Can I hear your thoughts on Perpetual Motion?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 07:23 PM
Hi all!
I'm not a scientist and I don't play one on TV.
I'm just a tinkerer, I get an interesting thought and I research it and maybe build a prototype and explore the "what ifs".
I recently came across an interesting motor nicknamed "The Magnetic Wankel" Link to info. I built a model out of wood and sheet nylon. I added some of the magnets (I have to get more) and mounted the rotor on a bearing salvaged from a hard drive. It's not even close to being done yet, but I couldn't resist giving it a spin and holding magnets up to the wheel to see the results. I leaned a stack of about 20 circular magnets up by the wheel, at a slight angle to the rotation and gave the wheel a spin. It spun, and spun, and spun.... for maybe 15 minutes until it finally quit. If I spin it without any magnets nearby it only goes for about a minute until it slows to a stop.

I know, it's not perpetual, just makes me wonder even more.

Something made it keep going, but how?

If you have any thoughts on perpetual motion I'd like to hear it, ok?
Anything at all, be funny, be serious,,,, whatever.

Don't get too technical with me though, I'm a garage experimenter.

Thanks in advance for any input!

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 08:17 PM
Anyone who says that perpetual motion is not possible need only look at our solar system or the structure of the atom. Both are perpetual motion by definition. We just need to find something in between these two.

Good luck on your project.

posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 06:50 AM
When I posted this I had the thing set up on my desk at work. After work I brought the whole thing home and set it up on the kitchen table.
Now I can't duplicate what it did before

I still would like to hear your thoughts on this......

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 02:08 PM
Your motor probably uses some kind of counterwieght to spin it around. The designs look like a ride at the amusement park where the car swings front to back and then eventually makes a few revolutions and you are upside down next to someone screaming or puking.

EDIT: What does the device require to start it? Where can I find Bearden's work on the subject? (if that is who made it)

What kind of tinkering do you do in your garage?

Myself, I do not research these perpetual devices, I would, but I do not have the money or enough physics/math under my belt. I'd rather save my money and do something like this:

[edit on 18-1-2006 by Frosty]

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 02:34 PM
Frosty, that's an interesting link. That stuff is waaay beyond me though.

My model starts with a push. When built as detailed what you have is a high efficiency electric motor. The efficiency is supposed to bo so high that you might be able to run a small generator from the motor and use the power to run the motor.

Overunity is what I was messing with. I don't know yet if I should believe in overunity, that's why I'm experimenting.

In my garage I do whatever strikes me, in the last 2 years it has been:

A still
An electrostatic lifter (small flying craft, it works too!)
A device to control the cooling fan in my attic
A computer controlled hydroponic system
A 4' x 8' CNC router for cutting wood signs. I cut wooden gears with it too
Weird looking kites

Whatever I feel the need to explore

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 04:34 PM

Originally posted by Beer_Guy
Can I hear your thoughts on perpetual motion?

Yeah, you can - perpetual motion breaks so many laws of physics, no device can possibly achieve it.

First of all, conservation of energy - if you were to use this device to run a motor, then you are effectivily gaining more energy than you have put into the system (the push that was needed to start it), and thus have broken this law. I'll leave it at this for now. if you want mathematical proof (using my limited knowlage of maths physics - first year of mechanical engineering degree atm)

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 05:32 PM

Originally posted by czakky
gaining more energy than you have put into the system

An Aggie...hmmm, I don't know if I can trust that.

If....I imagine we could measure the internal change of energy in a perpetual motion device/free energy machine or whatever the kids call them, it would be quite amazing. It would be the equivalent of witnessing kindling appear out of nothing inside a fire place, which it is the equivalent. Hard for a machine to create energy when it is given no fuel (maybe not the best choice of words), but I hope that the general idea is coherent.

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 06:25 PM
I have long thought of this my self but... The energy now wasted in just the thought of perpetual causes it to be impossible. lLke Einstein said e=mc squared. You will never get out more than you put in, as for it to be perpetual it has to have a begin with 0 energy applied and a posite energy out, same is true in all math and basic addition

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 07:25 AM
I appreciate all the "why it can't happen" replies, I just keep thinking that we haven't really discovered all the "rules of physics" yet. Too many new things keep happening in science, some that make the "rules" look outdated.

I'll keep playing with my toy because I'm having fun. If I can get anything cool to happen ATS will be where I post the info. I'm not doing this for fame and fortune, just the personal satisfaction.

Keep the comments coming!

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 12:18 PM
Apparently in the 1700s there was this guy who had some sort of wheel in a room spinning on some sort of gyroscope. He opened it up a few years later and it was still spinning. Now come to think about it, I think it was some sort of hamster wheel type thing.
The story is slightly mysty, it's mentioned in the book "Fermat's Last Theorem" by Simon Singh (I think).

look at our solar system

Maybe, the thing is though the whole contents of the Universe are in motion. If you got something on the end of a string and ran around and spun the string about, I think that's the same kind of concept. But everything in the Universe is moving towards the edge (accodring to the Big Bang Thoery) and if it's speeding or slowing, it will either expand for ever or be snapped back in to the centre and resulting in another Big Bang (I think).

