Posing Question: Perpetual motion

Just a question of magnetism and perpetual motion.
What would happen in this scenario
Think of two wheels (like two records on top of each other) one being fixed to a base and the other is loose and above the other one with a spindle going through the middle
The spindle is attached to the top wheel and goes through the bottom one without touching it.
The wheels have magnets fixed along their entire body at slight angles.

If the top wheel was gently lowered to create an opposing magnetic force,
what would the outcome be?
Would the wheels create perpetual motion?
Could one of the wheels be used to create energy?

You still wouldn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. :)

No. Perpetual motion is impossible. Stop trying and think of something usefull.

exaktly baja, exactly

- ØØ -

I appreciate your comments and from a layman who hasn't come across or gone into any thought about this before, it was a reasonable question for someone to reply to. Having enquired further after reading your answers, I can see the pitfalls and will put a couple of sites for your perusal as it seemed to simplify things without the equations.
http://www.scitoys.com/scitoys/scito...ets/gauss.html
http://www.scitoys.com/scitoys/scito..._launcher.html
Many thanks guys ;P

????

Magnetism doesn't work in a linear fashion. Magnetic fields are curved, so at some point each magnet would have to experience a positive flux as well as a negative one. The best you could hope for is to break exactly even, assuming there is no air and NO friction in the machine. As soon as ANY resistance to the system is introduced the motion will slow down and eventually stop. Also, the magnets would eventually demagnetise each other at which point the frictionless disc would spin forever (although a cavea similar to the Gnab Gib theory would apply here (would the magnets stop the disc or would they demagnetise completely before the spinning stopped).

Its just quantum.

You missed the final parantheses. )

Its also possible to make an active gauss rifle if you are able to get hold of a large electrolytic capacitor (like from a TV or CRT monitor (the larger the farrads the better)) and a car battery. You'll need another small cap to control a relay switch that breaks the circuit once the projectile has left the gun ((((((otherwise it will start to slow down after its left the "barrel" because the last magnet is still attracting it.

The only magnets that Maplins sell are ferrite-based and would shatter if you try this.

))))))

I can breathe now.

I built one just the other week. Sadly, it mocked me for my drunkeness, and I had to smash it to pieces.

:(

Perpetual motion is possible. I say this because I devloped (on paper) an item similar to what was mentioned in the first post a few years ago. In theory, this device which I won't go into details about, will countine to spin virtually forever. I say virtually beacuse magnets do lose thier magnetism after thousands of years.

I put alot of research into it, but stopped pursuing it due to lack of funds.

...another easy question from manxy, something totally unrelated from mendhak, a load of old cobblers from Woss, fahad k is confused, randomness from crptcblade and a brusque chastisement from baja_yu.

...another day, another chitchat thread.

Well actually perpetual motion in its literal sense is very possible. Just go into space and spin something, it will spin forever. Or push something, it will go that direction forever (barring any other outside forces). That is called momentum, no energy is lost or given off.

But people try to make perpetual motion to generate energy, thats where the problem is.

Also people try to make perpetual motion happen on Earth, which has so many forces (air, gravity, friction, etc..) that it is damn hard to do such a thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zaza

...another easy question from manxy, something totally unrelated from mendhak, a load of old cobblers from Woss, fahad k is confused, randomness from crptcblade and a brusque chastisement from baja_yu.

...another day, another chitchat thread.

---

Sorry, I'll write it in crayon next time, and get Barney to explain it to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx

But people try to make perpetual motion to generate energy, thats where the problem is.

---

Uhm, hi. That's the purpose of seeking perpetual motion.

Thanks Ted for your input as it was space which was going to be the next question, specifically involving the stasis field. I can't do the mathmatics, but have this desire to know if magnetism and stasis fields can bend time or light.
Over to you guys (waiting for the odd insult, but worth listening to the pro's)

Manxy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mendhak

Uhm, hi. That's the purpose of seeking perpetual motion.

---

THen just build a nuclear fusion reactor. A selfsustaining fusion is not perpetual, but it can last pretty long. If you have enough fuel of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zaza

...another easy question from manxy, something totally unrelated from mendhak, a load of old cobblers from Woss, fahad k is confused, randomness from crptcblade and a brusque chastisement from baja_yu.

...another day, another chitchat thread.

