Energy conservation violation

First of all, I would like to say that this model is NOT a perpetual motion. It will stop eventually. What I want to say here is that the output useful work seems to be greater than input energy

My system consists of 2 elements. Each element is a cylinder put on an axle. There are two permanent magnets stuck on each cylinder, with their north poles are faced outside. In the youtube clip that I will show you below, you can see the magnets of the first element are painted in blue, while those of the second one are crossed with X.

I turn the cylinders slightly so that the north poles of the magnets are faced each other. Then, the thrust between magnets make the cylinders rotate.

A single cylinder on an axle itself is not the system. It is an element of the system, which consists of 2 at all. Therefore, the thrust between magnets is not external force which affect system. It is comprehended as internal force between 2 elements of the system. The thrust from the first cylinder makes the second rotate, and the thrust from the second, in its turn, make the first rotate. Each component act as the cause to make the other rotate, and it acquires the affect from the other to rotate.

While the input work of the system originates from a small force making cylinders moving short arc, and make magnets facing each other, the output dynamic energy is much higher. You can see in the clip that both cylinders rotate many circles, which create output useful work much greater than the work to make the magnets facing each other.


Here is the link of my clip




Your comments are welcomed to determine that if energy conservation is violated in this case or not

Thanks

Thinh Nghiem from Vietnam

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I just see a system slowly returning to its lowest energy state, with some gyrations in between. That doesn't seem to violate any conservation laws. Also, what useful work is done?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

when the system acts by it's self, there's no complete rotation

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

agreed.

 

Agreed with the others:
1. The title and first sentence contradict each other because
2. You don't know what a perpetual motion machine is. Worse,
3. This isn't one because
4. You don't even know what "work" is: this device doesn't produce any.

 

I agree with the others. Here is an exercise for you to do. Using mathematics show that your assumption that the input energy is less than the output energy is true.

 

Yep. Try to make it do work, and you'll find out how quickly it stops.

 

Magnets in situations like these are said to not be able to create perpetual motion or have a gain in energy, because magnets are not truly permanent. People like Stephen Hawking would just say that the experiment just lowered the lifetime of those magnets by having them interact that way just slightly. How long a magnet will actually last in that situation, who knows really?

 

Magnets may not be permanent, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the experiment above. No "magnetic motor" can generate more power than is put into it, even if the process damages the magnets.

 

I was thinking that the extra energy seen in the video would be balanced by rotating a number of atoms in the magnet, so the excess energy observed was energy being expended by the rotation of atoms in it. Then even if someone did the math and found that the cups moved with more energy than the initial push, it still wouldn't be an example of free energy. The math would have to involve the arrangement and change of arrangement of the atoms that make up the magnet itself.

 

"While the input work of the system originates from a small force making cylinders moving short arc, and make magnets facing each other, the output dynamic energy is much higher. You can see in the clip that both cylinders rotate many circles, which create output useful work much greater than the work to make the magnets facing each other."

Yeah you are just putting in more energy than you think when you set the magnets up that way. It may not feel like much, but it is plenty to drive those kind of lightweight objects for a while.

 

There is no extra energy seen in the video.

 

Hi all,

Thank you for your feedback

As you can see in the clip, the input work came from the force of my hands to turn the cylinders so that their magnets face each other. And the output kinetic energy result from the rotating in many rounds of the cylinders, which can be seen easily that they are greater than the input

 

No; you don't need to do that.

The operator "stored" energy in the system by rotating the rotors to a high energy position; that required work. He then released them. The rotors then dissipated that stored energy in motion. Had the video gone on long enough both rotors would have stopped due to friction, and the operator would have had to store more energy in the system to start it up again.

 

Again:
1. INTERNAL kinetic energy INSIDE the system is not an output.

2. You can't just look at it and guess that the resulting internal kinetic energy is greater than the starting energy. But I'm sure you have yet another misunderstanding of how COE works that makes you think so. Such as:

Perhaps you think that every time the cylinders change direction they output their kinetic energy. But they don't: they just temporarily store the energy as potential energy and then get it back. Exactly like a pendulum does except with magnets instead of gravity.

 

The idea is that the magnet itself is a form of stored energy. It, like a battery, wouldn't last forever. I don't think it would be just the operator storing the energy, because there is clearly more work being done from what work was being put into it. Then energy would still be conserved on the molecular level. It would be like taking the barrier that separates two parts of a battery. You wouldn't say all the work was taking out the section in the middle. Most of the stored energy would come from the substances in each side of the battery that had a different charge, which was originally separated.

 

Why do you say that? I just see some low-mass rotors spinning around. As someone else noted, this is not much different from a pendulum, or a weight on a spring oscillating.

And when you were done energy would have been converted from chemical to electrical energy. No "magnet" was converted here. A magnet degrading does not produce energy; it merely degrades.

 

I said that because it was hardly touched to begin with. The force of the magnets coming close together pushes the cups with a faster movement that what was put into it from it being started.

But, that would require energy for it to degrade. I don't see that much loss of energy taking place here.

 

No it isn't. That's like saying a bare spring or a planet off, alone in space has stored energy. It (the system) only has energy if you brin another object close to it.

Ok, then please be specific: what is the work you see being done? Because I don't see any.

There are two kinds of energy here: kinetic and potential. So the starting energy need not give it the maximum speed if some of the starting energy is provided in the form of potential energy. In either case, if you watch a system like this for a few minutes you will definitely slow down, not speed up.

 

What you've shown is similar to the effect of lifting a rubber ball 6 feet above the floor, and then letting go and letting the potential energy turn into kinetic energy. But what you've also shown is that when the ball hits the floor at a specific velocity, an elastic compression takes place, absorbing the velocity and turning it into potential energy. When that transition stops, the ball is in a forced collapsed state, ready to be expanded, and it will with force, "bouncing" back up, not quite reaching the height it was originally dropped from. The energy is conserved, but not all of the potential is turned into motion, some is lost to space.

Your cups are "bouncing" less and less each time, conserving the energy, but also not quite regaining the full potential started with, as some was lost to space (heat).

Logs burn and turn to ash. The potential of the log was turned into heat, but not all the heat was used in heating the stew. Some of the heat was lost to space. Nothing is 100% efficient, and to make matters worse, you are trying to claim it is MORE than 100% efficient, that it actually gained potential energy as time went on! (rolls eyes)