Perpetual motion magnetic motor...possible?
- Thread starter morph999
- Start date
Toshi
10 kW
weigh for yourself: laws of thermodynamics, or easily faked youtube video? how is this a hard choice?
I tend to believe that it's possible to do something with magnetics like that so at first I was taken in but then I read comments and went back and listened to him. He doesn't sound like a scientist at all. What do you think of this? Perendev motor
Is this real?
[youtube]PFGiWiXMHn0[/youtube]
Is this real?
[youtube]PFGiWiXMHn0[/youtube]
John in CR
100 TW
Perendev receives an initial input of work when the 2 pieces, essentially levers, are squeezed together which gets it going.
The only way anything along the lines of a magnet motor could ever do anything meaningful is if it is extremely large and somehow harnesses energy from the surrounding natural environment. Such a discovery is going to require someone wacked out enough to think like someone like Tesla, but it wouldn't be perpetual motion, but instead a new way of gathering energy....Possible, yes of course, since there's a lot of energy out there, but you aren't going to find it on YouTube.
John
The only way anything along the lines of a magnet motor could ever do anything meaningful is if it is extremely large and somehow harnesses energy from the surrounding natural environment. Such a discovery is going to require someone wacked out enough to think like someone like Tesla, but it wouldn't be perpetual motion, but instead a new way of gathering energy....Possible, yes of course, since there's a lot of energy out there, but you aren't going to find it on YouTube.
John
Link
1 MW
No.
Also I remember something about a motor that worked by degrading the magnets (there's energy stored in their field, I guess), which I think was the Perendev. Considering magnetizing something costs like 25x more energy than what you get out of it, it's not very useful in that sense, either.
Also I remember something about a motor that worked by degrading the magnets (there's energy stored in their field, I guess), which I think was the Perendev. Considering magnetizing something costs like 25x more energy than what you get out of it, it's not very useful in that sense, either.
Q. Why do they turn the perendev motor off?
A. Because it going to stop all by itself, and you wouldn't be fooled.
Go over to fizzx.com, check out the whipmag stuff. One guy managed to convince people that he had a close to working magnet motor, they're still trying to "replicate" it, over a year later. All from one shoddy youtube video. I think that the guy that did it still posts to that forum??? Belief is a powerful thing.
Gow.
A. Because it going to stop all by itself, and you wouldn't be fooled.
Go over to fizzx.com, check out the whipmag stuff. One guy managed to convince people that he had a close to working magnet motor, they're still trying to "replicate" it, over a year later. All from one shoddy youtube video. I think that the guy that did it still posts to that forum??? Belief is a powerful thing.
Gow.
Rassy
1 MW
What Link said:
I read the details behind the turntable motor, and the guy has to keep taking the "control" magnet in to get it recharged. LiFePO4 is probably a lot more efficient, and a lot easier to recharge.
EMF
100 kW
Forget physics and thermodynamics. All you need to know in this world is you can't get something for nothing. In addition, in this world nothing is perpetual. Everything comes to an end at some point.
TPA
10 kW
If a magnet is pulling iron (or perhaps another magnet) in with a force of a given value, would it not take the same value of force to escape the influence of the magnet? Wouldn't this be sort of a conservation of energy thing?
An electric motor works because you can turn off the magnetic field as the influenced body is trying to "escape" (and/or move the field to influence the next incoming body).
An electric motor works because you can turn off the magnetic field as the influenced body is trying to "escape" (and/or move the field to influence the next incoming body).
maydaverave
10 kW
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2009
- Messages
- 542
Hmm the big question is, is the universe a perpeptual motion machine? Will it end in entropy like thermodynamics predicts. Does it have a begining in which there was nothing before? Or does it go forever constantly reaching entropy and somehow being reborn. 
frodus
10 kW
I have plans for a perpetual motion machine that I built last month based on a couple of different designs. It'l run for 12 hours straight with the current bearings and magnets .... which if upgraded should provide continuous rotation.
I'll sell you the plans for $30 plus shipping.
I'll sell you the plans for $30 plus shipping.
