it could make it back up the hill to start the cycle all over again.

comments, criticisms?

Most science nerds discount the wisdom of the elders.
The science ego today I find is 'sick in the head', the RIGHT Brain has atrophied IMHO.
Newton and Einstein used both sides of their mind, that is what made them special and set them apart.

IMHO the myth of SiSyphuS (the spelling is a clue too) is a myth dealing with GRAVITY and it clearly is an analogy for what befuddles the science only brain today.
 
Quote
In Greek mythology Sisyphus was a king of Ephyra (now known as Corinth) punished by being compelled to roll an immense boulder up a hill, only to watch it roll back down, and to repeat this action forever.

Will this give you any idEAs that you can apply to your modEL?

Now here is another idea >>> put these terms in your browser and follow it to the youtube video:

Amazing Discovery With Magnets patented in 2012

namaste