Comments
[deleted] t1_ja68hi7 wrote
[removed]
FrozenKyrie OP t1_ja68i1b wrote
that does but what I meant was something of a power source
twelveparsnips t1_ja68j3v wrote
Probably because there's no point in making such a machine besides a neat curiosity that would require very expensive low friction bearings. The second you acknowledge it's not a perpetual motion machine, it's no longer interesting.
TheJeeronian t1_ja68kdl wrote
We have. All sorts of things can keep going for a long time. But... Why?
What's the point of a wheel that spins for a long time inside of a vacuum chamber suspended by magnets? It doesn't do anything, besides look neat. We already have devices like that, though. A digital watch can run for years on one little battery. The oxford electric bell is still ringing to this day.
FrozenKyrie OP t1_ja68qt5 wrote
so we have no need for it other than a cool thing?
twelveparsnips t1_ja68xpb wrote
Because using it to power things adds drag to it and makes it eventually stop.
Caucasiafro t1_ja691g8 wrote
The entire problem is there's a set amount of energy you can get out of something. So the only way to make something "run for a long time" as a power source is to really really slowy take energy away from it. Why would we bother to do that?
There's simply no point.
Basically your question is like asking "if bank accounts run out eventually why haven't we just made a bank account we take money out of slowly?"
Because we want the money.
FrozenKyrie OP t1_ja698pk wrote
didn't think of it like that but that makes sense
twelveparsnips t1_ja69ia0 wrote
what purpose would you want to build such a machine for?
FrozenKyrie OP t1_ja69omu wrote
it's not so much of needing a purpose, it's about possiblity and doing something because we can
twelveparsnips t1_ja69sfx wrote
>it's about possiblity and doing something because we can
so a neat thing to look at that serves no purpose...
FrozenKyrie OP t1_ja69vg4 wrote
pretty much yea lol
A_Garbage_Truck t1_ja6adov wrote
the issue with this is that the most energy you could harness from it would still need to be lesser tha nthe energy you spent to keep it moving(otherwise you are slowing the system down and will have ot service it again).
you didnt generate energy , you just transfered it(and evne lost some due ot the inneficiencies involved)
fables_of_faubus t1_ja6bdw7 wrote
The fly wheel is as close to this concept as we can get. The problem is that for an almost perpetual system to be worth engineering and building, we would need some way to use/remove energy from the system. A fly wheel will spin for a long time with current technology used to reduce friction, but who is going to pay for it to be more and more efficient if it's not going to do any work? And doing work is removing energy from the system, thereby making the whole adventure obsolete.
firebat45 t1_ja6caqb wrote
We have, but lobbyists have convinced politicians that it (nuclear power) is unsafe and that we are better off using fossil fuels.
Sure,there have been a few nuclear disasters. We should not view those as acceptable, I am not saying that. But fossil fuel use has harmed humanity on a much larger scale.
[deleted] t1_ja6d54n wrote
[removed]
twelveparsnips t1_ja6dbik wrote
This would fit the description as well.
KudzuNinja t1_ja6em9h wrote
We usually balance our creations between efficiency, effectiveness, and aesthetics. As you make something more efficient, that will eventually come by sacrificing effectiveness.
AKLmfreak t1_ja6ep4a wrote
The appeal of a perpetual motion machine is free energy. If a perpetual motion machine was possible, you could harvest energy from it and it would never stop, and you’d have an endless supply of energy.
Since perpetual motion machines are not possible to make, there’s no point in trying to build something as close as possible to a perpetual motion machine because it will always slow down faster than the rate at which you pull energy out of the system.
The only modern practical application of that idea would be in a flywheel battery where you make a machine spin really fast and then try and keep it spinning with as little energy loss as possible before you extract stored energy out of the device.
x6o21h6cx t1_ja6g7rp wrote
Windmills and water dams
AdCautious7490 t1_ja6gdav wrote
You have it right on the nail for the OP. There is no appeal in a "near perpetual" motion machine because the whole appeal is the perpetual and thus free energy potential of the machine.
To put it into financial terms like another comment did. A perpetual motion machine is like a 100% guaranteed return of some value on every investment, it's great because regardless of how much you put in you're eventually going to make more than that. A "near perpetual" motion machine on the other hand is like a really really small loss guaranteed on every investment (or even better a net positive of $0 value on every investment) which while obviously better than a big loss is still trivially easy to understand as non-valuable / of no real interest to much of anyone.