EMF
100 kW
Go ahead and upgrade it and tell us how it does....frodus said:
My guess is you are just kidding. The thing with a perpetual motion machine, from what I have read at least, is that it would have to be governed or it would self destruct. it certainly would not stop after 12 hours. The machine would provide more energy than it consumed in order to run endlessly. Therefore, if there was not a way of throttling it, it would run faster and faster until it came apart. Inferior, but not defective bearings would be a blessing. Sounds like this one just took a while to slow down and stop.
frodus
10 kW
of course i'm joking.....
energy in - losses = energy out and thats NORMAL
energy in = energy out and thats unity, and never been achieved.
energy in = energy out + something and thats overunity, which has also never been achieved.
where did that "something" come from? hmmm, methinks it HAD to come from somewhere.
energy in - losses = energy out and thats NORMAL
energy in = energy out and thats unity, and never been achieved.
energy in = energy out + something and thats overunity, which has also never been achieved.
where did that "something" come from? hmmm, methinks it HAD to come from somewhere.
johnrobholmes
10 MW
I like how he kept stressing that there was nothing below the setup. That tube is plenty big to house some electrics, but in the vid it didn't even spin long enough to need more than a good push and good bearings.
frodus
10 kW
I think the only perpetual motion that I've ever encountered is due to the ever expanding hot air that comes from these people that CLAIM they have perpetual motion.
If only we could harness the energy being released by some of these self proclaimed scientists.... they could run their own vehicles!!!
Here are some interesting threads on DIYELECTRICCAR.com
http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/alternators-free-energy-perpetual-motion-over-13449.html?t=13449&highlight=PERPETUAL
http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/alternator-electric-cari-28945.html?t=28945&highlight=PERPETUAL
http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/unlimited-mileage-electric-vehicles-part-2-18984.html?t=18984&highlight=PERPETUAL
If only we could harness the energy being released by some of these self proclaimed scientists.... they could run their own vehicles!!!
Here are some interesting threads on DIYELECTRICCAR.com
http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/alternators-free-energy-perpetual-motion-over-13449.html?t=13449&highlight=PERPETUAL
http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/alternator-electric-cari-28945.html?t=28945&highlight=PERPETUAL
http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/unlimited-mileage-electric-vehicles-part-2-18984.html?t=18984&highlight=PERPETUAL
knightmb
100 kW
Here's the reason none of those magnetic motors will never work.
Magnetic fields don't travel in a straight line, they curve. So the problem is as was mentioned earlier, your device is fighting both forces to attract and escape thus basically canceling out to zero. So where does the energy come from? Good question, usually from the device itself in some way. Remember that energy can take many forms from electrical to mechanical.
If magnetic fields were a straight line shot, then yes you could just have two magnets repel each other in a circle kind of like using the hose pipe to spray water in a straight line to spin a wheel. But as far as I know, there is no *known* material that will block magnetic fields perfectly to a 90 degree angle. The magnetic field always spills around it.
If a magnetic motor was that easy to build (and worked), we would have been driving the "infinite miles per charge" vehicles already.
Magnetic fields don't travel in a straight line, they curve. So the problem is as was mentioned earlier, your device is fighting both forces to attract and escape thus basically canceling out to zero. So where does the energy come from? Good question, usually from the device itself in some way. Remember that energy can take many forms from electrical to mechanical.
If magnetic fields were a straight line shot, then yes you could just have two magnets repel each other in a circle kind of like using the hose pipe to spray water in a straight line to spin a wheel. But as far as I know, there is no *known* material that will block magnetic fields perfectly to a 90 degree angle. The magnetic field always spills around it.
If a magnetic motor was that easy to build (and worked), we would have been driving the "infinite miles per charge" vehicles already.
deronmoped
10 kW
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 706
maydaverave said:Hmm the big question is, is the universe a perpeptual motion machine? Will it end in entropy like thermodynamics predicts. Does it have a begining in which there was nothing before? Or does it go forever constantly reaching entropy and somehow being reborn.
I was kinda thinking along the same lines.
Why is it impossible to build a perpetual motion machine? Would it not be along the same line that the universe in itself is impossible? Our thinking goes, it's impossible to create something from nothing, but yet, here we are, proving that A) We were created out of nothingness? B) That we have always existed and there is no such thing as nothing?
So if "A" is true, then we should be able to create perpetual motion using energy out of "nothingness"?
What if "B" was true? Then the Universe itself, being here forever, proves there is perpetual motion?
Kinda (well not even kinda) blows a persons mind trying to use 21st century logic to understand the most fundamental thing about us
Deron.
Link
1 MW
deronmoped said:
To my knowledge there's no law or combination of laws against perpetual motion. The problem is that most people's idea of "perpetual motion" is actually over-unity; anything on Earth will eventually convert its kinetic energy into heat via friction.
