Have a look at this machine which ensures that there's always more weight on one side of the wheel!

Who can find the problem with this machine (assuming it is given a push at the start and that it can overcome internal friction)?

interesting thing..... Well, initial speed is the primary concern, I believe....

That's funny, the pic shows 3 individual weights on each side of the machine - how is there more weight on one side?

Originally posted by (Q)
That's funny, the pic shows 3 individual weights on each side of the machine - how is there more weight on one side?

OK, theres more EFFECTIVE weight on the right habd side due to the law of moments (remember that from highschool?!). The weights on the right are further from the pivot and so theres a net downward force on the right all the time!

Originally posted by John Connellan
OK, theres more EFFECTIVE weight on the right habd side due to the law of moments (remember that from highschool?!). The weights on the right are further from the pivot and so theres a net downward force on the right all the time!

But Gravity does not emanate from the center of the machine.

Even if there is a net imbalance in forces between the left and right hand sides, I doubt it would overcome overall effects of friction on the system.

As drawn, the wheel will indeed turn clockwise, but not perpetually.

The problem is the ball on the right hand side of the wheel. It <i>could</i> equally have been drawn as sitting against the left edge of its runner, instead of on the right. The question is: will there be any force making it move to the right? The answer is: no. The wheel will stop turning with that ball nestled against the left edge of the runner.

If it was nestled against its left edge then the wheel would rotate in the opposite direction as the force will be greater on the other side!

How about making it even more convincing by putting a magnet out to the right which attracts the weight to the right then?!

Originally posted by thed
But Gravity does not emanate from the center of the machine.

Haven't got a clue what u mean here, I never mentioned gravity at all. And if it did emanate from the center of the wheel the damn thing wouldn't work.

Even if there is a net imbalance in forces between the left and right hand sides, I doubt it would overcome overall effects of friction on the system.

Remember the first post? We're assuming it overcomes internal friction.

The reason machines of this type (there are countless variations) do not work is that the distance the weights descend on one side of the turning wheel is exactly the same as the distance they are raised on the other side. Thus, the energy obtained by lowering the weights in one side is precisely consumed in lifting them on the other side.

The assymmetrical arrangement will result in local imbalances, possibly making the machine perform part of a turn, but then it will reach an equilibrium and stand still.

Hans

MRC Hans,

The reason machines of this type (there are countless variations) do not work is that the distance the weights descend on one side of the turning wheel is exactly the same as the distance they are raised on the other side. Thus, the energy obtained by lowering the weights in one side is precisely consumed in lifting them on the other side.

You are correct in that the machine won't work but you miss stated the problem.

The weights are not lifted. They will remain at the shorter torque radius until just past 3:00 o'clock and then roll outward to the longer torque position.

However, from 12:00 O'clock to 3:00 O'clock they remain short.

The attempt to enhance the machine by having a magnet that does lift or pull the weight out sooner along the virtually horizontal plane (but not be strong enough to support the weight vertically) is defeated by the affect of the lift applied subtracts from net gravity force felt at the longer torque arm.

There is no way to overcome the net balance of the device.

MacM, interesting
But is there no way to create a magnetic field which has most of its strength in the horizontal (sliding the weight across), and that the vertical component of this field (i.e. after the 3 o'clock position) can be regarded as negligible?

Originally posted by John Connellan
Who can find the problem with this machine (assuming it is given a push at the start and that it can overcome internal friction)? Who cares what the problem is with this machine? If you neglect friction, you, in effect, neglect usefulness. You want to see perpetual motion, look up into the sky at that big white circle we call the moon.

Originally posted by errandir
Who cares what the problem is with this machine? If you neglect friction, you, in effect, neglect usefulness. You want to see perpetual motion, look up into the sky at that big white circle we call the moon.

Nobody's neglecting friction Errandir. Yes, the given name for this machine and thread WAS perpetual motion machine but thats only coz nobody uses the term perpetual work machine!

Assume it OVERCOMES friction. Then what?

Then nothing. That's what I'm trying to say. All you've got is something not very special. The moment you extract work out of it, you reduce its energy. It will have a finite energy, so this cannot be done perpetually.

If there's no friction present, then this is quite trivial, and even Newton had the exact formula to describe such a device.

If we're trying to say that there <i>is</i> friction present, then the motion will not be perpetual. In order to overcome friction, you gotta do work, no matter what kind of scheme you use to balance this and unbalance that. Unless you create a device that taps into some other dimension to source energy into our world, then eventually, the chore of overcoming friction will expend all the energy of the device, and it will stop.

Originally posted by MacM
MRC Hans,

The weights are not lifted.

Really? How pray tell do the weights get from the 6:00 position to the higher 12:00 without being lifted by the left side of the wheel?

The mere fact that they are also moving in towards the axis of the wheel does not negate the fact that they are climbing vertically.

Janus,

Really? How pray tell do the weights get from the 6:00 position to the higher 12:00 without being lifted by the left side of the wheel?

The mere fact that they are also moving in towards the axis of the wheel does not negate the fact that they are climbing vertically.

Of course. I was referring to just the non-functional side of the device. If you assume you have more torque generated on the right (which you don't) then that would raise the weights as you indicate.

My point was that from 12:00 O'clock to 3:00 O'Clock the weights remain at the shorter torque arm. I was addressing the issue where another had posted a question about using magnets to move the weights outward on the right side.

