Supposed "perpetual motion" device

[Monel Funkawitz]

Read the FAQ. I smell a scam.

 

[Painkiller]

I would disagree that a magnet is a potential storing device. In order to obtain energy from a magnet you must move a conductor through the magnet's magnetic field. This movement induces an electromotive force in the conductor (voltage). You are transforming the energy of moving the condutor to producting a voltage in the conductor. The magnet itself can be considered as a catalyst in this transformation.

 

[sao123]

I would disagree that a magnet is a potential storing device. In order to obtain energy from a magnet you must move a conductor through the magnet's magnetic field. This movement induces an electromotive force in the conductor (voltage). You are transforming the energy of moving the condutor to producting a voltage in the conductor. The magnet itself can be considered as a catalyst in this transformation.

I must disagree with this assertion.

Place any conducting particle or group of particles within the radius of the magnetic field and its associated magnet. An actractive force is present between the conductor and the magnet. If the radius is small enough, the magnet is strong enough, and the conducting particle in not fixed to a point, the actractive force can be great enough to move the two objects closer together.
This shows proof of potential energy stored in a magnet and its associated magnetic field. It may be noteworthy that this potential energy probably will only manifest itself in kinetic energy and not electromagnetic. The magnet is more than a catalyst in this way.

 

[DML1001]

People, don't believe ANY new radical claims without solid, documented proof. If the morons who wrote that site (who obviousy have not even passed college physics 101) actually had constructed a machine like they describe, it would completely disprove the law of conservation of matter and energy, as well as the laws of thermodynamics. As such, IF they had done what they claim to, they should write up several scientific papers on their new theory of the universe and submit it to scientific journals, along with details on how their machine works (after all, they are patenting it, what do they have to lose?).

Instead, they have a section on their site that deounces their critics, and at the same time conveniantly declines to provide the slightest bit of evidence to support their absurd assertions.

A permenant magnet just creates a magnetic field around it. This field can exert a force on certian objects (other permenant magnets, electro-magnets, etc...) under certian conditions, but the real problem here is that you can't use the magnet to increase the energy of the system.

Consider. When a piece of ferromagnetic metal is brought near to a permenant magnet, it has potential energy due to the magnetic field, similar to the potential energy of a boulder at the top of a hill. If you let the metal go and the magnet attracts it, the potential energy is converted into kinetic energy, which is then used up to produce heat, sound, etc... when the magnets collide. Also, after the magnet attracts the metal and they become stuck together, you now have to DO WORK to seperate them again, thus ADDING energy to the system.

In short, permenant magnets can exert forces on things, but they won't increase the total energy of a system. Also, even though it seems like your getting 'free' work, you have to put the same work back into the system to seperate the magnets after they collide.

Despite all this, though, perpetual MOTION is actually not difficult or impossible to achieve. Look at the orbit of a planet or the orbit of electrons around atoms for example. The problem is, this is just motion, and it cant be used to do any WORK. The gravitational field of the earth is constantly accelerating the moon to keep it in orbit, but the force of the gravitational field is always perpendicular to the velocity of the moon, so the gravitational field does no work at all, and the energy of the system stays EXACTLY THE SAME, DESPITE THE 'PERPETUAL' MOTION of the moon around the earth.

Of course, the orbit of the moon will eventually decay due to the infinetesmal friction from the few hundred particles per square inch that are floating around in space, but electrons on the other hand should orbit forever.

The following link will take you to a site that has lots of information about perpetual motion machines and why they don't work:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

 

[Painkiller]

An object raised above the earth is considered to have stored gravitational potential energy. Which is the correct statement? Is the earth considered to have stored gravitational potential energy or does the object raised above the earth considered to have stored gravitational energy?

Same can be said with a magnet and a ferromagnetic material. Does the magnetic itself have stored potential energy or does the ferromagnetic material have stored potential energy when it is held away from the magnet?

 

[DML1001]

painkiller:

They both have potential energy. If you drop a stone, the stone moves toward the earth, and the earth moves toward the stone (by an infintesmal amount).

The force on both objects (the stone and the earth) is the same, but the distance they travel is not since F = ma, and the mass of the earth is so large the corresponding acceleration is very small.