Something spinning in place will keep spinning forever, but the catches are that it has to be out of the influence of any other gravitational fields, in an absolute and total vacuum (even light would eventually slow it down), devoid of any magnetism (because rotating magnetic fields produce EM waves), and presumably be made out of a perfect material that never degrades or deforms. Effectively, it would either have to have its own pocket universe all to itself to exist in, or be defined as a totally enclosed system that always has the same amount of energy in it, in which case the universe does, indeed, fall under the category of "perpetual motion machine."
maydaverave said:Hmm the big question is, is the universe a perpeptual motion machine? Will it end in entropy like thermodynamics predicts. Does it have a begining in which there was nothing before? Or does it go forever constantly reaching entropy and somehow being reborn.
Yeah, there's a theory that goes like that. The idea is that, after a hypothetical "Big Crunch" in which all existing matter and energy are pulled into one singularity, they bounce back somehow into a "new" universe. Interesting part is that there wouldn't be any way to tell if they start out the same, but end up different, or the universe just keeps replaying itself over and over ad infinitum.
I think that's how it works. I only know about it from glancing at the cover of a Pop. Sci. magazine. The rest I'm just extrapolating out based on what I already know.
EMF
100 kW
link said:
"existing matter" This is the part that always cracks me up. When I read about the time just before the original "Big Bang" and the very important part the great thinkers decide to skip over or admit to a Supreme Being.
E.g. at this point, science goes "supernatural" a nanosecond prior to existence of any matter, just like everyone else. There are some things we just don't know and never will, at least while we are alive. We all know about beginning and end - but not even one nanosecond before or after. With all our advanced knowledge, this is really interesting that there is so much we do not know outside this existence. Like nothing at all...we can't know it is seems. With our set of tools we are given, we are not able to check these places out. We know gravity is weak, but we don't know why, we can't find out either. How come I can stand on a mass the size of the Earth, and yet, still lift my arm? Makes little sense!
Maybe this would be a good science fiction movie! Maybe the mad scientist that broke the barrier could even get his ass handed to him-literally.
If we did know it- we could easily work backwards from there and figure out everything. We are really good at hindsight. Just like we can work a maze backwards a lot easier than forwards. We know exactly why the stock market rose or fell...the day after it does. Start at the solution and then discover the problem.
I'm sure this is amusing to any intelligence that does know, if there is such a thing, to watch us struggle with the puzzle of creating matter from nothing. I believe the intelligence does have a sense of humor because, why else would all life be dumped here temporarily, and yet have to accept that our creator always was and always will be.
Heck, we can't even make a machine that duplicates this feat. Ouch! That stings!
IamIan
100 mW
maydaverave said:Hmm the big question is, is the universe a perpeptual motion machine? Will it end in entropy like thermodynamics predicts. Does it have a begining in which there was nothing before? Or does it go forever constantly reaching entropy and somehow being reborn.
my 2 bits...
no perpetual motion ... no Zero Point energy ...
We could make devices to harness sources of energy like Solar Cells and such ... but none of those are perpetual motion or Zero point energy.
---------------
The 'heat death' of the universe theory is a thermodynamics type of entropy ... but thermodynamics excludes nuclear forces ... like fusion reactions... and the second law of thermodynamics is not 100% true ... the correct statement is 'the sum of energy and mass is conserved' ... where the second law of thermodynamics claims 'energy is conversed' ... which is not entirely correct ... energy can be converted to mass or mass to energy which means that the energy by itself is no longer conserved in any of those nuclear reactions .... thermodynamics is very useful ... but only in the context in which it applies.... which often times excludes anything dealing with nuclear reactions and some chemical reactions.
------------
As for the universe itself
#1> The Universe is Infinite.
Every-time we get better technology to let us see further out ... we just find more stuff further out... we have yet to find 'nothing' further out ... so despite our desire to put the universe in our concepts of limits and finite size ... the historical data continues to show us time and again that the universe is always bigger than we used to think it was... and there does not yet seem to be ( to me ) any reason to think that the universe is finite ... I think it is infinite in size.
there is a limit to the 'observable' universe because there are other things around us blocking our view ... as you get further and further out ... eventually you reach a point that you can't see some objects just because your view will be obstructed by other objects around you.