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 04:40 PM

Originally posted by Beer_Guy
I appreciate all the "why it can't happen" replies, I just keep thinking that we haven't really discovered all the "rules of physics" yet. Too many new things keep happening in science, some that make the "rules" look outdated.

Yes, some physics has been outdated by modern science, but show me one example that breaks the laws of thermodynamics - the very laws that you claim your device can break, and that form the cornerstones of modern engineering and science as a whole - and i'll eat my PC.

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 05:03 PM
czakky, I never claimed anything. My wheel doesn't keep spinning, it stops a lot faster than I want it to.

I'm just trying to explore overunity.
I "think" it can be done, but current science says it can't,,,, therefore I "kinda" agree with you in a way.

I'm just not interested in limiting myself to current scientific principals. If I exhaust all of my options and still haven't succeeded I'll be leaning more towards your way of thinking but I'm too stubborn to just give in and say "It definitely can't be done".

I was hoping more "dreamers" would be posting here.

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 05:09 PM
mashup, I've read of that wheel, very intriguing stuff. There is a whole story about it but no details. Maybe in some old monastary the blueprint is waiting to be found,,,, I wish.

He probably took the details to his grave.

posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 01:04 PM
to have a perpetual motion is one thing... to make it generate energy? not likely.

posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 01:16 PM
It can generate energy. Oh so very easily too. By now every one has have to of seen those batteryless flashlights, the ones with the copper slug that passes through magnetic coils. Sure thing right, now just combine the two concepts, and now we have a perpetual motion machne that produces energy to boot. Not enough energy you say, utilize some magnets to assist in the accellerated movement of the machine and now it can be flung faster and faster, building up even more energy. Not practical you argue, make the dang thing bigger, just don't over Tim Allen it.

It is as easy as that, any one can built it, for dirt cheap nearly. Something that can be built for free however would put a huge stopper on big buisness, such as petrolium companies and um... switch grass growers.

*In best Majic impersonation*
And there you have, thoughts with ADVISOR.

posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 03:06 PM
It seems as if there was a hole in our theories and how electromagnetism connects with gravity or some unknown component of the universe, i've been reading a lot about 'free energy' and perpetuum mobile lately, and it seems as if the density of power was actually rather low (some adult toys but no megawatt rated devices..), which i think is a good thing, for now, because we don't know what's actually going on.

Just remember that there is no free lunch and something's got to give. not an issue for now, but i see extracting significant power out of nowhere as recipie for strange complications, from mad weather to earthquakes.

just my 2c, perhaps i'm a doomsayer.

posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 05:44 PM
I wasn't going to reply until I saw the name Bearden mentioned. Surely not Tom Bearden I said to myself. But yep, it was. I really respect this guy.

I'd have to agree with mashup about the solar system, that the universe expanding or contracting is the motor for its motion, but - how about the atom?
Those things have been around since a few seconds after the very, very start, and haven't stopped moving yet. Surely that's perpetual motion? And to further this theory, [please correct me if wrong] don't atoms, when taken to absolute zero, stop moving altogether, but if they get warmer, start moving again?

posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 05:53 PM

[please correct me if wrong] don't atoms, when taken to absolute zero, stop moving altogether, but if they get warmer, start moving again?

Nothing technically stops, it just slows down so much that movement is imperceptable. So in essence you are correct yes, you asked.

posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 01:58 AM
"Can I hear your thoughts on Perpetual Motion" == Beer Guy

Ok, but lets look "inside the box" first.

"perpetual motion breaks so many laws of physics, no device can possibly achieve it" == czakky

Depends on how you want to understand the term "perpetual". I will submit two manmade devices
that I believe are now "perpetual" motion devices in every physical sense of the word. They are
Pioneer 10 and 11. It goes back to what Hal9000 said earlier. Put your thinking inside a box and
you can argue that even the universe is not perpetual. So, just for Beer Guy, I will argue that a perpetual
motion device need only last my lifetime. After that, I could care less. Outside the grand universe, which
is, by my definition, absolutely crammed with perpetual motion examples, we take a sampling of things that might
apply to such a device. If it moves inside our atmosphere, there is friction. If it moves by support relative to
other parts, there is wear, which increases friction.

To get it moving with some applied force is acceptable, after all, didnt the universe get a free push, czakky ?

Once this thing is moving, you have to have some means of counteracting wear and friction. So we take some
hints from Advisor's first post above.

What can we use that is "free" ? The Earth has a Gravity field, and a Magnetic
Field, and Rotational inertia. (Coriolis Force, Centripetal, Centrifugal etc, ) So Beer Guy, my suggestion is to
figure out how to use the available "free" forces to compensate for friction and wear. While czakky might argue that
its not "free", but stealing from the Earths inertia or something like that, for our respective lifetimes, and his, make it
run and you got it.

posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 05:11 AM
So, you'd like to slow the planet's rotation to keep your lights on? i'm starting to think that our current, dirty energy ain't that bad.

TBH, sometimes i'm glad that our species sucks too much to develop planetary manipulation devices...

top topics
<<   2 >>

log in