2Wugz t1_ja6gek5 wrote
greenspotj t1_ja6ghit wrote
Motion itself is caused by a form of energy(kinetic energy). So extracting energy from the system would just cause it to slow down.
The reason you can't gather an infinite or "close to infinite" amount of power from a machine, is because to do so, would require the machine to create energy from nothing, causing it to not slow down as energy is extracted from it. But that is not possible as it breaks the laws of energy conservation (energy is neither created nor destroyed).
Fred2718 t1_ja6gl6v wrote
There actually is a device that many people have used, which uses a perpetual motion machine as a very important part. Many MRI or NMR machines contain a powerful electromagnet built with superconducting wires. Once you get the current in the wires running, and the magnetic field built up, you disconnect the power source and the current keeps going, forever. (Or until you shut it down for maintenance, or there's a quench failure.)
[deleted] t1_ja6hvmh wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ja6i1ws wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_ja6i4b5 wrote
therealjamin t1_ja6lgsf wrote
How about, perpetual motion could be possible one day, if only through harnessing gravity of the sun or other drastically more distant force, In terms of our local universe it would be considered perpetual motion, free energy etc.
Abrahamlinkenssphere t1_ja6msn3 wrote
There are some lights that use a weight to slowly pull a cord through an alternator and create electricity. They are testing huge versions that will use abandoned mine shafts and they will generate loads more power. https://deciwatt.global/gravitylight
En_TioN t1_ja6n8ow wrote
Lmao dude.
Flapflapimabird t1_ja6o2qn wrote
Edward Leedskalnin - Homestead Florida.
Take a look, the wheel spins and spins and spins, constantly alternating the current for his solenoid. It’s not perpetual motion, it’s a machine that returns energy back into its source and does work.
En_TioN t1_ja6ou05 wrote
You can build systems where unused power can be returned to the power source - take regenerative braking in EVs for example. This helps prevent the unnecessary loss of power, and can substantially reduce consumption.
However, you will never return 100% of the energy you extracted back to the power source. The energy used for work can't be returned because you just transferred it somewhere else! Plus, you'll lose energy to heat.
gronstalker12 t1_ja6pk8w wrote
Are you asking about something travelling through space?
manofredgables t1_ja6rdg4 wrote
>Don’t listen to these guys regurgitate what their science teacher in grade 9 told them about energy.
You know... I'm pretty anti-establishment in general and mildly anarchist. I'm also an engineer. Know what I work with? Electrical motors, hybrids and generators! In semi trucks! Do you have any idea what a legend I'd be if I just did this "one simple trick" to make our semi trucks suddenly have unlimited range and energy? Yeah I'd be legendary and rich as fuck.
You think I wouldn't at least try it of there was any chance physics worked like that? There's a good reason anyone who isn't schizophrenic or mildly dumb sticks to saying it's impossible... That's because it is.
You're basically proposing a mechanism where a rock rolls down a ramp, which pushes a lever that tilts the ramp in the other direction. You just threw magnets into the equation, hoping they'd do something magical.
manofredgables t1_ja6rnnq wrote
Probably the best perpetual motion machines we've built are things we've launched into space. Satellites that aren't in low earth orbit are gonna keep going for a really long time. Not to mention probes heading out of the solar system. The odds of them crashing into something is astronomically(heh) low.
grangpang t1_ja6sw1o wrote
r/murderedbywords
ObscureName22 t1_ja6uua6 wrote
You can buy these things as desk ornaments. By your phrasing I think you can argue a car is a perpetual motion machine. It can run for many miles before occasionally servicing it with a little gasoline.
kfudgingdodd t1_ja6xik7 wrote
Absolute masterpiece of verbal evisceration
CliffExcellent123 t1_ja7335h wrote
That is what our power sources already do.
That's what a wind turbine is
CyclopsRock t1_ja75mga wrote
>So the only way to make something "run for a long time" as a power source is to really really slowy take energy away from it. Why would we bother to do that?