---

Fahad k is still confused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Datacide

Perpetual motion is possible. I say this because I devloped (on paper) an item similar to what was mentioned in the first post a few years ago. In theory, this device which I won't go into details about, will countine to spin virtually forever. I say virtually beacuse magnets do lose thier magnetism after thousands of years.

I put alot of research into it, but stopped pursuing it due to lack of funds.

---

You and thousands of other people have done the same thing. We have yet to see it work. If you lack the funds, why not submit your paperwork to the paten office, have it patented and then you will get a lot of offers to build it.

Also, let me qute something from the simpons.

Homer: In theory, in theory Marge. In theory comunism works.

Quote:

---

Over to you guys (waiting for the odd insult, but worth listening to the pro's)

---

Sorry to disappoint, but the only pro's around here are the ones who prostitute themselves in pursuit of useless knowledge. It takes only a moment's scanning of this thread (and forum, for that matter) to determine who these clowns are, but a lifetime to convince them that they are wrong, wrong, wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zaza

Sorry to disappoint, but the only pro's around here are the ones who prostitute themselves in pursuit of useless knowledge. It takes only a moment's scanning of this thread (and forum, for that matter) to determine who these clowns are, but a lifetime to convince them that they are wrong, wrong, wrong.

---

Wait a minute. Who's side are you defending? The clowns that belive that perpetual motion is possible, or even more that they invented it already, or us normal people that come to Visual Basic Forums and talk about programing because the forum is designated for that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manxy1

The wheels have magnets fixed along their entire body at slight angles.

If the top wheel was gently lowered to create an opposing magnetic force,
what would the outcome be?

---

What?

Slight angles - like they are going to propel due to the angle they are at? What! Are they all of sudden little magnet rocket engines?

That is nuts - the whole thread falls apart on this weak point...

btw - there is no place - not even space - where "no force exists" to effect the movement of a body. Everything - everywhere - slows down and stops moving eventually.

Except in chit-chat :p

motion is all relative. So is my aunt... relative, she is... I will see both at the reunion...

On earth you can build a superconducting ring and get the electrons to flow in a loop FOREVER. Same with a loop of superfluid.

The problem, as stated above, is that you are not creating energy so that when you try to get it to do some work it will slow down and stop.

I had a design for a perpetual motion machine once, but by the time I entered the fifth grade I realized it wouldn't work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

On earth you can build a superconducting ring and get the electrons to flow in a loop FOREVER. Same with a loop of superfluid.

---

That is a simplification of reality...

Sorry - electrons in a loop? Flowing?? Superfluid?

Superconductor? Chilled to 400 below? That takes no energy - right?

Quote:

---

Superconductor? Chilled to 400 below? That takes no energy - right?

---

Actually to cool something you have to remove energy.:)

Seriously, the electrons (or fluid) will continue to flow since there is not any resistance to their flow. Theoretically they will flow forever and in reality they have flowed for years not slowing down at all.

If you are worried about keeping it cold, then you will have to move it to space where it is cold enough.

Quote:

---

That is a simplification of reality...

---

:confused: No, this is a fact. A useless fact, but a fact non-the-less.

A superfluid (cooled liquid helium) will even flow uphill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

Theoretically they will flow forever and in reality they have flowed for years not slowing down at all.
.

---

Do I need to quote myself on post #21?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

That is a simplification of reality...

Sorry - electrons in a loop? Flowing?? Superfluid?

Superconductor? Chilled to 400 below?

---

2 things to point out. 1. Minus 400 degrees is not possible unless you are still living in caves and using Fahrenheit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

That is a simplification of reality...

Sorry - electrons in a loop? Flowing?? Superfluid?

Superconductor? Chilled to 400 below? That takes no energy - right?

---

2. Using up energy is not the same as creating it. Sure it takes lots of energy to supercool stuff but once you do some neat stuff happens like superfluidity and allegedly superconductivity. But still no energy has been created.

1. I still live in a cave - but I can handle thinking in many man-made scales...

Quote:

---

Only 6 years ago, the highest known superconductivity temperature
was very cold - around 30 degrees above absolute zero (That is Kelvin degrees,
and is also around -400 degrees Fahrenheit). Recently discovered materials
have brought that temperature up to about 125 degrees above absolute zero, or
around -230 degrees Fahrenheit.