Also remember the increasing distances involved in the universe ... the distance to the moon is big ... but tiny compared to the distance to the next planet ... that is tiny compared to the distance to the next solar system ... that is tiny compared to the distance to the next galaxy ... that is tiny compared to the distance to the next local group ... that is tiny compared to the distance to the next super cluster... etc... etc... also these distance between objects is comparatively empty... so we already know that the empty distances keep getting bigger from grouping to grouping ... I haven't yet seen any data to prove that this trend does not continue ... eventually you reach a distance of comparatively empty space that makes observation from one side of the empty space to the other beyond our currently known means of detection ... thus even though there is more out there... we just can't see it.
---
#2> The universe has always been... there was no beginning there is no end.
All of our current methods of observation , observe things that decay over time and / or distance ... red shift in light , etc...
This puts a fundamental limit on our current abilities ... and that limit should not be ignored... there is a limit to the distance and age we can observe ... and we have no way of knowing if that is 1% , 20% , or 0.00001% of what's out there.
The form of the universe is not the same today as I was yesterday or 1,000 years ago... it is constantly changing ... so the form changes ... but the sum of all matter and energy remains the same ... although it is summing up an infinite amount of something... so the sum itself is useless.
--------------
#3>
I also do not agree with the conventional view of the "big bang"...
From at least my point of view...
look at a black hole ... where there is a collection of mass that is large enough that the gravitational force is too strong for even light to escape ... long before you have black hole levels of gravitational forces ... you reaction sun like gravitational forces ... so you begin to have fusion reactions ... each fusion reaction converts tiny bits of the mass to energy... the energy can't escape the black hole as long as it retains enough mass to have a big enough gravitational force... which means the black hole must continue to pull in more new mass at a specific minimum rate or else eventually the rate of mass to energy conversion will result in the black hole tipping past that line of minimum gravitational force needed to contain light and stay a black hole .... as soon as it even for a fraction of a second tips past that point ... there would be a massive energy wave as suddenly light could escape ... so it would in a extremely massive explosion... and leave behind the evidence we credit to a "big bang"... it is a big bang ... but not a "big bang" in the conventional sense of everything all together.... it isn't all together because there are competing forces.... the more mass the black hole collects the stronger its' gravitational force ... the longer a black hole exists the greater the temperatures as the energy from the converted mass continues to be unable to escape .... as the pressure from the gravitational force and the increasing energy continue to grow the rate of fusion will grow ... but as you look out at the distances in what we have seen of the universe ... the distance from earth to moon ... earth to next planet ... our solar system to next solar system ... our galaxy to next galaxy ... our local cluster to next local cluster ... as you move out at each step there are greater and greater increases in relatively empty space... so there is increasing distance a black hole would have to travel over where it is no longer pulling in enough new mass to compensate for the amount of mass being converted to energy in the fusion reactions inside... thus eventually a 'big bang' .... but not "The Big Bang" because there is still more universe out there that wasn't pulled in before the black hole dipped too low... or there is a big bang at one point in the universe while other parts of the universe are so far away that they are not effected by those events and are not part of it.
-----
just my 2 bits... :wink:
John in CR
100 TW
Ian,
No explanation is complete unless it includes dark matter and dark energy, which apparently comprise well over 90% of the universe...and they don't even have a clue as to what this "dark" stuff is or does, only that it must be there.
John
No explanation is complete unless it includes dark matter and dark energy, which apparently comprise well over 90% of the universe...and they don't even have a clue as to what this "dark" stuff is or does, only that it must be there.
John
IamIan
100 mW
John in CR said:
almost :wink:
They don't know if there actually is any dark matter or energy ... they suspect it is there because it would give a solution to why the observed expansion of the observable universe isn't going as we predicted it would... so they suspect that there is this 'stuff' called dark mater which we have never observed .. and the very existence of it is just a theory.
That is kind of like in mathematics the term 'i' ... i is the square root of -1 ... but no such number can exist ... so we call it an imaginary number ... because either we 'pretend' that 'i' could exist ... or we have to take a long hard look at our entire mathematics system to see if the system itself is flawed in some way... maybe a base 10 number system based on us having 10 digits on our hands ... might not be the best number base to build an entire mathematics system on... what happens if pi turns out to be the best number base for science to work with... now you would have to go back and redo centuries of mathematical work ... and you would have to train people in the schooling system not to count with their fingers but to think and count in terms of pi.... so instead we can use an easy out ... and 'pretend' that there could be an 'i' ... even though we know there can't.