It doesn't help in the end since any force developed to move the weights will also be deducted from the weight at the longer torue arm.

It's easy to see the flaw in this machine. Centripetal acceleration will prevent the weith sliding toward the centre the exact moment it passes the horizontal. Add in the tiniest amount of friction that must be present then this machine will eventually halt.

even there is no friction, no net work is done, no use of the machine.

Macm (and others):

Friction is not important. A hypothetical friction-free machine will indeed run forever if started, but that is NOT perpetual motion. A true PM device must produce excess energy.

Centripetal force in not important. True, it will restrict the device in question to very slow rotation, but that does not matter.

What matters is that the amount of potential energy that each of the weights gain on one part of the rotation is exactly the same as what it must give up on the other. Thus, there is no energy surplus.

Hans

After looking through all the posts, I am going to have to conclude thatMRC_Hans has the best argument against this machine working. MacM I refer u to the question I posed about your theory before. U cant come back to this thread stating your theory without answering questions about it (this IS science)!

Im not even going to entertain those talking about friction anymore, I have said enough.

Ryans also has an intersting point and one which really makes me want to try this experimentally!

Errandir the whole point is that it doesn't have a finite energy Thats the angle we're all looking at it from and the only way a perpetual machine will work!

Originally posted by John Connellan
Im not even going to entertain those talking about friction anymore, I have said enough.

Ryans also has an intersting point and one which really makes me want to try this experimentally!
ryans was talking about the unavoidable friction.

JohnConellan,

MacM I refer u to the question I posed about your theory before. U cant come back to this thread stating your theory without answering questions about it (this IS science)!

A number of questions (Please PM your responses since I don't want to divert this thread).

1 - What does this string or my posts here have to do with my own theory?

2 - My work is science (albiet marginal perhaps) and I am very pleased to say that there is another that thinks as I do that has the mathematical capacity and has written a Unification Theory, which is nearing agreement for publication in a recognized journal)

I have and will keep on file his e-mails to me. He became a member of UniKEF because of the simularities in our views. He even asked for my help at one point (unfortunately I have been unable to give him any because of the mathematics.)

But we have become cyber friends and I look forward to the day that I will have an autographed copy of his work. There is far less wrong with my theory than you think. The problem has been and is my inability to present its fullest signifigance and I'm thrilled to see this Unification Theory becoming published.

You can be sure when it is I'll be crowing loudly :D.

If you think this is BS then I'll PM you supporting documentation.

Originally posted by John Connellan
Errandir the whole point is that it doesn't have a finite energy Thats the angle we're all looking at it from and the only way a perpetual machine will work! I'll bet there are a few who have posted that wouldn't want you as their spokesperson. If you think that the machine has infinite energy or exactly zero energy (otherwise I can't figure out what you meant by the above statement), then I can't imagine how to have a sensible debate with you in physics.

Originally posted by everneo
ryans was talking about the unavoidable friction.

Yes I know the friction is unavoidable how many times do I have to say it? Ryans showed that u need more than this friction (assuming the right side force overcomes it) to show its fundamental flaw.

Im not going to read it again MacM but u posted something, I asked u a question explaining it futher and u just posted the same idea again. That idea, I called your theory. Avoiding questions is not scientifically sound.

There is far less wrong with my theory than you think.
If your talking about what u think of the machine, I never said it was wrong. Explain yourself thats all.

I'll bet there are a few who have posted that wouldn't want you as their spokesperson. If you think that the machine has infinite energy or exactly zero energy (otherwise I can't figure out what you meant by the above statement), then I can't imagine how to have a sensible debate with you in physics.

Errandir to succeed in physics u have to think ok? A perpetual machine cannot keep doing work unless it can produce energy from nothing right? We all know this is wrong but by saying this is a perpetual machine I must be claiming the above. The angle to take is to prove that this is wrong. Forget about motion, its an energy thing. If few would have me as their spokesperson, I would imagine nobody would have u unless u start thinking properly.

John VConnellan,

Im not going to read it again MacM but u posted something, I asked u a question explaining it futher and u just posted the same idea again. That idea, I called your theory. Avoiding questions is not scientifically sound.

I would like to respond but I can't since I really don't know what you are referring to. I do know if it is part of this thread then it has nothing to do with my theory.

If you recall what it was you can PM me and I'll respond.

Originally posted by John Connellan
I would imagine nobody would have u unless u start thinking properly.


u r not writing english

If you wish to make a valid point in a science forum, please use proper language. If English is not your first language then it willbe taken into account. use of 1337 5p34k is not an example of english as a second language.


write proper. Your age is showing.

Originally posted by John Connellan
A perpetual machine cannot keep doing work unless it can produce energy from nothing right?That was exactly my point. What's yours.




Originally posted by John Connellan
The angle to take is to prove that this is wrong.

Postulate 1: If a system does work, then it loses energy.
Postulate 2: If a system overcomes friction, then it does work.

Lemma 1: If a system is in motion, then it has energy.
Lemma 2: If a system continuously loses energy, it will eventually lose all of it's energy.
Lemma 3: If a system does not do work, then it is trivial.
Lemma 4: The statement, "overcomes friction," is to be interpretted as, "continuously overcomes friction."

Statement: The system overcomes friction.

Corrolary 1: If there is no friction, then the system is trivial.
Corrolary 2: If there is friction, then the system will eventually not be in motion.

