It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A perpetual motion (lol) device I thought of

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   
hello, last night I went to bed and this idea popped into my head, when I woke up the next morning I drew it in ms paint lol. I know there will be something wrong with this but from my point of view it seems like it works.

basically I need someone to tell me why it wouldn't work

pretty much, its just a vertical tube, which has gears on the side, and a spring at the bottom. a ball or something is put at the top, and as gravity makes the ball fall to the bottom spring, it makes the gears on the side turn and wind up the spring while charging a battery at the same time. when the ball hits the bottom spring, the spring releases and sends the ball back to the top of the vertical tube, repeating the process

sorry if my picture is sloppy, and not completely finished, because it's just an idea, and I haven't worked everything out yet.





posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Etherea1
 


No...that will not work.

Just like ALL perpetual machines anyone dreams up based on simple "unworkable" principles.

Hope me telling you that, helps?

MM



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   
I don't understand how you expect the gears to turn because of the ball... They don't just magically turn as the ball goes by you know. You have to take into account that the spring will deteriorate over time, and to make sure the ball carries the same trajectory over and over again. You also need friction between the ball and gear, and that will slow the ball's speed, and as it gets slower, the spring will contract less. It won't run perpetually.
edit on 27-11-2010 by Somehumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   
here is the deal
you cannot create perpetual motion...the energy of the ball falling would transfer to your levers and shoot out to whatever it was doing (winding the lever I guess). then the spring would shoot it up
but, energy would be lost in the process...so the ball wouldn't go as high, not turning all the levers

then it would fall again, the less energy would shoot the ball up again, but much lower...etc etc, until basically it stops

this is pretending that such a device would even work once.

at best..if you had 100% energy efficiency (pretty impossible...that in itself violates thermodynamics), then at best...all of its energy would go into winding the spring..it would need 100% in order to start the chain over again...making the whole thing useless anyhow even if it was to work (which it won't).


Its fun to play around with such devices...if only to learn through experimentation that its all nonsense...but one thing to consider...
people have been trying to make perpetual motion machines for thousands upon thousands of years...none yet have been successful...and a clearcut scientific reason explains why it never will...thermodynamics.

If your truely interested in energy consumption and creation...its all about simply finding ways to increase the efficnency of enegy transfer...hell, if we could get something 80% efficient in energy transfer, that would be groundbreakingly fantastic....



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   
I give an A for effort. I too have had many idea's for perpetual energy, like the spinning magnet, but that stupid law always gets in the way and tells me to talk to the hand like a traffic cop telling you to stop. Stupid first and second laws of thermodynamics.




posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Lets think this thru.

Many folks will tell you that the laws of conservation of energy demand that perpetual motion cannot exist.

(Laws of conservation of energy = energy can neither be created nor destroyed - merely converted from one form to another).

If we put a satellite into permanent geosynchronus orbit about the earth, is that not perpetual motion and does it not thus defy the law of conservation of energy?

Good food for thought for those who deny the existence of conservation of energy.

I would respectfully suggest that first we need to fully understand the two forms of energy in this universe and a Canadian fella named Nassim Haramein seems to have started to get a handle on it.

For anyone trult interested a google search on Nassim Harramein will elicit 2 google video results (not utube) where two x 4 hours lecture videos are shown - each make fascinating viewing - if you can find the time.

Cheers



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   
What i've learned is alot of what we've learned usually stranger the fiction. Keeping doing your thing buddy. Eventually someone will get it . (physics won't allow perpetual motion sure for now ) . Dark energy /Dark matter / dark flow or w/e the dark that is free easy to access with a simple device FREE! input is far far less then output etc and not flammable lol if it exists is the key .Tapping into that is just as easy as making the universe expand?








"Why you can't design perpetual motion machines
The second law of thermodynamics isn't actually an axiom. It can be deduced from the other laws of physics. It's an application of the pigeonhole principle.

