i had an idea to create a 16 sided figure out of magnets whose internal faces would all be of the same polarity. then i would make a 16 spoked wheel of magnets repelling against the inner ring on a bearing. does this make sense? i had this idea awhile back and after searching around online i found a sweet diagram someone had made that was basically the same idea, only taken much further than my 16 sided shape. i've spoken to the person who made it and we both think it would work. i would post the link to his diagram but i can't seem to find it anywhere anyhow the idea is you could use the energy to charge a battery or something... if the basic idea works it seems like it could go nuts. once i get the money together i'll see what i can do. until then, what do you guys think?
Yeah, it's called an electric motor. Generators work in the opposite fashion. The problem is energy input. You can input kinetic energy and spin it, but because of friction it will eventually stop. This is why electric motors use electromagnets. At best it can be used to store small amounts of kinetic energy
http://www.chriswilshaw.info/free-energy-with-magnets.htm here is the link to the design. i forgot google has more than 1 page lol.
That's not perpetual motion though. That's just a big complicated electrical motor. You are still inputing electricity.
would you explain further? when i imagine putting electricity into something i see electrical sockets and wires. this is just magnetic energy repelling against itself.
thats pretty cool, but not quite what i'm envisioning. what i have in mind uses all neodymium magnets so there doesn't require anything to power electromagnets. in theory, the magnets on the wheel will repel against the magnets of the outer shell and perpetually rotate in one direction. no batteries or electricity involved, just making a spinning contraption. if it does work, then i would think about generating electricity.
Yes certainly. I'm going to be thorough, so don't feel like I'm patronizing you. I really like to teach this stuff. Lets first off, with stating that there is a big difference between physical work, physical energy and physical force. A basic outline can be found here. Electromagnetism, is a force. The goal of any generator (including a perpetual motion machine) is to create energy by doing work, and exploiting a physical force. Most common generators use chemical potential energy (i.e. a coal-fired steam generator). This proposed idea, would ideally use the always-existent electromagnetic force to induce a kinetic energy, which could then plausibly be transferring into a generator, transforming it back into usable electromagnetic energy (electricity). We should also note here that electricity and magnetism are essentially the same force. The problem comes in when you try to understand where the energy comes from. We know that magnets have the ability to repel and attract each other, making use of magnetic fields. So at very least this machine would have to have an original input, some kind of kinetic energy to set it in motion. That energy enters a system which is not close. The wheel is subject to friction, normal force and even gravity. These sap the system of the original kinetic energy. The force of friction causes most of this kinetic energy to slowly become minute amounts of heat (in the same way that an internal combustion engine looses most of it's energy to heat). Even simple electromagnetism looses strength over distance. As the internal magnetic poles move along the attraction and repulsion magnets, they loose energy through the transfer of the air. Mag-Lev trains have this same problem, that's why heat build up and magnet cleanliness are such big safety issues. It will get to a point where gravity, normal force and friction overcome the strength of the magnets and cause the wheel to stop spinning. The way that this is overcome in an electrical motor is that the magnets have an induced electrical current, causing them to become significantly stronger. In fact, they can alternate different patterns between "on" and "off" in order to speed up or slow down the rotation. It's been quite awhile since I took a physics class, so feel free to correct me where I need it, and to add more.
work done = force x distance Mechanical work - "Work can be zero even when there is a force. The centripetal force in circular motion, for example, does zero work because the kinetic energy of the moving object doesn't change. Likewise, when a book sits on a table, the table does no work on the book, because no energy is transferred into or out of the book." Basically there is no work done unless the mass accelerates, which it won't it will at best stay the same velocity (maybe if it was supercooled).
I read Michio Kaku's book "physics of the impossible" and he said that a perpetual motion device violates the laws of physics although you can come pretty close. The laws of physics now allow for time travel, an infinite number of dimensions but not free energy.
thanks for the replies everyone. i learned a lot while reading and checking out the information you all provided. thanks sam, as usual your explanation is more than one could ask from an online forum. from what i gather it sounds possible that the design would create motion but not to an extent that it would merit developing into an energy source due to the limitations created by friction and gravity. sound right? well, excuse me. i am very high but i don't think there's anything wrong with some thinking and trying to develop new resources for the world. how arrogant of me.
Sounds pretty much right to me, except that it's not that it doesn't merit being developed into an energy source so much as that it can't be used to produce a net positive amount of energy. Your idea would create a motor, which could be used to do work, sure. But because you'll lose energy as friction and heat and sound and such, you'll always have to add energy to keep it going in spite of these losses. Because of the constant energy loss/input, a machine will always require more energy to run than it can produce, and so you'll always have to add more energy than you get out of it, which means as an energy source it won't work.
Does anyone besides me think that it's silly to propose a perpetual motion machine to a bunch of stoners?
Well, i dont know alot about physics, but it is my understanding that a perpetual motion device is impossible to achieve. I think the theory behind it is that you will always have outside forces acting on the device, such as friction, like Sam said, gravity, heat, anything. I believe it IS possible to make a device so efficient that it pretty much functions like a perpetual motion machine, where it will possibly run out of energy in like 100,000,000,000 Years or so. However, making such a device on a large enough scale to be of any affect to society may perhaps be beyond the ability of our race at this time. Even those little things you can get, with the 4-5 balls where you tap one ball and it will knock against the others and the one on the other end will move, even they stop eventually.
sorry if my silly ideas wasted your time. i posed my question and got more information from a bunch of stoners than i came away with from high school.
You'd be quite surprised. Some 'stoners' are quite intelligent and well educated. Ever hear of Carl Sagan? He was a stoner, for one. You cannot have perpetual motion. Good 'Laws of Thermodynamics' for the reasons why.
Hi guys I am the inventor of that magnet motor*. Can i just point out that a magnet motor is not perpetual motion. It is a motor taking energy from magnets, which of course like any fuel, deteriorate and run down. cheers. *(i found the link by browsing the stats on my site and finding an incoming link to this forum, i've not been here before. looks nice and green tho )
the key is not to design a perpetual motion generator, that's impossible, but to create a "effective" perpetual motion generator gaining free energy from gravity, magnetism, the sun etc.