Admittedly, my second lemma is a bit tenuous (but you seem to support it in your last response to me), but, this <i>is</i> a proof of my claims, as I understand the term "proof."




Originally posted by John Connellan
Forget about motion, its an energy thing.See my proof.

Originally posted by thed
write proper. Your age is showing.

Does it matter what age I am? This is science. If u cannot understand a point then quote it and I will get back to u. Otherwise shut up and stop trying to aggravate things. If u are indeed a 'grown up' then try to show some responsibility.


Errandir, I am afraid i DO have problems with the second lemma. This appears to be a system which continuously loses AND gains energy and will never run out. That is the main problem. It should be proved that the system is not gaining energy from nothing as it is defying the law of energy conservation.

Thed wrote:write proper. Your age is showing.

I suppose it would be harsh of me (not to mention showing MY age) to point out that "write proper" is bad grammar as well:
1. You did not capitalize the first word
2. "Proper" is an adjective- you need an adverb.

Let us all determine to "write properly" in the future!

Allow me to enter the discourse at this point. This forum is a non-formal area whereby anyone interested in science should feel free to either ask questions or share their knowledge with others. I personally don’t believe that age, gender, knowledge or academic ability should be discriminated against. In particular, most individuals’ attention to grammar and spelling is quite often loosely applied when posting or responding to a thread within a forum – most people simply don’t have the time or inclination to be too pedantic about such issues. Some people prefer to adopt an alternative and find an informal prose both quicker and more fun! Anyone criticising someone else’s communication method is being nothing less than a whinging pedant!

Furthermore, allow be to describe the fundamental constituents of intelligence:

Mathematics,
Vocabulary,
Spatial Awareness,
Artistic,
Musical,
Movement,
Practical, and finally,
Social.

The point I’m trying to make is that just because an individual may suffer in the vocabulary department (and this includes written skills, reading skills, communication skills, language understanding etc.) doesn’t mean to say they can’t excel or surpass expectations in other departments. And lets face it, our communication skills do improve with age so lets have some compassion here.

IQ tests really bother me – and not because I’m a complete failure at them! On the whole, they only seem to test for the Mathematical and Vocabulary parts of our measurable intelligence. I have met many a brilliant mathematician who has absolutely no practical ability, no social skills, scores zero in the artistic and musical department, and can hardly spell! – But people are very quick to label him a genius! – Why? In my mind, this person is like an insect – good at one specific task - they’re hardly human! What impresses me most is a damned-good all rounder, someone who can turn their hand to anything and scores highly in every department. They are clear, logical thinkers and can demonstrate a higher level of understanding than the vast majority of people, and usually in a varying number of subjects. Are there any of you out there?

I’m interested to know if the so-called ‘genius’ mathematicians / physicists out there consider themselves humans or insects? I suggest you give yourselves a score out of 10 for each area, oh, and be honest with yourself! IMHO, an overall score of less than 50 means you’re nothing more than an insect!
:D

Originally posted by HallsofIvy
I suppose it would be harsh of me (not to mention showing MY age) to point out that "write proper" is bad grammar as well:
1. You did not capitalize the first word
2. "Proper" is an adjective- you need an adverb.

Let us all determine to "write properly" in the future!

u (maybe) completetely missed da point of [grammar mode=nazi] & bad grammar after. but da point stands. wanna get by in this fiels, dont use bad grammer bad spleling and puchtuation. people may think u have no point made.

turn in a turm paper using that language and u fail.

Why is an online forum based on science any different.

Originally posted by John Connellan
This appears to be a system which continuously loses AND gains energy and will never run out.How does the system continuously gain energy? What is the input mechanism?

The main premise of this device is that there is more clockwise torque on the right side than there is counter clockwise torque on the left, leaving a net clockwise torque.

But this is just an illusion.

Let's examine why.

Torque = moment arm X force.

Let's say that the radius of each semi circular hole is R1 and that the the point bisecting the straight side of teach hole is a a distance of R2 formt he axis of the wheel.

Examining the right side:

The weight stay on the inside of the cut out until it reaches just past the 3:00 position. During this time, the moment arm for the weight will be R2-R1

it then slides to the outside of the cut it moment arm will be R2+R1

The force working to turn the wheel will go from 0 to gm and gm to 0 respectively (by the sin of the angle from vertical)

Since the force is symmetrical for all four quarters of a rotation, we can just concern ourselves with the moment arm.

Since on the right side the weights moment arm spends half its time in each position, its average moment arm for this half turn is

((r1+r2)+(R2-R1) )/2 = 2R2/2 = R2.

The torque then averages out to the same as if the weight were just a constant distance of R2 from the axis.

Examining the left side:

Each weight slides/rolls such that it is at the "bottom" of the semicircle the whole time. Thus its moment arm is constantly shortening.

However, the torque created on the wheel by this action is the same as if the weight was suspended from a string of length R1 from the point bisecting the straight side of the semicircle, or IOW, a point R2 from the axis.

Now since gravity is pulling straight down on the ball, this means the torque is the same as if the weight were just placed at the point bisecting the straight side of the semicircle in the first place. IOW, the torque action on the wheel is equal to that of a weight a constant distance of R2 from the axis.

This is the same as we got for the right side. Ergo, the torque on the left and right sides are equal and opposite leaving a net torque of zero acting on the wheel and it doesn't turn under its own power.

