Perpetual motion Device...

  • 134 Replies
  • 45410 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline realmswalker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 205
    • View Profile
Perpetual motion Device...
« 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...
 

*

Offline science_guy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 701
  • I'm right there... inside neilep's head!
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #1 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)
_________________________________________________________________________________________

I would engage you in a battle of wits, but it is against my moral code to attack the unarmed.

he's back!!!!

no, my name is not Bill Nye

*

Offline realmswalker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 205
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #2 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...
 

*

Offline science_guy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 701
  • I'm right there... inside neilep's head!
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #3 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)
_________________________________________________________________________________________

I would engage you in a battle of wits, but it is against my moral code to attack the unarmed.

he's back!!!!

no, my name is not Bill Nye

*

Offline Roy P

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #4 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
___________________________________________________
Roy P

*

Offline Roy P

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #5 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
___________________________________________________
Roy P

*

Offline science_guy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 701
  • I'm right there... inside neilep's head!
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #6 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)
_________________________________________________________________________________________

I would engage you in a battle of wits, but it is against my moral code to attack the unarmed.

he's back!!!!

no, my name is not Bill Nye

*

Offline realmswalker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 205
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #7 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!
 

*

Offline realmswalker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 205
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #8 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
 

*

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #9 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
« Last Edit: 08/06/2006 00:22:51 by ukmicky »

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #10 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
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #11 on: 08/06/2006 00:23:22 »
NO


Michael

*

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #12 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

*

Offline realmswalker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 205
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #13 on: 08/06/2006 02:45:36 »
so why wouldnt this work then, what would happen, would it just slow down and stop?
 

*

Offline science_guy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 701
  • I'm right there... inside neilep's head!
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #14 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)
_________________________________________________________________________________________

I would engage you in a battle of wits, but it is against my moral code to attack the unarmed.

he's back!!!!

no, my name is not Bill Nye

*

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #15 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

*

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #16 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
« Last Edit: 09/06/2006 00:16:13 by ukmicky »

*

Offline Precursor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 34
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #17 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.
 

*

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #18 on: 20/06/2006 21:56:38 »
Draw it and we will tell you why it wont work

Michael

*

Offline realmswalker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 205
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #19 on: 20/06/2006 22:35:29 »
precursor your description made my mind spin in circles perpetually.
 

*

Offline Precursor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 34
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #20 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
 

*

Offline Precursor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 34
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #21 on: 21/06/2006 00:36:19 »


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.
 

*

Offline NCoppedge

  • First timers
  • *
  • 7
    • View Profile
    • http://www.nathancoppedge.com
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #22 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
 

*

Offline NCoppedge

  • First timers
  • *
  • 7
    • View Profile
    • http://www.nathancoppedge.com
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #23 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
 

*

Offline Precursor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 34
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #24 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.

[:(!]
 

*

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #25 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
« Last Edit: 21/06/2006 02:54:46 by ukmicky »

*

Offline Precursor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 34
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #26 on: 21/06/2006 02:35:38 »
Nevermind I just checked the other forum where you mention what you used.[:D]
 

*

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #27 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
« Last Edit: 21/06/2006 02:53:05 by ukmicky »

*

Offline Precursor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 34
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #28 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.



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.
 

*

Offline Precursor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 34
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #29 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).
 

*

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #30 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
« Last Edit: 21/06/2006 03:46:17 by ukmicky »

*

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #31 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
« Last Edit: 21/06/2006 04:01:19 by ukmicky »

*

Offline realmswalker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 205
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #32 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.

« Last Edit: 21/06/2006 08:17:22 by realmswalker »
 

*

Offline Precursor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 34
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #33 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).



 

*

Offline Precursor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 34
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #34 on: 21/06/2006 10:48:16 »
wow bad spelling and a missed quote.  6:30 in the morning, not completely awake.
 

*

Offline Precursor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 34
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #35 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.
 

*

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #36 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
« Last Edit: 22/06/2006 17:28:18 by another_someone »

*

Offline Precursor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 34
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #37 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.
 

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #38 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!
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline Precursor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 34
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #39 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.



 

*

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #40 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

*

Offline Roy P

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #41 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
___________________________________________________
Roy P

*

Offline Precursor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 34
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #42 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.

 

*

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #43 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
« Last Edit: 23/06/2006 17:32:32 by another_someone »

*

Offline NCoppedge

  • First timers
  • *
  • 7
    • View Profile
    • http://www.nathancoppedge.com
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #44 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.
 

*

Offline Roy P

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #45 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
___________________________________________________
Roy P

*

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #46 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
« Last Edit: 24/06/2006 15:46:31 by ukmicky »

*

Offline NCoppedge

  • First timers
  • *
  • 7
    • View Profile
    • http://www.nathancoppedge.com
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #47 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.
« Last Edit: 24/06/2006 23:25:17 by NCoppedge »
 

*

Offline Precursor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 34
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #48 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.
 

*

Offline Roy P

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
Re: Perpetual motion Device...
« Reply #49 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
« Last Edit: 25/06/2006 12:13:40 by Roy P »
___________________________________________________
Roy P