I agree with everything you're saying, but there are some fairly obvious answers to this question, because there are plenty of things that require very little power but that are difficult or impossible to service and thus you want to last a very long time - pacemakers, for example, or certain robots designed for space that use very low power, very long lasting nuclear power sources.
yoshhash t1_ja7ceqj wrote
are you talking about harnessing the energy from this machine? Because t hat's the thing that is pointless. You can make something that ALMOST stays perpetually in motion but it cannot remain in motion as soon as you try to tap into that energy.
Sometimes_Stutters t1_ja7fds8 wrote
Actually I’ve worked on a system similar to this. It’s a flywheel generator. Magnetic bearings, vacuum enclosure, 6ft diameter steel fly wheel. You spin it up really really fast, and it spins for years. There is some very slight energy input to counteract any loses, but it’s very minimal. But when you need power the fly wheel could power a house for a couple days (with the right inverter). Totally impractical but a cool prototype not work on.
tomalator t1_ja7g3ys wrote
Perpetual motion is impossible because of the law of conservation of energy. Even if we had a wheel spinning for centuries, we would never be able to pull more energy out than the wheel itself has. The "servicing" in this case would be speeding the wheel back up, but that would take energy. If we wanted to, we could keep the wheel spinning for as long as we wanted, but that doesn't make it into a power source.
Flapflapimabird t1_ja7spjq wrote
Uhh. There’s a little bit more going on but the guy who had the magnetic flywheel built a castle with it and my grade 9 science teacher did not.
Like, go see what madebyoneman on YouTube is up to. He’s a good guy. Or VinnyStVincent.
Go read the pamphlets that Ed released about magnetic energy, seems to be right up your alley.
Actually. Go and look at copper mining in the Baltic region at the turn of the century and look at their electrical systems that they used because they’re pretty much where Ed got his idea being from Latvia and all.
Where do you think Tesla got his ideas from? It’s like he was born with this preconceived notion of electricity but that’s obviously not true.
Flapflapimabird t1_ja7t9fe wrote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOoCuDnmtyM
It’s not 100% or overunity. It’s would rotate for as long as the battery on your network lasted.
manofredgables t1_ja7w9sh wrote
>Uhh. There’s a little bit more going on but the guy who had the magnetic flywheel built a castle with it and my grade 9 science teacher did not.
How is a perpetuum mobile related to castles?
>Like, go see what madebyoneman on YouTube is up to. He’s a good guy. Or VinnyStVincent.
I did. Looks like a dude who picks on rocks and sometimes almost makes something net positive. I dunno...
The other guy makes shitty music (???) and levitates a "rock" which is quite clearly magnetite, while obscuring parts of the shot. I mean... You can make anything seem possible with a bad enough video clip.
>Go read the pamphlets that Ed released about magnetic energy, seems to be right up your alley.
Ed who?
>Where do you think Tesla got his ideas from? It’s like he was born with this preconceived notion of electricity but that’s obviously not true.
Err, research and experiments, I would assume? Science?
Flapflapimabird t1_ja874kl wrote
Okay so let’s take a look at madebyoneman, who is buddies with Vinny but besides the point that these two are the only two that I see that have a working model of Ed’s flywheel, madebyoneman is a retired navy electrical engineer who looks at Coral Castle (Ed Leedskalnin’s construction) with wonder and recreates his experiments. If you dive deep, you’ll find that madebyoneman explains the type of electrical system that Ed would have used, using old car parts (like the Magneto alternator from an old Ford Model T) components used in his flywheel combined with overhead wires and solenoids, using the flywheel as a power source.
The only mention of Perpetual motion is when you take a soft iron U-shaped magnet and wind copper coils around both ends, creating a horseshoe electromagnet but also a primitive transformer. When this electromagnet is charged, it is magnetic, and when you attach an iron bar across the poles of this electromagnet, it will not lose its energy. The iron bar is shown by fedora guy (another YouTuber idk what his handle is) to last at least 2 years, and when an LED is connected across both poles, when the iron bar is pulled off, it both loses its magnetic charge and lights up the LED momentarily. There is a discharge of magnetic energy. The energy goes somewhere.
This “permanent magnet holder” as Ed so happily named it, “PMH” for short, is intrinsic in his flywheel design.
The flywheel is made from Magneto alternator magnets from old Ford Model T’s stacked 5 high, and arranged in a repulse state, encased in cement. This “supercharges” or pushes the pole outward to make it a little stronger. The poles interact with the PMH to induce a magnetic charge in the system as the flywheel turns past it.