Janus58,

Excellent summary.

(probably already said)

Simply the device is in a state of equalibrium, and no amount of spinning will achieve perpetuel motion. The fact that it takes more energy to go up than down defeats it's assumed potential.

The fact is if it were a successful design it wouldn't need to be started in the first place. as it would start itself.

I've never heard of conservation of torque. I don't see what this has to do with torque being balanced. If there is always more torque acting counterclockwise, then there will always be an angular acceleration counterclockwise, and you will have perpetual motion (in fact, accleration). Same goes for clockwise. But you certainly can't get that from the picture.

And, if there is no net torque, then the device will spin forever at whatever angular velocity it happens to be spinning.

Why can't you just look at it in terms of energy. The weights on the side that are descending, will lose a certain amount of potential energy. After they do this, and then ascend into their original positions, they have gained just as much potential energy. Therefore, there is no net average change in potential energy. I don't see why you would want to introduce a discussion of torque to confuse this issue.




Originally posted by John Connellan
Errandir, I am afraid i DO have problems with the second lemma. This appears to be a system which continuously loses AND gains energy and will never run out.Well, my second lemma wasn't intended to address this issue. The reason why I was uneasy with my second lemma (and why I made it a lemma rather than a postulate), is that, if the energy decays, say, exponentially, then I would have to think up some other reasoning.

I think you have a problem with my first postulate. Admittedly, I now concede that this postulate is a bit negligent as well. The system I have in mind is the wheel in a uniform gravitational field, being held at a particular spatial point in that field. I should have made my first postulate the first law of thermodynamics. Then, I should have included as a lemma that friction causes heat transfer out of the system. So, as it stands, no net work into or out of the system (over a complete cycle) + heat out of the system = net average loss of energy.

Originally posted by errandir


Why can't you just look at it in terms of energy. The weights on the side that are descending, will lose a certain amount of potential energy. After they do this, and then ascend into their original positions, they have gained just as much potential energy. Therefore, there is no net average change in potential energy. I don't see why you would want to introduce a discussion of torque to confuse this issue.


The problem is that while you and I accept the potential energy explanation, The perpetual motion promoters don't, as it relies on the law of conservation of energy, which is exactly the law they are claiming to have found a loop hole in.

To have any chance of convincing them is to go a little deeper in the analysis. In this case, directly refuting the claim that this arrangement creates any net clockwise torque to turn the wheel

Just back after the weekend and reviewed some of the explanations. I agree with Janus' last comment on why it is better to go deeper into it than just assuming that conservation of energy is right. The point is we are QUESTIONING this conservation. That is the whole point of perpetual work machines - to question this most fundamental law.

One thing nobody has explained is how it still shouldn't work if we could place a magnetic field through the system which is directed towards the right so that the weight can be 'nudged' a little to the right on the downward stroke. In this case it would appear that energy is being 'drawn' from the magnetic field even though we know this cannot happen.

Anyone care to explain?!

Originally posted by John Connellan
In this case it would appear that energy is being 'drawn' from the magnetic field even though we know this cannot happen.

Anyone care to explain?! I'll explain: It can happen.

Originally posted by Janus58
In this case, directly refuting the claim that this arrangement creates any net clockwise torque to turn the wheel If their claim is that the wheel generates clockwise torque in order to achieve perpetual motion, then that is ridiculous. No force is needed to maintain perpetual linear motion; no torque is needed to maintain perpetual angular motion. Why do they need a net torque? Do they think that energy constantly increases and momentum contantly decreases? I'm so lost.

Originally posted by errandir
I'll explain: It can happen.

Thats not explaining. CAN u explain for me?!

p.s. maybe I should have said "it seems energy is being CREATED from the field".

The wheel will not turn of its own accord, nor continue to turn if set in motion, even if no external load (power generation) is attached. Friction alone will stop the device. If you assume absolutely no friction, windage or other losses any number of devices can be pertpetual.

What I find interesting is that so many people mis-apply the definition of perepetual motion.

Suppose for a moment that this simple mechanical device did produce a constant torque imbalance and could overcome its own friction and produce useable electricity.

Guess what it would not be a perpetual motion device.

It would simply mean that it proved gravity was a phenomena resulting from a cosomological energy source and the proper definition for perptual motion is:

"A device set in motion that remains in motion with no external energy applied".

As stated above IF the device were to infact produce a torque imbalance it would not need to be set in motion it would start itself and producing energy is not part of the definition of perpetual motion.

If something produces energy it either has an energy source or you believe in creation ex nihilo. So if it works "It is not perpetual".

Hold on now, I called it a perpetual work machine in that it is creating energy out of a magnetic field. Since the magnetic field won't lose strength over time, it seems to be actually creating energy out of nothing.

Please explain.

John Connellan,

One thing nobody has explained is how it still shouldn't work if we could place a magnetic field through the system which is directed towards the right so that the weight can be 'nudged' a little to the right on the downward stroke. In this case it would appear that energy is being 'drawn' from the magnetic field even though we know this cannot happen.

Anyone care to explain?!


ANS: I thought I had in a prior post. Assuming you are refering to permanent magnets, any force created that moves the weight outward along the right radius must also move it up if it is to cause a gain in energy potential (that is move it to the right before the 3:00 O'Clock horizontal position).

