/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10587811
(((They))) won't let them

You can't win or break even.

>>10587811
Perpetual motion is theoretically possible in an environment with no friction, but energy cannot be harnessed from any machine freely. For example, if you turn a wheel in space, it should keep rotating. But you can’t use that wheel as a source for power or it will slow down until it stops

>>10587846
does anyone have a video of this one?

>>10587811
I can only explain how it could.

Maybe they wouldn't work, because nobody will build them, because they haw law to protect them against free stuff.

>>10587811
>why wouldn't work
friction

>>10587883
this
It's easy to design a system that perpetually just cycles energy through a system in a loop. The problem is that it's never actually making new energy, it's just moving energy that was already there around in the system. That's what happens here
>>10587811
>>10587846
So, in an absolutely ideal, flawless implementation it would just be able to keep going in a cycle forever. However, every tiny amount of friction will permanently extract energy from the cycle. Even worse is if you try to actually make the system perform "work" by extracting energy intentionally. Then the energy will run out pretty fast and it will stop working.

Ultimately, pretty much every idea for a perpetual motion device you'll find is just an unnecessarily convoluted variation of a flywheel.

>>10587811
Entropy

>>10587924
>Why does entropy exist?
>because of entropy
amazing answer

>>10587846
If the magnet were strong enough to pull up the ball, it would prevent the ball from falling down the hole. This relies on the magnet magically switching off and allowing the ball to fall back down to the bottom

>>10587930
Do you have brain damage or were you born a retard?

>>10587840
And you can't get out of the game.

>>10587961
what prevents air from surging into the tubes from the top? Anybody who's flipped over a full bottle of liquid should know about how air will just rush up even when liquid is pouring down that same tube

>>10587921
>It's easy to design a system that perpetually just cycles energy through a system in a loop.

It is not -- there is energy lost in friction an other issues.

>>10587967
capillary tubes draw up the water automatically, that's how a tree gets water up from the roots

>>10587968
Well, a flywheel in a vacuum will only have trivially small amounts of energy loss. If you assume that the execution, materials, and place you install it are all perfect it could be nearly perpetual, and by that point you would be more worried about weird obscure things like quantum fluctuations.

Actually implementing something like that would obviously be impossible. There are designs for perpetual energy machines which take friction into account, they're just impossible for other reasons.

>>10587811
>perpetual motion only works on paper

>>10587811
They would work yet they wouldn't be able to produce energy from thin air.

Why can't we harvest energy from magnets?

>>10588240
That's how generators work my dude.

>>10588254
No; I mean just from magnets.

>>10588274
Yeah bro, that's how generators work. You have a turbine that spins a magnet wrapped in copper wire around other magnets wrapped in copper wires, turning magneto-rays into electricity.
It's called electromagnetic induction.

>>10587811
INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER

Oh, and dubs checked

>>10587971
Same reason with the magnet. If capillary action can pull the water up then it will prevent the water from flowing out of the end.

>>10587971
>what is transpiration...

>>10588334
No, something has to turn the generator. I want magnets only. I want a device that sits there and gives me energy taken from the magnets inside.

>>10588397
everything wants to settle to a stable state, so you would have to input energy into the system to keep it going. i have not seen one machine yet that can give a net gain of energy and i dont believe the laws of science allow it at all.

>>10587811
Entropy

>>10587811
they do.
pic related.

>>10588413
Yeah. The magnets are the input of energy. Eventually they'll lose their magnetism after all the energy has been extracted from them.

>>10588397
>>10588487
Magnetism does not have any energy, it's a force

>>10588518

magnetism is coupled with electrical energy due to maxwell laws (or rather faraday induction law) and the unit of a magnetic field is not Newton so its not a force

Can't we just build a piston engine with magnets? You could have it geared to flip the magnet at the bottom and top of the cycle.

>>10588518
>Magnetism does not have any energy, it's a force

>>10587943
This
The energy required for this would offset perpetual motion

>>10587811
If we could find a magnetic monopole we'd be able to make one.

>>10587811
Entropy, you fucking nigger. Some amount of energy is lost as friction or in some other part of the contraption. Every system in the world is a rigged, losing game that wears itself down over time until it collapses or fizzles out.
No arrangement of parts can get around this. No Rube Goldberg clusterfuck of wheels, gears, lubricants, pumps, pistons, motors, pipes, circuits, falling objects, fluids, particles, WHATEVER will be truly perpetual. Energy will be lost from the system over time and it will eventually require maintenance from an outside force in order to continue. This is true for the entire universe. Deal with it.

>>10588749
But magnets are like nuclear energy. You use up the fuel, then you get new magnets.

>>10587978
Yeah, really the best you can get is using momentum/kinetic energy as a form of high-quality energy storage.

>>10588397
It's not magnets, but a radioisotope thermoelectric generator functions kind of like what you described.
It just sits there and produces electricity from the decay heat of chunk of plutonium inside.