As for a system of magnets, its basically the same idea. Typically, if you take two magnets and let them go, they both move toward eachother and meet in the middle. So, both really have potential energy.

Anyway, where are you going with this?

 

[sao123]

In short, permenant magnets can exert forces on things, but they won't increase the total energy of a system. Also, even though it seems like your getting 'free' work, you have to put the same work back into the system to seperate the magnets after they collide.

Fortunately using electronic magnets allows them to shut off the magnets just as two of them come together at their closest point (they never really touch)...then using momentum to continue the journey away form the magnet to a point at least 51% to the next magnet, at which they then turn back on and do more work. Momentum must be some form of energy (kinetic) because it still has the ability to do work...moving the copper wire through a second all encompassing magnetic field, creating electricity. It takes some energy to power the magnets to turn the rotary, but i think its just over 50% of the power created because the magnets are on for only 50% of the cycle, but electricity is created for 100% of the cycle. All figures are +- a few percent to allow for friction.

 

[DML1001]

sao123:

The 'momentum' of the object (mass times velocity) comes entirely from the magnetic field generated by the electromagnet. Unfortunately, you will find that if you do what you are suggesting and use an electro magnet to accelerate an object, switch off the magnet, and then use the object's motion to do work, you will never get out as much energy as you put in, no matter how many magnets you have in a row.

First of all, we have the typical problems of friction that will slow the object down, and resistance in wires that will cause some of the electricity to be lost as heat. Even a near vaccum and superconducting wires will result in SOME energy loss, even though you might be able to get it very low.

However, just for the sake of argument, lets say we can somehow ignore friction and resistance. Even if we do this, we find that we can at best generate the same amount of electricty that we used to power the magnet in the first place.

If we use an electromagnet to accelerate a magnet, switch off the current, and then have the magnet pass through a secondary coil to generate electricity, what we get out will never excede what we put in.

If you have a chain of accelerator magnets, your putting more into the object so you get more out, but its still not going to be more than 100%

Remember people, so far there has been absoultely NO verified expirement EVER that has ever contradicted the law of conservation of matter and energy or the laws of thermodynamics, and any setup of magnets, no matter how clever, will never give you more energy out than you put in.

Also, one quick note. When you pass a magnet through a coil and generate electricity, the current generated in the coil will create a magnetic field that will work to OPPOSE the motion of the magnet. What this means is that when you use a moving magnet to induce a current in a coil, the magnet will ALWAYS be slowed down. Expirements have shown that the amount of kinetic energy lost by the moving magnet is equal to the energy generated (in an ideal situation with no resistance, etc...)

 

[Painkiller]

Originally posted by: DML1001
painkiller:

They both have potential energy. If you drop a stone, the stone moves toward the earth, and the earth moves toward the stone (by an infintesmal amount).

The force on both objects (the stone and the earth) is the same, but the distance they travel is not since F = ma, and the mass of the earth is so large the corresponding acceleration is very small.

As for a system of magnets, its basically the same idea. Typically, if you take two magnets and let them go, they both move toward eachother and meet in the middle. So, both really have potential energy.

Anyway, where are you going with this?

I wasn't going anywhere with it, just wanted clarification. You are right that the both the earth and the object exert forces on each other.

 

[Painkiller]

Originally posted by: DML1001
sao123:
Also, one quick note. When you pass a magnet through a coil and generate electricity, the current generated in the coil will create a magnetic field that will work to OPPOSE the motion of the magnet. What this means is that when you use a moving magnet to induce a current in a coil, the magnet will ALWAYS be slowed down. Expirements have shown that the amount of kinetic energy lost by the moving magnet is equal to the energy generated (in an ideal situation with no resistance, etc...)

This has to be true or else you'll get energy from nothing.

 

[sao123]

The energy stored in a magnetic field is essentially the total amount of work required to assemble a system of moving charges.

This clearly dictates that a magnet is be a source of potential energy, by storing the work that was done during the process which (permanently) stores the magnetic field onto the magnet.
The work that is done is accomplished by... Aligning the angular momentum (a vector quantity describing the orbital & spin of an electron) of the electrons of the atoms for a given region of material, (which creates by definition "the magnet".)