That same force (which increases on the weight as the weight approaches the magnet) reduces the downward force of the weight defeating the advantage of moving it outward sooner than by gravity.

If you choose to employ electromagnetics you certainly complicate the analysis but don't achieve perpetual motion. You not only have the inefficiencies of the electromagnet but any torque imbalance created is being done so by introducing external energy and the output of the device will be less than that energy input.

(Also see my post immediately above)

Originally posted by MacM
ANS: I thought I had in a prior post.

Ahh, this was the post where I wanted u to tell me if there was such a thing as creating a magnetic field which acts only over a short vertical distance so that the weight quickly 'slides' over to the right hand side before leaving the field completely.

Can this happen or are magnetic fields always spherical-like in shape?

John Connellan,

Can this happen or are magnetic fields always spherical-like in shape?

ANS: I'm no expert on this issue but I have had some experience experimentally.

Generally I would say magnetic fields have a shape associated with there presence. Not necessarily sphereical. However, that shape is also enfluended by the magnetic material geometry they extend from and you can also shape (or shield) them to some extent.

What really needs to be done (and believe it or not I think it will be one day) is to develope an AC permanent magnet.

That is one that switches on and off by itself or can be switched on and off with less energy being applied than the field can apply to its surroundings. (i.e - using cryogenics and superconductors with magnetic bias points to regulate current through alternate magnetic loops).

I think one of the best descriptions of trying to control magnetisim is "Have you ever tried to push a rope". It isn't easy.

John Connellan,

Hold on now, I called it a perpetual work machine in that it is creating energy out of a magnetic field. Since the magnetic field won't lose strength over time, it seems to be actually creating energy out of nothing.

Please explain.

ANS: Somewhere months past on this MSB I posted a thread on the ability to create a permanent magnet. In such a case the energy required to create the magnet is known.

It is also known (after an initial curing time) that permanent magnets do not lose their strength (unless abused by mechanical shock, heat or external fields being applied).

It is further known that placing raw material (i.e. a screwdriver tip) in contact with a permanent magnet, it too becomes a permanent magnet. And that the original magnet does not become weaker in the process.

While you tend to see this as creation ex nihilo, I tend to see this as proof that magnetisim (like gravity) are phenomena of some as yet undiscovered energy flow process in the universe and may represent unlimited energy for our disposal.

The original magnet may have required 1 KW of electricity to create but you can create unlimited number of weaker magnets (you only need one) without reducing the original magets force to show that energy has been transferred from the universe into the material. Entrophy decreased with no change in th original permanent magnet.


All we got to do is figure it out. :D

It is also known (after an initial curing time) that permanent magnets do not lose their strength (unless abused by mechanical shock, heat or external fields being applied).
Well, they do loose their strength... just very slowly.

It is further known that placing raw material (i.e. a screwdriver tip) in contact with a permanent magnet, it too becomes a permanent magnet. And that the original magnet does not become weaker in the process.
The screw driver does not become a permanent magnet like the original... and the original DOES become weaker.

While you tend to see this as creation ex nihilo, I tend to see this as proof that magnetisim (like gravity) are phenomena of some as yet undiscovered energy flow process in the universe and may represent unlimited energy for our disposal.
This is not undiscovered. This is completely known and is high school science (mostly).

Entrophy decreased with no change in th original permanent magnet.
Look up the scientific definition of entrophy.

Regardless, none of this leads to perpetual motion or free energy.

Originally posted by John Connellan
Thats not explaining. CAN u explain for me?!If you would be happy with a macroscopic treatment, then here goes. A uniform magnetic field will NOT attract a ferromagnetic (non-magnetized) material. A magnet attracts a ferromagnetic material because magnets form non-uniform fields. The material supports the flux, so it reduces the energy associated with the magnetic field compared to free space. Systems tend to minimize the energy associated with their configurations, so, the material tends closer to the magnet, since the reduction of energy is greater in the stronger field region near the magnet. This is still configuration energy, and, in the picture, and from what I understand of the manner in which you suggest using this magnet, the process will be cyclical, and any change in energy associated with a cyclic variation of the configuration will average to zero.

Persol,

It is also known (after an initial curing time) that permanent magnets do not lose their strength (unless abused by mechanical shock, heat or external fields being applied).

Well, they do loose their strength... just very slowly.

ANS:I'll not argue this point since there may have been new information since I have been involved in such things, or you may (as in another post) be simply eluding to some minute factor that is generally ignored.

So let me re-state the issue. The original magnet (if it loses) does not lose strength in a one to one correspondance to the magnetic affect produced in other raw material. That is to say you can create more total magnetic material in terms of total gauss than your initial construction. Hence energy must come from somewhere to achieve that result.

If you have any information contrary to this please post the same. Don't just say it is so.

It is further known that placing raw material (i.e. a screwdriver tip) in contact with a permanent magnet, it too becomes a permanent magnet. And that the original magnet does not become weaker in the process.

The screw driver does not become a permanent magnet like the original... and the original DOES become weaker.

ANS:Obviously the screwdriver is far weaker. But I can make numerous such screwdrivers without the one to one correspondance mentioned above in gauss.

While you tend to see this as creation ex nihilo, I tend to see this as proof that magnetisim (like gravity) are phenomena of some as yet undiscovered energy flow process in the universe and may represent unlimited energy for our disposal.

This is not undiscovered. This is completely known and is high school science (mostly).