Same thing with Dark Matter & Dark Energy ... we pretend it is there even though we've never found any ... in order to not have to say ... look this data here points to an error in some of our current science ... then we have to go back and look at all the building block science that lead up to that point to try and find the error... so we take the easy out... and dream up this imaginary stuff that no one has ever seen that would have very specific properties ... so that we can pretend that the rest of our system doesn't have errors / mistakes in it.
The great thing about science ... is that as long as there are missing pieces to the puzzle ... like despite millions $ being spent on it ... no one has been able to verify the existence ... or collect any dark matter ... and as long as the data doesn't add up... someone will go looking for the answer ... which is why some scientists have already theorized there is no Dark matter ... the problem is with our understanding of gravity that lead to the errors ... so they are working on trying to find and fix the mistakes / misunderstanding we have with gravity ... one such effort is in nonsymmetric gravitational theory... but there are many others as well.
but ...
Even if there is this imaginary stuff we call 'dark matter' ... that wouldn't change much about my personal theories ... because it doesn't disprove any of the point they are based on.
:wink:
deronmoped
10 kW
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 706
If you ask me, I think the person putting the universe together took a few short cuts. When things did not work out, they just made up new laws.
Take water for example, at first they made it like everything else, as it gets colder, it gets denser. But when they found out that all they would have is planets like the Earth turned into just big ice balls, they made it expand and float. "That will fix that problem".
What about gravity, it pulls things in at a constant rate that accelerates something as it does. But, gravity stops accelerating something as it gets close to the speed of light. What's up with that?
What about this one, they say if the expansion in the Big Bang was not calibrated to like .000000000000000000000000000000000001 places (it was a lot of places), that a little one way or the other and we would not have the Universe. It would either have flown apart too fast and nothing would have formed or it would have just collapsed back in on itself.
Something strange is going on. If you were to take mathematical probabilities to explain the Universe, I think it would suggest that their are infinite Universes.
Think about it this way, if you take the simple "chance" that your Mother and Farther would have met and ended up giving birth to you and you are now reading this. Then you just keep going back in time adding up the "chances" that certain events would have to happen for you to be here today and it soon becomes mindbogglingly. At the very moment of the Big Bang were there infinite possibilities on how the Universe would turn out? Are we that special, are we here by chance, or does every possibility exist?
Deron.
Take water for example, at first they made it like everything else, as it gets colder, it gets denser. But when they found out that all they would have is planets like the Earth turned into just big ice balls, they made it expand and float. "That will fix that problem".
What about gravity, it pulls things in at a constant rate that accelerates something as it does. But, gravity stops accelerating something as it gets close to the speed of light. What's up with that?
What about this one, they say if the expansion in the Big Bang was not calibrated to like .000000000000000000000000000000000001 places (it was a lot of places), that a little one way or the other and we would not have the Universe. It would either have flown apart too fast and nothing would have formed or it would have just collapsed back in on itself.
Something strange is going on. If you were to take mathematical probabilities to explain the Universe, I think it would suggest that their are infinite Universes.
Think about it this way, if you take the simple "chance" that your Mother and Farther would have met and ended up giving birth to you and you are now reading this. Then you just keep going back in time adding up the "chances" that certain events would have to happen for you to be here today and it soon becomes mindbogglingly. At the very moment of the Big Bang were there infinite possibilities on how the Universe would turn out? Are we that special, are we here by chance, or does every possibility exist?
Deron.
IamIan
100 mW
deronmoped said:
my 2 bits...
both.
As long as the universe has no size limit ... and has always been... my theory ...
Then probability ( if our calculations are correct ) ... only tells us the rate at which something is expected to happen ...
But given an infinite size and infinite time ... any possibility ... no matter how remote ... will eventually happen ... and then happen again ... and again.
As long as my theory of multiple simultaneous and unrelated big bangs is true ... and we abandon the simple idea of a collective singular big bang ... than again it doesn't matter how unlikely this possibility is ... because eventually it would have happened just by chance ... those other non-collective non-singular big bangs might very well have flow apart or collapsed back together ... or maybe our calculations are off ... and our particular galaxy / our one of many big bangs is still going to fall apart or collapse back together.... you know in a few Googolplex years or something ... Just something I love about that number ....
10^10^100.... or 10 to the 10th power all to the 100th power 
Similar threads