This does two things: controls the state of the current in the solenoid to be converted into reciprocating motion to do work (I.e. cut stone) and it also provides an auxiliary electromagnet with a charge, when placed on the proper angular position on the flywheel, supplies an attraction for the opposite polarity on the flywheel.
The clover cam on top of the flywheel dictates the position of the auxiliary electromagnet, as to move it away from the flywheel after it has attracted that specific pole. As the wheel spins, the polarity is reversed in the system, and the next pole is attracted, the solenoid extends or retracts, work is done, and the wheel continues to spin.
In no way is it not using energy, in no way is it perpetual motion, as energy is supplied into the system by 12v car batteries.
That being said, the wheel can return current into the batteries and return the lead sulphate back into lead and sulphuric acid. As a whole system, with one of these wheels in motion, and several batteries at opportune positions within the circuit, you can provide your cutting tools with reciprocating power, provide your lights with energy, with minimal losses.
In Ed’s pamphlets, he states that he believes that the batteries are made lopsided. In that the cathode is bigger than the anode, and he sought out to fix this problem. While writing this about his wheel, I realized that the batteries within the system were going to produce a one sided charge within the system, but I also believe that Ed solved the problem of the one-sided batteries by creating a larger anode, which would impart a state of equilibrium to the system as a whole which would allow the solenoids to operate off of the charge that the wheel supplied to the system as a whole.
Low frequency alternating current.
As I said, go find what you can about copper mining in the Baltic region at the turn of the century. If you’re focusing on Vinny St. Vincent’s rock levitating experiments, you’re missing out on madebyoneman’s tripods. One is more likely than the other.
Fedora guy who did the PMH experiments is Russ. This guy does all sorts of cool shit, great channel. I think he’s an engineer in Nevada or something like that. His videos on making a cnc coil-winder from a 3D printer are great.
manofredgables t1_jacn468 wrote
>When this electromagnet is charged, it is magnetic, and when you attach an iron bar across the poles of this electromagnet, it will not lose its energy.
Yes it will. The magnetic field generated by the electric current will collapse, but to whatever extent the iron bar was magnetized there will be some remaining. It can no longer be considered energy, however, it's just a magnet.
>The iron bar is shown by fedora guy (another YouTuber idk what his handle is) to last at least 2 years,
Sure. Permanent magnets are just that, permanent.
>and when an LED is connected across both poles, when the iron bar is pulled off, it both loses its magnetic charge and lights up the LED momentarily.
This is no mystery. That is the basic principle of a generator. Apply a changing magnetic field to a conductor, and electrical current is produced. Since you are removing a permanent magnet from an iron core, you are suddenly lowering the magnetic field from the conductor's vicinity.
If it loses any magnetism(it won't lose all of it), it's due to hysteresis loss. This is to be expected with soft iron which easily gets both magnetized and demagnetized. It's a real headache in transformers.
>There is a discharge of magnetic energy. The energy goes somewhere.
No, there is not. There is a conversion from the kinetic energy(removing the iron bar), into magnetic energy(suddenly changing the flux), into electrical energy(as the field has nothing to sustain it, it is "absorbed" into the conductors), and finally a sheer inefficient loss of potential energy as the fragile magnetizing of the iron bar goes down. That is lost as minor heat in the iron bar.
Nothing remotely interesting has happened in this sequence. Take that horseshoe transformer thing and attach a proper neodymium magnet instead of the iron bar and you'll see quite a bit more power when it's removed.
Or better yet, put the magnet on a rotating thing so that you repeatedly spin it past the horseshoe! Oh wait... That's a normal generator.
Flapflapimabird t1_jacvhbq wrote
Don’t format your posts like this. I don’t read it.
I’m not shilling free energy, you can relax. Lmfao.
We’re also talking about two different things.
Caucasiafro t1_ja68dn1 wrote
We...have?
I'm not sure I understand your questions. We humans have developed lots and lots of things that just keep going as long as you input some energy.
For example, there is a clock in New Zealand called the Beverly Clock, its been running since the 1860s without having to be serviced. That probably qualifies as a long time right?
I've been to factories that have had the some machines running non-stop for 40+ years, too.