Based on this, there is no perpetual motion machine, nor does it defy the conservation of energy. The magnet will eventually run out of magnetism (energy drain and entropy laws) and energy is conserved.

 

[chsh1ca]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Why are we inundadted with "perpetual motion" threads of late?

We need a sticky that says "please read up on the illogical aspects of perpetual motion, as mentioned in every other perpetual motion thread, before posting"

The concept of perpetual motion itself is not illogical. Indeed, all objects in the universe are in motion on one level or another, thus the natural world disagress with the common assertion that perpetual motion could not be achieved through mechanical means. The problem with the ideas are that the term 'perpetual motion' is often seen to imply 'getting something from nothing' or having more output than input, which is fundamentally incorrect. Perpetual motion is literally that which is without motionlessness.

No, I'm not trying to argue semantics, just pointing out that obviously perpetual motion can (and has) been achieved in the natural world, and to date we have been able to build things that have emulated the natural world relatively well -- even if science and our understanding of the natural world is on the whole in its infancy. Magically creating energy from nothing is another matter entirely.

 

[Wag]

No, I'm not trying to argue semantics, just pointing out that obviously perpetual motion can (and has) been achieved in the natural world, and to date we have been able to build things that have emulated the natural world relatively well -- even if science and our understanding of the natural world is on the whole in its infancy. Magically creating energy from nothing is another matter entirely.

But isn't it all relative? Ok, so if the universe is collapsing, you'ld have to find something at a higher rate of motion than you in the same (or similar) space. Isn't that impossible?

 

[Fencer128]

The concept of perpetual motion itself is not illogical. Indeed, all objects in the universe are in motion on one level or another, thus the natural world disagress with the common assertion that perpetual motion could not be achieved through mechanical means. The problem with the ideas are that the term 'perpetual motion' is often seen to imply 'getting something from nothing' or having more output than input, which is fundamentally incorrect. Perpetual motion is literally that which is without motionlessness.

No, I'm not trying to argue semantics, just pointing out that obviously perpetual motion can (and has) been achieved in the natural world, and to date we have been able to build things that have emulated the natural world relatively well -- even if science and our understanding of the natural world is on the whole in its infancy. Magically creating energy from nothing is another matter entirely.

Well, I'm not sure that by your definition of perpetual motion - it has been achieved naturally. If we are all only locally ever at rest, and as we expand our frame of reference we see that we are a small moving part of a larger system - it does not change the fact that the system - the universe in this case - to the best of our current knowledge had a beginning and will most likely have an end. It is only perpetual on our limited - or even geological - time scales.

As you point out - most people assume (as I would) that perpetual motion is never ending motion. This usually assumes that no input of energy is required to sustain the motion, or that it transforms enough energy to sustain itself plus provide a surplus. Given this I *am* sick of perpetual motion threads!

Cheers,

Andy

EDIT: I hope that you noticed the fact that I said "aspects" of perpetual motion in my orginal post - and not perpetual motion per se.

 

[Georgeisdead]

Perpetual motion is NOT possible. Period. End of story. NOT in nature, not anywhere. It is a simplle matter of thermodynamics. One of the problems you analyze is the thermodynamic stability of a GENERIC system in which you "get something for nothing". Common sense tells you that you cannot magically create energy from nothing, and thermodynamics tells you the exact same thing. When in doubt, remember this rule, "nobody builds better engines than carnot". Thus if you get a system with a higher efficiency than a carnot cycle operating under the same conditions, then you have violated thermodynamics and quite simply, the process won't work.

I would like somebody to please point out one place in nature that operates under the guise of perpetual motion (i.e "free energy").

 

[DML1001]

Georgeisdead:

Perpetual motion IS NOT free energy.

F = ma, NOT F = mv!

A force is required to CHANGE the velocity of an object, not to keep it moving. All objects in motion will tend to continue to move unless some force acts to stop them (friction included, this is why things slow down fairly quickly on the earth).

In space, there is very little friction, so if you throw a baseball, it can drift almost indefinately.

As for perpetual motion, look at an atom. Electrons will orbit around the nucleus forever, since there is no friction at the subatomic level (liquid helium is also supposively frictionless, but I don't know enough about it to give you any details).