The known laws of nature are reversible, that is, given a current state the previous state is uniquely determined.
Which implies that if you start with n possible states, after any amount of time you'll still have n possible states.
For every state that looks like something other than heat, there are a zillion states that look like heat.
Therefore any process will map at most one in a zillion heat states to something that looks like work. And only at the expense of mapping an equal number of work states to heat states. Almost all of the time heat stays heat. You can't map all the heat states to work states, they just won't fit. " -burtleburtle.net...



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ianmoone1


If we put a satellite into permanent geosynchronus orbit about the earth, is that not perpetual motion and does it not thus defy the law of conservation of energy?



Cheers


No...all orbits degrade over time...even our moon's orbit, and those of the planets.

See?



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by seedofchucky
 


Tapping into that is just as easy as making the universe expand?

or contract!

There are only 2 forces in the universe - "the expansive" and "the contractive".

We know the contractive and tend to call it "gravity' which many have described as one of the weak forces of the universe when nothing could be further from the truth .

Gravity is an angular momentum/time force & is equally as strong as the expansive force of the universe!.

When one understands the fratctal tetrahedral nature of the gravitic force, one has access to the energy contained within TIME

M=DeltaT

Mass equals change in time.

Theres as much energy in time as there is in mass!

How much energy is in mass?

Ohh a whole nuclear explosions worth!

Or

if you prefer e=mc^2 worth - which approximates 9 x 10^16 joulesof energy worth.

So ho much energy is in Time I hear you asking?

Ohh a whole 9x10^16 joules of energy per secnd worth!

You can prove this for yourselves.

Theres as much energy in one second of time, as there is in splitting the atom (think nuclear power / nuclear bombs).

A genuis named Tom Bearden (www.cheniere.com) formulated his theorem E = Delta TC^2

Energy = change in time x C squared! (thats what "delta" stands for = "change in").

So we now have two equations:-

Einsteins E=MC^2

Beardens E = DelatTC^2

You can then resolve these two equations as I have done...below.

If

E=MC^2

& also

E = Delat TC^2

Then it stands to reason that:-

(dividing each side of the equation by E - or multiplying each side of the eqiuation by 1/E)

MC^2 = Delta TC^2

Again dividing each side of the equation by C^2 - or multiplying itby the inverse 1/C^2

M = Delta T

Mass equals change in time!

Theres as much energy in Mass (splitting the atom i.e. nuclear) as there is in time.

and we know that amount of energy is 9 x 10^16 joules of energy per second!

How?

well C^2

C is often quanitifed as 3 x 10^8

when we square 3 x 10^8 - we get 9 x 10^16

Essentially - whoever "discovers" how to convert the energy from the domain of time, (just as we learned how to split the atom) will harness anew energy source thats inexhaustable and free.

Unlike Nuclear power there will be no "radiation" to deal with.

Free infinitisimal energy from the domain of time.

9 x 10 6 16 jules of energy from every second.

Sadly our nationsare doing ther best to weaponise this energy source as quickly as they can go.
For that reason I cannot yet dare to share how I have been able to extract this energy - because as yet humanity is not quite ready for the immense universal responsibility that goes with this knowledge.

Suffice to say - that, far from this being the prophesied "time of the end" - come Dec 21st 2012, will be known as "the end of Time"! (and its dominion over mankind) - i.e. the much promised "immortality" for mankind.

Yes we will become as 'timelords' - immortal just as the Good Lord promised!.

It will come about as a result of serendipitous discovery's being made right now with the Large Hadron Collider at Cern!

When we can manufacture at will, twin micro-singularities orbiting at the event horizon ofminiature black holes - we will have dscovered the method of extracting free unlimited energy from the domain of time, and will in effect be "time lords".

We wll not actually be able to teleport thru time as human beings (for the star trek fans - "beam me up Scotty - Im in trouble!) until after ww3 (by about the year 2038 most likely) based upon my research thus far.