ANS: Bull. You are talking though your hat. Show your facts.


Entrophy decreased with no change in the original permanent magnet.

Look up the scientific definition of entrophy.


ANS:Perhaps you might want to be more specific since there are several types of entrophy.

Thermodynamic
Informational
Communal
Order/Disorder
etc., etc.

My use of the term above is in the Order/Disorder group.

From Little and Ives Scientific Encyclopedia:

Entrophy of Disorder:

That part of the entrophy of a substance that is due to a disordered arrangement of the particles as opposed to a simular but ordered arrangement.

The most clear-cut example is the order-disorder transition is binary alloys, in which virtually the whole entrophy change is of this kind. The entrophy change on fusion of a solid is largely due to entrophy of disorder.

You have a problem with that or the fact that magnetisim is a function of ORDER in the alignment of the atoms fields?


Regardless, none of this leads to perpetual motion or free energy.

ANS:Try reading more slowly next time. I already stated it would not be perpetual motion.

As far as energy. Who knows. I am confident you don't, nor do I claim to. But being closed minded does not make a good scientist.

Why don't you go harrass Gates for his statements about possible time travel during his interview after the Nova String Series.

If highly recognized physicists can speculate then I see no rule that others cannot. And I clearly indicated this was speculation. You don't like it then show us proof that no such energy is available in the vacuum. Good luck since we already know energy is there. All we have to do is figure it out - Like I said above.

Have a nice day. I have. :p

errandir,

A uniform magnetic field will NOT attract a ferromagnetic (non-magnetized) material.

Have you mis-stated something or am I misreading what you wrote?

It appears to say that a magnet will not pick up a piece of iron!

Originally posted by errandir
from what I understand of the manner in which you suggest using this magnet, the process will be cyclical, and any change in energy associated with a cyclic variation of the configuration will average to zero.

OK, from what I can make out in your post is that the weight moves to reduce configuration energy. With the cyclical process of the wheel turning, I can see that on the downward stroke (after 3:00) the wheel 'carries' the weight away from the source of the magnetic field and is thus doing work on the weight (in terms of magnetic potential energy) and this will eventually slow the wheel down to a stop (or not allow it to ever start turning). Fair enough, I understand that but I really want to know now, if it is possible to create an almost horizontal magnetic field with little or no vertical component qand if it is then I see no problem with creating energy from the MF (or as MacM says, drawing energy from the as yet undiscovered infinite universal source).

Where does the problem lie here?!

Originally posted by MacM
Have you mis-stated something or am I misreading what you wrote?Neither.




Originally posted by MacM
It appears to say that a magnet will not pick up a piece of iron! No, read my post again. A <i>uniform</i> magnetic field will not attract a non-magnetized ferromagnetic material because, no mater where you put the piece of iron in the field, the magnetic configuration energy is the same. However, <i>real</i> magnets create fields that fall off with distance. That is why a piece of iron, even though it is not previously magnetized, will be motivated toward the magnet, either pole.

So, a magnet will pick up a piece of iron because the magnetic configuration energy is lower the closer the iron is to the magnet. It isn't directly related to the issue of using a magnet; I just wanted to point out this little feature of magnetism that a lot of people don't quite get, to alleviate any confusion it may cause in the discussion.

Originally posted by John Connellan
... I can see that on the downward stroke (after 3:00) the wheel 'carries' the weight away from the source of the magnetic field and is thus doing work on the weight (in terms of magnetic potential energy) and this will eventually slow the wheel down to a stop (or not allow it to ever start turning).No, this will not slow the wheel down to a stop. It will not change the energy of the wheel whatsoever after a complete cycle. So, whatever kinetic energy the wheel has at the beginning of the cycle will be identical to the kinetic energy of the wheel at the end of the cycle, assuming no load on the wheel. It is the fact that there is a load (be it friction or whatever) that eventually robs the system of the energy. The point about the magnet is that it will not make any net contribution, because the only contribution is makes is based on the configuration, and the configuration is cyclical. Magnetism is wierd, though, so I must concede that I can't really conclude this with utmost certainty. For one thing, the magnetic field doesn't have a potential function, so it isn't really conservative. I haven't given it as much thought as I probably should. But, I am personally pretty convinced about everything I've said so far.




Originally posted by John Connellan
... if it is possible to create an almost horizontal magnetic field with little or no vertical component qand if it is then I see no problem with creating energy from the MFIt doesn't matter what the field looks like. Each weight will go through a cyclic variation in its configuration, unless you move the magnetic field around somehow, or vary its intensity, or in general ensure that the configuration is not cyclic. But, I'm think you'd have to do work on the system in order to do that in a beneficial way. Again, though, I'm not absolutely certain about that last thing.

errandir,

Your answer pretty much parallels mine and I do believe we have the correct picture of the appratus and problem.

Originally posted by errandir

It doesn't matter what the field looks like. Each weight will go through a cyclic variation in its configuration, unless you move the magnetic field around somehow, or vary its intensity, or in general ensure that the configuration is not cyclic. But, I'm think you'd have to do work on the system in order to do that in a beneficial way. Again, though, I'm not absolutely certain about that last thing.

I dont understand what both of u mean by cyclic variation in configuration. As far as I can see the field will always result in the weight 'trying' to lower its mag. pot. energy by moving toward the right. After 12:00, the torque results in a downward force. The weights will always be to the right even in the upward stroke so there is always a net imbalance.