>>10587811
Because perpetual motion requires perpetual energy, and since there is a finite amount of matter in the universe, and e=mc^2 basically says in retard terms that energy is just matter in a different form. Since there is a finite quantity of matter, there is also a limited quantity of potential energy.

>>10588749
I was going to mention this in my post >>10588886 , thanks for doing it for me.

Technically "perpetual motion" is possible, but not in the way you imagine it.

Newtons laws says that an object that is in motion will stay in motion until it receives energy to stop that motion.

So if you shoot out a rock into the void of space that rock will experience "perpetual motion".

What you probably mean is energy generating motion.

The real reason is that we have a limited amount of Mass-Energy that got released by the big bang which is 4*10^69 J. This is all the energy the universe will ever contain and therefor there can't be a process that adds anything to this.

How all energy "generating" processes work is that we simply change 1 type of energy into another type of energy.

However there is one little caveat. There is a form of energy called "entropic energy" which means energy that is so distributed that it can't be used anymore. Every time a form of energy changes into another form of energy a little bit gets made into entropic energy which means over time in a closed system all energy will become entropic energy and be utterly useless.

This stops perpetual motion from being possible. Unless you accept the object forever traveling in space as "perpetual motion"

>>10587811

Perpetual motion devices work, we just have to be more lenient with the definition of perpetual. A machine that actually lasts forever is useless since we won't live that long anyway.
If you could create something that only has to be refueled once every 5000 years it is for all intents and purposes perpetual on a human scale.
Whether mankind would work together to do that or not is another thing.

>>10588905
>4E69J
That's a mighty large number

>>10588915

For you.

>>10587811
2nd law of thermodynamics. Energy evens out over time, this it cannot be contained indefinitely.

>>10587943
not even true

>>10587811
Those faggots are retarded, if there is gravity or heat around the device, device can harvest those energies to move. Simple as that.

"2nd law"

You are retarded dumbfucks autist isolated virgins.

>>10587811
muh clasic physics

>>10588236
You can literally extract energy from air to power a machine. People like you who deny truth getting funding and diplomas is what is wrong with this world.

>>10589200
how much energy does it take to extract the energy from air

>>10589189
I wish posts like these were a bannable offense on /sci/

>>10589344
>not reporting low effort shitposts for being extremely low quality.

>>10587811

>>10589509
Removed the things that are actually just normal accepted science.

>>10589332
Less than you need to extract.

>>10589332
*lesser than you extract, ... there is still gain in energy...

>>10589509
When you realize refrigenator has unity over 1, but nevermind.

>>10589807
How do you work that one out?

>>10589200
you mean like wind turbines?

>>10589864
Maybe he's talking about how a large whip antenna will draw power from the difference in charge over the length of the antenna.

>>10587811
It's a definition problem. If you showed someone 300 years ago a solar powered engine they would have called it a perpetual motion machine.

We've defined 'perpetual motion machine' as any machine that breaks the laws of thermodynamics so of course it's going to fail. If we defined 'perpetual motion machine' as a machine that operates perpetually then we have many.

>>10590290
>If we defined 'perpetual motion machine' as a machine that operates perpetually then we have many.
No we don’t. They all eventually fail.

>>10588858
You obviously do not understand nuclear energy
>Fucking summerfags

>>10588945
Was exploding into massive cosmic energy ball part of your plan?

>>10589807
Smoothbrain.

>>10589735
>Removed the things that are actually just normal accepted science fiction.

Fixed.

>>10590290
>If you showed someone 300 years ago a solar powered engine they would have called it a perpetual motion machine.

What if you showed it to them at night?

>>10589864
I mean like heat from the air, it's 273 Kelvin out there, it's really much energy.

>>10589855
Just looked coefficient of performance in technical sheet of the cooling device there.

>>10590757
>I mean like heat from the air, it's 273 Kelvin out there, it's really much energy.
You can't "extract" heat energy from the air unless you have something that's colder that you can use the air to warm up. Why don't you think we have air heat power plants that suck in 273 K and push out 1 K air?

>Just looked coefficient of performance in technical sheet of the cooling device there.
I uses as much energy as it emits like everything else. It emits net heat. Do you even know how they work?

>>10590316
the expansion of the universe, the operations of the galaxies and planetary systems and there orbital mechanics,.., they are perpetual motion machines, for all intensive purposes

>>10590783
It compress the air, therefore temperature raises...

There is more heat transfer than inserted energy. Therefore more "movement" than energy inserted.

Enough for constructing something that uses ambient energy to go on.

If you can't change the amount of energy in the universe, then how did we get any energy at all?
no god = 0J
god = 4e69J
God is energy. Energico.

>>10588749

Yeah, but entropy is only really defined for a closed system. Its not well defined for the universe.

>>10587811
They do work and exists, at least, relatively within our own marginal timeframe. So, while technically it isn't actually perpetual by definition, it'd in fact last for thousands of years.
It's called nuclear power.

>>10591331
But the universe is a closed system; you're just thinking too small.

>>10588226
It doesn’t even work on paper if you actually do the work.