---

From others living in the cave :p

2. Using and creating energy are silly terms - energy is either trapped in an item and released or it is stored in an item - all transfer... People might think energy can be lost, but it is simply changed to heat. All just transfer.

And I'm still trying to imagine how discussing quantum states of superconductors has anything to do with perpetual motion. Arriving at those states takes a tremedous amount of work - far from perpetual...

According to the Young One's annual I had back in the 80's all you need is a bowl of punch and a hose pipe:-
1. Run hose from punch bowl to mouth
2. Point genitals at punch bowl
3. Start Drinking
4. Keep Drinking

I must admit, I've never tried it, but the theory seems sound :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

And I'm still trying to imagine how discussing quantum states of superconductors has anything to do with perpetual motion. Arriving at those states takes a tremedous amount of work - far from perpetual...

---

I think you are either confused or purposely being obtuse.

We have discussed several systems that once put in motion will remain in motion without the need to supply additional energy to the object in motion. Even though we may expend energy maintaining the required environment, none of that energy is put into the kinetic energy of the object.

Perpetual motion usually refers to a system that can remain in motion even when you extract energy from the object in motion. This is impossible.

What you seem to be arguing is that it is impossible to remove all external forces from an object (friction etc.) so that it will not even remain in motion unless energy is applied to the object. This is clearly not true.

Chit chat = obtuse :D

for the record - device described in post #1 is simply absurd - thus the thread starts with standard chit chat properties intact!

Several posters have indicated perpetual devices in their own garages right now - but just not ready-to-market - once again standard chit chat...

Then we've had the confused. Those thinking that items spinning in space continue to spin - well that's not true, but can't get an education in chit-chat...

Then we jump into theoretical fields like superconductivity - which is great and all - but leaving the physical world of my office and the solid chair and desk I sit at to consider a perpetual action in a quantum state as actually backing up the silly device proposed in post #1 - well this is chit chat after all :rolleyes:

btw - I just finished building this device - got most of the parts at Home Depot - the rest I ordered on the internet...

Quote:

---

Superconductor: An element, inter-metallic alloy, or compound that will conduct electricity without resistance below a certain temperature. However, this applies only to direct current (DC) electricity and to finite amounts of current. All known superconductors are solids. None are gases or liquids. And all require extreme cold to enter a superconductive state. Once set in motion, current will flow forever in a closed loop of superconducting material - making it the closest thing to perpetual motion in nature. Scientists refer to superconductivity as a "macroscopic quantum phenomenon". In addition to being classified Type 1 and Type 2, superconductors can be categorized further by their dimensionality. Most are 3-D. But some compounds, like surface-doped NaWO3 and some organic superconductors are 2-D. Li2CuO2 and single-walled carbon nano-tubes have shown rare 1-D superconductivity. In addition to repelling magnetic fields, enhanced thermal conductivity, higher optical reflectivity and reduced surface friction are also properties of superconductors. The term "superconductor" is also used in some instances to refer to materials that have near infinite thermal conductivity - such as carbon nanotubes. However, on this website it is used in the context of electrical conductivity only.

---

I went for the single walled carbon nano tubes - they fit better in my garage. I am almost ready to replace the fuel injector on my car - imagine that - no need to buy gas anymore...

Should I patent it?

Quote:

---

Those thinking that items spinning in space continue to spin - well that's not true

---

why not?
The earth continues to go around the sun after billions of years.

it is not hard to build a superconducting ring, cool it and get the electrons flowing.

You can buy a ring of hi Tc superconducting material and liquid nitrogen is easy to come by. To get the electrons flowing all you need is a magnet. So yes you can build such a device in your garage.

Now to convert this to gasoline would require some alchemy I am not familiar with.

Objects spinning in space will spin (maintain angular momentum) until it is interfered with.

As the moon did at the beginning, but due to the friction of gravity with the earth it is now locked in a single-side facing the earth forever position...

Uh dude, the Earth is not the center of the Universe. (lol @ description :D )

So the moon's spinning... still forever...

The moon IS spinning, it is spinning at the same rate at which it orbits the earth which is why it appears to have the same face towards us at all times. If you look at the phases of the moon you can notice slight wobbles in its spin too.

Unless that is what you are saying in which case I read you wrong, so be quiet.