BUT

The science is there - just requires the rest of the scientific community to play catch up ball is all.

One first has to understand what is time?

Until you realize that it has nothing to do with clocks or watches that measure gravity (earth spins about its own axis) and that both calendars (which measure seasons in earths annual elliptical orbit about the sun, and equinoctial precession - the suns 26,000 year great annual orbit about our solar system) can one understand that Time is actually a 'corckscrew' angular momentum force as the earth orbits the sun whilethe sun orbits the universe.

Because we know te earths mass and velocity and we know the suns velocity thru space in its 26000 year great year orbit about the universe - it is possiblet calculate the energy in one second of time.

the numbers are big and agular torque momentum calculationsrather messy but the answer will assuredly come out at 9 x 10^16 joules of potential energy / second of time!.

Welcome to the future of mankind - I hope you enjoyed our journey together.

Cheersand beers from whatsupdownunder.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Etherea1
hello, last night I went to bed and this idea popped into my head, when I woke up the next morning I drew it in ms paint lol. I know there will be something wrong with this but from my point of view it seems like it works.

basically I need someone to tell me why it wouldn't work

pretty much, its just a vertical tube, which has gears on the side, and a spring at the bottom. a ball or something is put at the top, and as gravity makes the ball fall to the bottom spring, it makes the gears on the side turn and wind up the spring while charging a battery at the same time. when the ball hits the bottom spring, the spring releases and sends the ball back to the top of the vertical tube, repeating the process

sorry if my picture is sloppy, and not completely finished, because it's just an idea, and I haven't worked everything out yet.





Hi; no sorry "conservation of energy" means (conventional thinking says) perpetual motion is impossible. there is always energy bled out of a system by heat and friction. let me take a shot at applying this here without the math of bearden's psuedo science.

The falling ball accumulates a certain fixed amount of kinetic energy as it falls due to its acceleration due to gravity( 32ft/second squared)* its mass Or force = mass times acceleration.
If you are turning the gears on the way down none of the energy used by the gears is available to compress the spring so the ball never has enough energy to compress the spring enough to return it to the starting point ( top)

Its easier to visualize. If you are only turning gears on the way back up: all the falling inertia (energybuiltup in the ball ) is used to compress the spring at the bottom. because it takes exactly the same energy to return the ball to its starting point. AND you're taking energy out of its up ward push by your gears turning I assume a generator of some kind.
It wouldn't make it back to its starting point and would bounce lower and lower on the spring each time until it quits at the bottom :because you are pulling energy out of the "system" to apply it to the gears/generator mechanism.
physics is not quite the unproven magical wonderland some would have you believe it is. known forces : the strong nuclear the weak nuclear the electromotive (sorry "electromagnetic")and gravity which comparatively is the weakest.Which leads theoriticians to believe gravity may exits in a different dimension and we only feel what leaks into our 3( 4?) dimensional macro world
Keep trying though..

I see this same answer was produced by two or three replies above( "what they said" then).
edit on 28-11-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-11-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-11-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-11-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-11-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 12:35 AM
link   
anything is possible. there are made made laws of physics, but in this universe everything can be warped to bypass these laws.

magnetic vibration and the helix are the answer



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   
just for background : the "standard model"
wiki: the generally accepted theory they are working to prove by finding the higgs boson
which should be there. This used to be high school stuff..

simple.wikipedia.org...

straight from the mouth of the wikster:
Fundamental forces

There are four basic forces of nature. These forces affect fermions, and are carried by bosons traveling between those fermions. The Standard Model explains three of these four forces.