>>10588397
Magnets have to move to generate electricity.

>>10590927
It's intents and purposes. Just saying.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/for_all_intents_and_purposes

>>10591986
you may as well call fossil fuels perpetual motion devices too idiot

>>10589735
Need to add vaccines and remove string theory

>>10590938
>There is more heat transfer than inserted energy. Therefore more "movement" than energy inserted.
That is absolutely not true. The extra heat is directly proportional to the energy you put in.

>Enough for constructing something that uses ambient energy to go on.
Go ahead and try it so. You'll be the first person in history to achieve such a thing, but don't let that stop you.

>>10588487
a certain amount of energy IS stored in a magnetized material, but it is not very much and we put it there ourselves.

Harvesting it would be inefficient and retarded, if you compared the energy density of a magnet to that of anything flammable, or a battery, it would be minuscule.

Thermodynamics

>>10592125
>he doesn't pay the doubles advocate
anon, your not gonna make in this doggie dog world

>>10587854
>Perpetual motion is possible without friction.

No, it isn’t

>>10587811
Conservation of energy

>>10593923
jokes like that are a diamond dozen

>>10587856
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V70w3cxDJIM

>>10587811
Explain this perpetual motion then.

>>10594377
Can it be done without a unnecessarily large pillar?
you can see the cameras tripod wobble as the electromagnet toggles ffs

>>10594377
A very efficient machine but not perpetual

>>10587854
this
>>10594345
You're wrong. Objects in motion remain in motion unless acted upon by an external force.
Theoretically with zero friction, an object would remain in motion forever. However trying to harness the energy it has immediately removes energy from the system, slowing it down.

Like the first guy said, give an object in perfect space some kinetic energy and it will remain in motion forever.

>>10594377
Magnets do not count when it comes to perpetual motion. The magnet will become incrementally weaker with each induction of a magnetic field in the metal.

>>10587811
Because mother nature doesn't work for free. It's not your personal army. What's there is what's there and it's your job to move it from one place to the next. Where would the perpetual motion come from? Where would it go? Magic? Itself? Illogical.

>>10588397
A magnet is a magnet, just like a rock is a rock and iron is iron. If you can't align rocks or plain iron into something that makes energy then why would you think magnets would do the same? Because they have larger more noticeable fields? So what? The rocks and plain iron do too, they don't do anything special.

>>10588561
You have just described 3 phase power. You still need a prime mover of something burning/churning. Pressure difference must be created to be utilized.

>>10588518
>it's a force

It's a property of something else. You name it and it has magnetism.

>>10595095
It blows the fuck up you idiot.

>>10587846
Magnets don't last forever.

>>10596980
How does that work? Do individual dipoles in the magnet get knocked out of position every time they induce a magnetic field in a metal?

What is energy?

>>10587811
because if they worked, evolution would figure it out at some point. The resulting organism would spread out infinitely

almost every answer in this thread is fundamentally wrong, if you want a good explanation go to stackexchange or something

>>10597022
>It blows the fuck up you idiot
no it doesn't

>>10597022
If you throw a ball in space, so long as it doesn’t hit anything, or get pulled into something gravitational pull.. that ball will travel forever. It will never slow down.

>>10587811
nothing is impossible
eternity is forever

>>10594377
is this fake?

>>10587811
Just siphon energy from a cock carousel. there a perpetual motion device.

1. The house always wins
2. You can't break even
3. You have to play

>>10599886
>The house always wins
I agree

>>10592102
>But the universe is a closed system

I don't think this is known.

>>10599981
The definition of "universe" comes from thermodynamics, where the (unreasonable) assumption that the entire cosmos is a closed system (ie., that nothing can enter or leave).

By definition, we have no empirical evidence that the universe is the universe.

I can say this, because I said "by definition."

>>10599981
There are no closed systems.

Isn't planetary orbit perpetual motion?

>>10588585
That's like saying you can store energy in a gravitational field by putting a brick on top of a building. It's technically true, but the wording can be misleading about what is actually going on in terms of the physics.

>>10600007
You still can't extract work from them indefinitely.

>no Tesla, Bedini or Leedskalin mentioned

Why is this board full of normie retards?

>>10587968
You need to start reading the entire post anon

>>10589735
>string theory
>normal accepted science
choose one and only one

>>10598662
>or get pulled into something gravitational pull..
m8...

1. All the energy that ever will be, has already been created. It is just stored in various forms.
2. For a wheel to spin forever. It would have to lose no kinetic energy. Which means you cannot tap the wheel for other work.

>>10600636
M-Theory branch of string theory is currently accepted since it is the only theory that has a mathematical overlap of both General Relativity and Copenhagen Interpretation. However it's far from complete. But a lot more promising than it was in the last couple of decades.

>>10587811
Decay.

>>10587811
A siphon that pulls from a lake, the Maybe siphoned water falls on a turbine on its way back to the lake?

Forget perpetual, we should look into making harvesting energy more cost efficient. For example, those paddles that generate energy by using the oceans tides.