The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Perpetual motion Device...  (Read 45182 times)

Offline Precursor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #100 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.
 

Offline Roy P

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #101 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
 

Offline Precursor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #102 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.





 

Offline Roy P

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #103 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
 

Offline Precursor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #104 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.

 

Offline Roy P

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #105 on: 29/06/2006 22:17:23 »
You don't read a word of my posts do you?

__________________________________________________________
Roy P
 

Offline Precursor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #106 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.



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.
 

Offline Precursor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #107 on: 29/06/2006 22:26:50 »
Is there an edit? I don't see one.

quote:
Nice illustration, btw


Thanx :D
 

Offline Precursor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #108 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.
 

Offline thebrain13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #109 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:(
 

Offline Precursor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #110 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.
 

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #111 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, donít 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 .
Itís 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 wouldnít 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.
youíre not lifting buoys in water as they are lifting themselves. what you have to lift is the dry weight of the buoys that havenít entered through the seal yet and the buoys which have exited the water but havenít 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
« Last Edit: 30/06/2006 00:45:16 by ukmicky »
 

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #112 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
« Last Edit: 30/06/2006 00:44:27 by ukmicky »
 

Offline thebrain13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #113 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.
 

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #114 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
« Last Edit: 30/06/2006 01:56:03 by ukmicky »
 

Offline Precursor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #115 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 canít 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:
youíre not lifting buoys in water as they are lifting themselves. what you have to lift is the dry weight of the buoys that havenít entered through the seal yet and the buoys which have exited the water but havenít 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.



 

Offline Precursor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #116 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.
 

Offline Precursor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #117 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.
 

Offline thebrain13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #118 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.
 

Offline Precursor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #119 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.
 

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #120 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
 

Offline Precursor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #121 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.
 

Offline thebrain13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #122 on: 02/07/2006 04:30:01 »
how can you get the fluid to move through a magnetic shield?
 

Offline Precursor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #123 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.
 

Offline Precursor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #124 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.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #124 on: 03/07/2006 15:09:26 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length