Anyway, perpetual motion is fine, according to the laws of physics, but free energy is not. Everything is always conserved, so energy in = energy out (provided no energy is being converted to mass or vice versa, but regardless the sum of mass and energy is still conserved)

 

[Georgeisdead]

You are arguning semantics. The idea of perpetual motion is a machine that basically gives you "free energy". Just like the cold fusion craze back in the 80's. Your analysis of motion in a frictionless void is valid, but I am talking about a perpetual motion DEVICE. Perhaps the phrase perpetual motion does not entirley suit the issue it addresses, but the fact remains in this context it is used to describe a device that provides energy for "free". I never mentioned frictionless movement or motion of bodies in a vacuum or anything else. That is ideal kinematics, a topic that I did not address. But I thank you for your semantic observation, it brings up an entirley new discussion, just not one for this thread.

 

[sao123]

DML1001:
When you pass a magnet through a coil and generate electricity, the current generated in the coil will create a magnetic field that will work to OPPOSE the motion of the magnet. What this means is that when you use a moving magnet to induce a current in a coil, the magnet will ALWAYS be slowed down. Expirements have shown that the amount of kinetic energy lost by the moving magnet is equal to the energy generated (in an ideal situation with no resistance

I've been doing some reading and have found no indication of this theory anywhere...can you provide references & equations to back up this claim?

 

[Venix]

I've been doing some reading and have found no indication of this theory anywhere...can you provide references & equations to back up this claim?

Lenz's Law.

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: sao123

DML1001:
When you pass a magnet through a coil and generate electricity, the current generated in the coil will create a magnetic field that will work to OPPOSE the motion of the magnet. What this means is that when you use a moving magnet to induce a current in a coil, the magnet will ALWAYS be slowed down. Expirements have shown that the amount of kinetic energy lost by the moving magnet is equal to the energy generated (in an ideal situation with no resistance

I've been doing some reading and have found no indication of this theory anywhere...can you provide references & equations to back up this claim?

I don't remember my high school phsyics.... but I do remember the demo that shows this.

Take a metal tube and other (nonconducting) tube of similar sizes. Take a strong magnet that fits in the tube. Hold the tube vertically. Drop the magnet through the tube (catch it at the bottom, of course). Observe that the magnet falls slower through the metal tube, because its motion induces a current in the metal tube, and the magnetic field created by that current opposes the motion of the magnet.

If you have a smooth sheet of copper, you can do a similar demo by holding it at an angle and letting a magnet slide down it. You will find that the magnet will slide more slowly on a conductor than on a similar sheet of nonconducting material (assuming they have similar coefficients of friction).

Strong magnets work best in both demos.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: sao123

I would disagree that a magnet is a potential storing device. In order to obtain energy from a magnet you must move a conductor through the magnet's magnetic field. This movement induces an electromotive force in the conductor (voltage). You are transforming the energy of moving the condutor to producting a voltage in the conductor. The magnet itself can be considered as a catalyst in this transformation.

I must disagree with this assertion.

Place any conducting particle or group of particles within the radius of the magnetic field and its associated magnet. An actractive force is present between the conductor and the magnet. If the radius is small enough, the magnet is strong enough, and the conducting particle in not fixed to a point, the actractive force can be great enough to move the two objects closer together.
This shows proof of potential energy stored in a magnet and its associated magnetic field. It may be noteworthy that this potential energy probably will only manifest itself in kinetic energy and not electromagnetic. The magnet is more than a catalyst in this way.

Ok, how did the magnets get close in the first place? Energy was exerted to move them. Now they snap together because of their mutual attraction. Ok, there might have been a little potential for producing energy there, like a piezoelectric device to convert the mechanical energy into electrical. But now the magnets are stuck together. Energy must now be exerted to pull them back apart - more energy than you're going to get out of them.

Originally posted by: sao123

In short, permenant magnets can exert forces on things, but they won't increase the total energy of a system. Also, even though it seems like your getting 'free' work, you have to put the same work back into the system to seperate the magnets after they collide.

