[Bored chemist]

It is not always the quest but, it is what you learn from the quest. Many many inventions have come from this quest that have helped change the world or had lead to others that have. I myself have 4 inventions that have come from this quest. One I am presenting for contract with the US military, but it has many other uses as well. (it is not a weapon)

 PS Bored chemist
That is a blanket answer. You didn't truly answer the question.

 

I gave a blanket answer because it's right. The details don't matter; perpetual motion doesn't work.
You said "if this ran forever would it be perpetual motion?"
Well, yes, it would - of course. So what? Since it won't run forever...
It's like saying "if it were driven by magic inexhaustible pink unicorns it would run forever". Could be- who cares- there aren't any pink unicorns.

BTW, the US military have done some monumentally stupid things in their time but even they are not gullible enough to buy a perpetual motion machine.

[AB Hammer]

BTW, the US military have done some monumentally stupid things in their time but even they are not gullible enough to buy a perpetual motion machine.

LMAO Talk about misdirection. I said it was another invention not a perpetual the idea came from my hobby.
BTW The perpetual machine I'm building is the machine design I posted, and you won't see it until all is finished. [8D]

sophiecentaur
That video was just for everyone's entertainment. I can also show you a steel rod taking the steel ball from the magnets in similar manner. I have also balanced 5 steel balls on the edge of the steel rod and lifted them 3 inches from the magnet as well. Again it is just a fun effect for entertainment. But the effect could be useful for someone working on a magnet wheel.

[lyner]

And I can play God Save The Queen on a banjo. It's quite irrelevant to PM.

[nicephotog]

Bored chemist: ...Since it won't work (due to friction etc),...

Satellites don't suffer friction in space but the orbit drops out because of the requirement for gravity.
Perhaps using magnets whirling each other for attraction to keep them in place outside a gravitational field could produce the alike to the extent that it finally becomes the decay by half life of the substances used before it is geometrically disrupted.

[lyner]

Space is not free of friction (if you define the term wider than solid against solid). Certainly, satellites are close enough to be very much influenced by drag.

[nicephotog]

Satellites , effectively centrifical drag.
So let's move out into deep space and perhaps with these theoretical magnets orbiting each and other they will never overcome each other by oscillatorally re-supplying the energy they were given by either repulsion or attraction.
Perhaps the only loss could be made to be temporary but only while the other has that energy.

[lyner]

effectively centrifical drag

what's that?

[nicephotog]

Satellites to orbit require centrifical force to stay up there and orbiting earth or they must sit further out in space in non orbit.
Gravity(the centrifical drag so to speak) holds them in orbit around the earth , to orbit that requires a small shove in the right direction to traverse their own orbit circumfrence relating being over the same area in sync with the earths rotation.

[dentstudent]

Centrifugal?

[nicephotog]

All right centrifugal drag as in ultra centrifuge.

[lyner]

What does that involve - i.e. forces and mechanism?

[nicephotog]

Do you know how centrifugal force(e.g. measurement of torque in Newtons) operates and that gravity is an accelerative(not constant speed) force, and that the earths axis tilts? [if you want further answer to that].

[lyner]

But none of those involve energy transfer. The issue of perpetual or non-perpetual motion depends upon energy loss - not forces.
And, whilst you are trying to be precise, the Speed of a satellite can be constant under gravitational acceleration. In a circular orbit, it is the Velocity which constantly changes- velocity being speed and direction.
Also, Torque is measured in Newton Metres, not Newtons (the unit of force).
If you want to explain things properly you need to be a bit more rigorous.
Good Science has to be very fussy.

[Pumblechook]

Somebody keep wittering on about making an electric motor which is 'thoudands' of times more efficient than current motors?

[nicephotog]

Just assuming a force such as gravity would cause some interference that could be eliminated by taking it beyond such a field.
The cited culprit against perpetual motion appears so far to be friction(mentioned by someone previously in the thread).
The only explanation for gravity appears to be mass. The more mass, the more gravity, so out in space away from all the usual fields perhaps the existent objects used for perpetual motion may themselves have a problem of themselves.
To counter against friction, magnetic devices have been used to prevent contact with a track in laboratories and the moved object balanced and directed by the repulsion field.
not: i was just saying gravity is not measured as a constant speed, its an acceleration e.g. the result of a division of a distance increment that again is divided by another denominator.

[Bikerman]

The objection to PM is summarised by the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
1st law essentially says that energy can neither be created or destroyed
2nd law essentially says that heat flows from hotter to cooler (often summarised as 'entropy increases')

Any system of PM must achieve 'over-unity' - ie you get more out than you put in. That is impossible according to the above laws.

[lyner]

Just assuming a force such as gravity would cause some interference that could be eliminated by taking it beyond such a field.

Beyond the range of the inverse square law, do you mean. A bit beyond the Moon's orbit, or beyond Pluto or outside our Galaxy?
1/x² never gets to zero, however big you choose to make x.
In any case, Gravity doesn't 'use up' energy. It is a conservative field and I don't mean David Cameron's garden. So getting away from it is no help at all.

Bikerman: I am sorry. You have clearly missed the rules of this particular thread. You have made a huge mistake by introducing fact, reason and Science in a Post. You can guarantee it will be ignored in this fantasy land.

Let's assume that Perpetual Motion is possible ---- then Perpetual Motion is possible. QED

Yes, but just say it was.          AAAAAAARRRRGGGGHHHHH

[Bikerman]

Let's assume that Perpetual Motion is possible ---- then Perpetual Motion is possible. QED

Yes, but just say it was.          AAAAAAARRRRGGGGHHHHH

LOL...nobody told me it was the tautology special...I though it was happy hour  []

[lyner]

Hic 

Laws?  SCHMAWS!

[AB Hammer]

The objection to PM is summarised by the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
1st law essentially says that energy can neither be created or destroyed
2nd law essentially says that heat flows from hotter to cooler (often summarised as 'entropy increases')

Any system of PM must achieve 'over-unity' - ie you get more out than you put in. That is impossible according to the above laws.

“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.”

Quote By Max Planck father of Quantum physics 1858 - 1947