Originally posted by John Connellan
I dont understand what both of u mean by cyclic variation in configuration. As far as I can see the field will always result in the weight 'trying' to lower its mag. pot. energy by moving toward the right.Not exactly, but I think you didn't really mean that anyway. The weight moves to the right half of the time, and then to the left half of the time, thus, a cycle. What I (we, I think) am (are) saying is that, since the magnet always motivates the weight to the right, then half of the time (cycle) it will be supporting the rotation, and half of the time (cycle) it will be resisting the rotation.




Originally posted by John Connellan
After 12:00, the torque results in a downward force.I don't see how the torque results in a downward force. The force (from the magnet) results in a torque.




Originally posted by John Connellan
The weights will always be to the right even in the upward stroke so there is always a net imbalance. Oh, I think I see what you're saying now. They will always be to the right of their little halfcircle cutouts, even though they can (and periodically must) be on the left side of the wheel. Well, due to gravity, they will also always be on the bottom. So, let me ask you, what is the fundamental difference between the right side and the bottom side?

John Connellan,

Let me suggest that you draw this wheel configuration and also draw radial lines between the wheel's axis and the center of the weight.

One thing will become clear immediately.

For weights on the left side their angle superimosed to the axis lags the angles of the complimentary weights 180 degrees across from them and an analalysis of the torque arm ( the trig function of the horizontal length of the wight from the axis will be less than those on the right.

This gives the illusion of contstant torque. However if you carefully sum up the torque as you rotate the wheel you will find the missing torque on the right side from 12:00 O'Clock to 3:00 O'Clock defeats the process.

Aside from a theoretical magnet (meaning it has never been found nor created) that can switch on and off without external energy input, their addition to the design does not resolve the problem.

If you assume such a magnet then yes I can make the unit function by moving the weights on the right side in opposition to gravity but then you are using external energy to make it function and it still is not perpetual even if it produces power.

This has to do with the specific definiton of perpetual. This is not to say that such a device would not be a source of unlimited energy. Theoretically it would but it just wouldn't be perpetual.

OK have a look at the attachment again and look at its configuration right there. Image somebody is holding the whole thing. Now as they let go, the wheel will spin clockwise as a result of the torque agreed?

OK this is the tricky part. We have established that with the shown configuration it will start on its own. What happens next? The previously imbalanced weight which resulted in the torque is now at the bottom and will not rise by itself. However the magnetic field moves the weight over to the right again causing a torque and so it will keep going! Depending on how heavy the weights are, this machine could just overcome friction or it could even do work.

I just know there is something wrong but I think its to do with the magnetic field and not the wheel.

Originally posted by John Connellan
OK have a look at the attachment again and look at its configuration right there. Image somebody is holding the whole thing. Now as they let go, the wheel will spin clockwise as a result of the torque agreed?So, you just want us to consider the effects of gravity? That's all I can make of the picture.




Originally posted by John Connellan
OK this is the tricky part. We have established that with the shown configuration it will start on its own. What happens next?If there is no load (no useful work being extracted and no friction), then the wheel will oscillate, I'm pretty sure. Maybe it will also have a zero frequency rotational component as well. If there is a load, it will spin for a while and then stop. I'm not going to do a calculation for this, though, until you show me yours.




Originally posted by John Connellan
The previously imbalanced weight which resulted in the torque is now at the bottom and will not rise by itself. However the magnetic field moves the weight over to the right again causing a torque and so it will keep going!And where is the magnet? Did it all of a sudden appear out of thin air?

You seem to be ignoring everything that people are mentioning that you haven't thought of before.

Originally posted by errandir
If there is no load (no useful work being extracted and no friction), then the wheel will oscillate, I'm pretty sure.

wrong, if the weight (mg) and torque is strong enough on that side, plenty of work may be extracted when u let it go.

And where is the magnet? Did it all of a sudden appear out of thin air?

Yes

Because about 1/3 of the way through this thread we introduced a permanent magnet to the right of the machine. It is not visible in the picture but use ur imagination.

Originally posted by John Connellan
OK have a look at the attachment again and look at its configuration right there. Image somebody is holding the whole thing. Now as they let go, the wheel will spin clockwise as a result of the torque agreed?

OK this is the tricky part. We have established that with the shown configuration it will start on its own. What happens next? The previously imbalanced weight which resulted in the torque is now at the bottom and will not rise by itself. However the magnetic field moves the weight over to the right again causing a torque and so it will keep going! Depending on how heavy the weights are, this machine could just overcome friction or it could even do work.

I just know there is something wrong but I think its to do with the magnetic field and not the wheel.

All adding a permanent magnet does is add an additional force component acting on the weights. The resulting combined force will now act on an angle between vertical and horizontal. For example, if the force of the magnet was equal to the force of gravity, the resultant force would be 1.414 times that of gravity at a 45° angle.

This would have the same effect on the device as if it were tipped at a 45° at 1.414 g. Since the device is a wheel and the device is tipped along the axis of the wheel, the net effect is that the device is in just as much balance now as it was upright and at 1g.

Upshot: the magnet does nothing towards making this a perpetual motion device.

Originally posted by John Connellan
wrong, if the weight (mg) and torque is strong enough on that side, plenty of work may be extracted when u let it go.Wrong, golden delicious is my favorite type of apple.