Fortunately using electronic magnets allows them to shut off the magnets just as two of them come together at their closest point (they never really touch)...then using momentum to continue the journey away form the magnet to a point at least 51% to the next magnet, at which they then turn back on and do more work. Momentum must be some form of energy (kinetic) because it still has the ability to do work...moving the copper wire through a second all encompassing magnetic field, creating electricity. It takes some energy to power the magnets to turn the rotary, but i think its just over 50% of the power created because the magnets are on for only 50% of the cycle, but electricity is created for 100% of the cycle. All figures are +- a few percent to allow for friction.

Other problems with this though - ok, extra energy to overcome friction, got that. But, the magnetic field of the electromagnet must be utilized 100% by the coils of wire. If any of that field does not intercept the wires, it is wasted. This is very unlikely if not impossible. So you'll exert, say, 12 joules of energy - 1 for friction, 1 to energy loss, and 10 just to get the mass of wire actually moving. That's only 10 joules of potential energy that the wire coil now contains, out of 12 put in. There would need to be no friction (impossible) as well as a 100% efficient magnetic pickup assembly (also impossible). So there's just two impossibilities there, just concerning getting the wire coils spinning! And now they say that this thing can actually PRODUCE extra energy? Riiiight....

Originally posted by: Painkiller
I would disagree that a magnet is a potential storing device. In order to obtain energy from a magnet you must move a conductor through the magnet's magnetic field. This movement induces an electromotive force in the conductor (voltage). You are transforming the energy of moving the condutor to producting a voltage in the conductor. The magnet itself can be considered as a catalyst in this transformation.

Valid point - the magnet really is serving as a means of converting mechanical energy into electrical energy, nothing more. By itself, a magnet could just float in space indefinitely, emitting no energy at all. If it gets close to anything (which would mean motion, which would mean exerted energy at some point) would result in an attraction. But you wouldn't be able to get anything more out of the attractive force than what was used to push the magnet in the first place.

Originally posted by: sao123

The energy stored in a magnetic field is essentially the total amount of work required to assemble a system of moving charges.

This clearly dictates that a magnet is be a source of potential energy, by storing the work that was done during the process which (permanently) stores the magnetic field onto the magnet.
The work that is done is accomplished by... Aligning the angular momentum (a vector quantity describing the orbital & spin of an electron) of the electrons of the atoms for a given region of material, (which creates by definition "the magnet".)

Based on this, there is no perpetual motion machine, nor does it defy the conservation of energy. The magnet will eventually run out of magnetism (energy drain and entropy laws) and energy is conserved.

Heck, a rock can be a source of potential energy. Painkiller pointed out that an object lifted above the earth contains potential energy. Pick up a rock sometime. You exert force on it all the way as you are lifting it. Now drop it. The force you stored in the rock is about to be released - when it collides with something, that energy will be transferred into whatever is hit, like maybe your own foot. Now, you could have just hit your foot with your own arm - that also transfers energy. But the rock was simply a carrier. It needed energy to be put into it first, before it could exert that energy on your foot, otherwise it'd just sort of sit there. Like a rock.
Ok, I sound like I'm repeating myself (and what a few other people said too actually).

Originally posted by: chsh1ca

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Why are we inundadted with "perpetual motion" threads of late?

We need a sticky that says "please read up on the illogical aspects of perpetual motion, as mentioned in every other perpetual motion thread, before posting"

The concept of perpetual motion itself is not illogical. Indeed, all objects in the universe are in motion on one level or another, thus the natural world disagress with the common assertion that perpetual motion could not be achieved through mechanical means. The problem with the ideas are that the term 'perpetual motion' is often seen to imply 'getting something from nothing' or having more output than input, which is fundamentally incorrect. Perpetual motion is literally that which is without motionlessness.

No, I'm not trying to argue semantics, just pointing out that obviously perpetual motion can (and has) been achieved in the natural world, and to date we have been able to build things that have emulated the natural world relatively well -- even if science and our understanding of the natural world is on the whole in its infancy. Magically creating energy from nothing is another matter entirely.

Maybe...but the Universe is emitting energy in all directions, in various forms of EM radiation. It's losing energy. Not much of a perpetual motion device. Now with the Multiverse theory, with new, independent and isolated Universes popping up all over the place, then maybe it could be a perpetual motion device. After all, with an infinite amount of room, where's all that EM radiation going to go anyway? Out of the system? Theoretically, it can't. Hmm, I guess I just contradicted the first sentence of this paragraph.