* Strong force: This force holds quarks together to make hadrons such as protons and neutrons. The strong force is carried by gluons. The theory of quarks, the strong force, and gluons is called quantum chromodynamics (QCD).
o The residual strong force holds protons and neutrons together to make the nucleus of every atom. This force is carried by mesons, which are made up of two quarks.
* Weak force: This force can change the flavor of a fermion and causes beta decay. The weak force is carried by three gauge bosons: W+, W-, and the Z boson.
* Electromagnetic force: This force explains electricity, magnetism, and other electromagnetic waves including light. This force is carried by the photon. The combined theory of the electron, photon, and electromagnetism is called quantum electrodynamics.
* Gravity: This is the only fundamental force that is not explained by the Standard Model. It may be carried by a particle called the graviton. Physicists are looking for the graviton, but they have not found it yet.

The strong and weak forces are only seen inside the nucleus of an atom, and they only work over very tiny distances: distances that are about as far as a proton is wide. The electromagnetic force and gravity work over any distance, but the strength of these forces goes down as the affected objects get farther apart. The force goes down with the square of the distance between the affected objects: for example, if two objects become 2 times as far away from each other, the force of gravity between them becomes 4 times less strong (22=4).
edit on 28-11-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-11-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-11-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-11-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by aliengenes
anything is possible. there are made made laws of physics, but in this universe everything can be warped to bypass these laws.

magnetic vibration and the helix are the answer


While its good to have an open mind it still needs a filter; or else you get taken in by hucksters like Hoagland's ( "torsional physics")19DEGREEES !!!!!!! and dare I say it Bearden above) fancy technological sounding texts with alot of techy sounding multi syllable words that just don't mean anything.
edit on 28-11-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


well fortunately for me they do. figure out your own



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Etherea1
 


i understand exactly what your talking about, the same concept as a galaxy. i/e the force of gravity is a form of perpetual motion is it not? than if someone can say that they can duplicate that i would figure that you would be jumping for joy? Did you look at his diagram and re produce his hypotesis as any TRUE scientist would? no most likely you didnt. So with that said sure.....why not? to the OP did you try this out? if so howd the result?



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 02:14 AM
link   

edit on 28-11-2010 by achaiah86 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Somehumanbeing
I don't understand how you expect the gears to turn because of the ball... They don't just magically turn as the ball goes by you know. You have to take into account that the spring will deteriorate over time, and to make sure the ball carries the same trajectory over and over again. You also need friction between the ball and gear, and that will slow the ball's speed, and as it gets slower, the spring will contract less. It won't run perpetually.
edit on 27-11-2010 by Somehumanbeing because: (no reason given)


the ball should be heavy enough to move the gears by the gravitational pull alone. the only question is will the spring at the bottom have enough power to send the ball back up to the top? but you are right about the spring deteriorating.

maybe once the spring at the bottom releases it could make the gears on the side get out of the way so it doesnt have to push through them to get back up, and when the ball hits the top, a lever could be put there to reset the gears so they go back and the ball pushes the springs down again.
edit on 28-11-2010 by Etherea1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by aliengenes
reply to post by 46ACE
 


well fortunately for me they do. figure out your own



ok



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mask
No...all orbits degrade over time...even our moon's orbit, and those of the planets.

See?
Please provide a source for that claim, I don't think it's true and while the sun's expansion in a few billion years will screw up some orbits in our neighborhood, I don't know of any reason a planet couldn't orbit around a brown dwarf (or some object that won't swallow up orbiting bodies like our sun will) perpetually.

What is a Perpetual Motion Machine?


In theory, perpetual motion can be understood to be in line with the science of physics. As an example, two objects in orbit around one another could conceivably remain in a perpetual state of orbit as long as no third object was introduced into the orbital cycle.


What do you mean by degrade anyway? The orbits of both the Earth and the moon are getting larger, so I wouldn't use the term "degrade" to describe that.

Anyone want to guess how this faux perpetual motion machine works?



The one in the OP has too much energy lost due to friction, the killer of many earth based perpetual motion machines.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Some of the energy of the ball is lost in turning the gears, therefore the spring will not compress as much and the ball won't rebound as high.
edit on 28-11-2010 by 547000 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join