Originally posted by John Connellan
Because about 1/3 of the way through this thread we introduced a permanent magnet to the right of the machine. It is not visible in the picture but use ur imagination. This is not a perpetual motion machine, use your imagination.

Originally posted by errandir
Wrong, golden delicious is my favorite type of apple.

OK lets add wings to the wheel so it acts like a fan to cool u down. That's work extracted ok?

This is not a perpetual motion machine, use your imagination.

Who are u talking to? Use the proper terminology if u are talking to me. This is a perpetual work machine (unless someone can find fault with the creation of energy which seems to happen).

Originally posted by Janus58
All adding a permanent magnet does is add an additional force component acting on the weights.

I dont know how many times I've asked the question now, can we create a 2-D horizontal mag. field so that there is no vertical force on the weights except gravity (when they are on the right hand side)?

John Connellan,

I dont know how many times I've asked the question now, can we create a 2-D horizontal mag. field so that there is no vertical force on the weights except gravity (when they are on the right hand side)?

I thought I had answered this question earlier.

Perhaps I rambled to much in my presentation and it lost meaning.

For a shorter version:

"No".

Originally posted by MacM
John Connellan,



I thought I had answered this question earlier.

Perhaps I rambled to much in my presentation and it lost meaning.

For a shorter version:

"No".

Thank you!!!!
Finally!

So this is the crux of the argument coz with a horizontal mag. field, or as u say, an AC current magnet (which does not draw on external power), then this would indeed be a perpetual work machine.

Maybe we can put this thread to rest now!

Originally posted by John Connellan
I dont know how many times I've asked the question now, can we create a 2-D horizontal mag. field so that there is no vertical force on the weights except gravity (when they are on the right hand side)?

That wouldn't make any difference even if it were possible. You can come pretty close by putting a very strong and very long magnet a long long distance from the wheel. (Just like on the surface of the Earth over small distances we can treat the force of gravity as acting in parallel lines because the center of attraction is so far away.)

The answer I gave would still hold. There would be two force components working on the weights. One vertical, gravity, and one horizontal, Magnetic. The combined resultant force vector would be neither vertical or horizontal, but something in between. For the intents of this experiment, the weights don't care about the nature of the forces acting on them, and they don't care if there are two forces pulling in two directions resulting in a combined force vector, or just one, They behave the same.

I dont think u understand what Im saying. It doesn't matter if theres a horizontal component. Its not going to take away from the strength of the vertical component. It will just result in motion in 2 dimensions.

I have included the updated image with magnet and field. What I am trying to convey is a field in a horizontal plane only so that the weight goes through it for a fraction of an instant before leaving the fields influence. All this will do is shift the weight over to the right very quickly.

John Connellan,

I have included the updated image with magnet and field. What I am trying to convey is a field in a horizontal plane only so that the weight goes through it for a fraction of an instant before leaving the fields influence. All this will do is shift the weight over to the right very quickly.


A few things I tried to convey earlier.

1 - The magnet must be switched on and off.

2 - IF you switch it on before 3:00 O'Clock, it could indeed increase the amount of time that the weight has a greater torque arm and that could cause a continued imbalance.

3 - But if you don't switch it off it will resist the weight from rotating out of its field. That is unless you not only develope an AC permanent magnet but one the is highly polarized or directed.

4 - Assuming you use an A.C. magnet (an electromagnet, not a permanent magnet) to achieve the idea in todays technology, you still haven't found perpetual motion since you would be operating from external power. You would simply have an electric motor. that is a gravity rotating device assisted to continue to rotate via external electrical input.

5 - If you could somehow achieve the AC magnet that is highly polarized (that is pull only along a given vector and not resist motion that is even slightly non-parallel you still would not have achieved perpetual motion because what you would have achieved is merely prove gravity has an energy source which you have been able to tap for useful purposes.

AT WHICH TIME WE WOULD ALL SAY "I KNEW THIS GUY" AND WOULD ALL BECOME YOUR BEST FRIEND EXPECTING YOU TO SHARE YOUR MILLIONS WITH US".:D

OK MacM I know that what u are saying will work. But what I really need is for somebody to disprove what I have said. I already have an idea of whats wrong with it and I just want to see if somebody spots it too before I say it.

Put it this way. The force vectors on the right hand side are

a) downward due to gravity alone from 12:00 to 3:00

b) at exactly 3:00, gravity + a horizontal mag force effect

c) at a time after 3:00 and before 6:00, gravity again.

This has gravity which supplies the downward force for this side of the wheel and the magnetic field (with no vertical thickness) sliding the weight across to keep it perpetual.

Can anyone see whats wrong?

whats wrong with a ring which carries magnets angled toward oppositly charged magnets? it doesnt have to be 2, it could be more than that...the ring would be made of very light, strong composites i guess, so less mass...

Carnuth,

whats wrong with a ring which carries magnets angled toward oppositly charged magnets?

A couple of points.

1 - Magnets aren't giving off a charge.

2 - They don't project like lasers in a straight line. The magnetic field curves around linking the N/S poles with a flux.

3 - The reality of the magnetic field is that you will have mid-points inbetween the opposed pole faces where there is neutral force and point where they will attract because of the geometry of the field.

So MacM, is there any chance soon that permenent AC magnets will be realised? Is there research about this going on now? Have u any links?

John Connellan,

Not to my knowledge.