Perpetual Motion/Free Energy

[-zeroSKILL-]

Something that I know is supposed to just completely irrationalize perpetual motion is entropy (Second law of Thermo-dynamics) but I think I have a way to overcome this little gremlin in the mechanics by using twenty super-conductive magnets laid down at a 36° angle from a common central point (ten on the ground or other support and ten above those) and they would be tilted like a back-slash ( / ) at somewhere between 15°-45° (probably closer to 45) , they would also be slightly overlapping each other. The magnets would need to be cooled to maintain super conductivity(at least right now they need to be, but not for long!...) by something or other (suggestions?), and one of the levels of the magnets (I was thinking the upper one) would also be connected by some sort of metal (I was thinking Platinum or Titanium) rod in the center of both the levels (upper and lower) of magnets and the rod would rotate as the opposite magnetic fields of the magnets perpetually propelled them away from one another. This rotation could then be used to obtain some sort of energy after being transferred to a generator of some sort, the energy, I'm assuming, would probably be electric but it may be kinetic, and transferred to somewhere or something else.

Sorry for all the vaguery, and lack of an actual visual.

Ask if you need clarification and I'll do my best to help understanding.

A bit drunk atm, and can't think of how to explain my idea any better =/

[funmonkey54]

I actually see what you are saying here. But the problem arises in 2 points. The first being you would need an actual way to harness the energy produced. This would be a challenge without interrupting the motion. The second problem arises when you consider the low amount of energy actually produced by doing such a thing. This would have to be done either on a much larger scale, or repeated over a large area. The chances of the success would be decent, but the chances of implementation would be extremely unlikely due to the fact that it is not a focused energy and does not produce enough energy to be of much use.

Well, there you have my opinion.

[foilman8805]

You would probably have to use something along the lines of liquid nitrogen to keep the magnets cool enough to maintain superconductivity.

And as far as energy flow goes here...do you have any sort of rough estimates as to the energetic output of this kind of experiment? The point I'm making is that would we be putting more energy into this system than we would be getting out creating an overall negative work efficiency?

[funmonkey54]

Originally Posted by foilman8805

The point I'm making is that would we be putting more energy into this system than we would be getting out creating an overall negative work efficiency?

Exactly. Also, I did not think of liquid nitrogen as a tool of keeping super-conductivity. But even then, it would require a constant supply of this to remain useful.

[Xx{Midday}xX]

About perpetual motion...

Matter/Energy is technically perpetual through existence, just saying.

The fact that they exist already makes them perpetual. They self-sustain their existence. If there is something that "causes" matter/energy to exist, then that "cause" is perpetual. In conclusion, this whole system of existence is perpetual.



As for this experiment, it's a deficit.

[MrRubix]

You can't get a "perpetual motion" system with free energy. Energy/matter is not created or destroyed -- it merely transfers or finds other forms. Perpetual motion completely craps on the energy laws we've established so thoroughly to date.

[-zeroSKILL-]

Originally Posted by funmonkey54

I actually see what you are saying here. But the problem arises in 2 points. The first being you would need an actual way to harness the energy produced. This would be a challenge without interrupting the motion. The second problem arises when you consider the low amount of energy actually produced by doing such a thing. This would have to be done either on a much larger scale, or repeated over a large area. The chances of the success would be decent, but the chances of implementation would be extremely unlikely due to the fact that it is not a focused energy and does not produce enough energy to be of much use.

Well, there you have my opinion.

Yes, I've already gone over -extensive- plans with my friend on how best to overcome most everything. It's been an idea I've been working with since I was 16. I turn 20 this Sunday, the 24th (going skydiving too ).

I'll go ahead and let you know I'm sober at the moment, just so my post may bear some credibility.

First some more insight on how I plan on setting this up, and since I phail with using Paint/PhotoShop/everything else, I'm going to try and explain it with some visuals you can set up yourself. First, get about 10 books. Lay them in a circle with the top inside corners lying on the back inside corners of the book in front of them. Next grab a pencil, stick it in the middle, and then put 10 pencils going out from the center pencil to the books. Visualize another set of 10 books above the books on the ground. The books are supposed to be my magnets, which never lose their charge (superconductive). The pencils are my supports.

I'll now give some brief descriptions on how I planned on tackling the problems you brought up that I failed to address in the OP, along with further insight on how I hope to set this up.

1) Harnessing energy without interrupting system - This is the -biggest- problem in the entire plan. I've thought on this for months, I think I came up with something that could work; but it will be the only process in the system as a whole that would not be perpetual. This process would occur beneath the magnets, the central ground support would be hollow, allowing for the upper support to go through it and down to the bottom floor (picture the setup in a two story building, work generating energy is done on the 2nd story, harnessing energy is done on ground level). The upper support rod would have a cog like (think gears, like in a clock, or GoW if you please) ending that could be placed into a generator. The type of generator I think would be most efficient is the same type they use at Hoover Dam (Link). The only difference between how the energy being produced is that instead of water being used to turn the turbines, the constant rotation of the central rod would turn them. If you don't know how those generators work, I'm not going to waste more space explaining that in this post, look it up or ask. The generators would be setup up to be easily removed and replaced once worn out, making them entirely separate from the rest of the machine (which, btw, I plan to have in a vacuum) They should last for decades though, so this isn't really a big deal.

I'm intentionally leaving out many specifics to conserve post space, I already know this post will be gigantic once I'm through. I apologize in advance if you don't like to read, but please just ask if you need/want further clarification. I assure you, I've planned out -everything-

2) Harnessing energy - Addressed above. It would be done on large scale. Think magnets the size of cars.

Originally Posted by foilman8805

You would probably have to use something along the lines of liquid nitrogen to keep the magnets cool enough to maintain superconductivity.

And as far as energy flow goes here...do you have any sort of rough estimates as to the energetic output of this kind of experiment? The point I'm making is that would we be putting more energy into this system than we would be getting out creating an overall negative work efficiency?

I was thinking that in the beginning, but there are endless flaws with that idea. I've come to believe filling a vacuum with liquid helium entirely surrounding the magnets may do the trick. The only problem being I'm not sure how well the magnets would rotate through a liquid. Shouldn't be too much of an issue considering their size. Once they got their momentum it would basically be a vortex, and not much is gonna stop a car sized magnet in motion.

There are better options, I'm sure, I just haven't done enough research in this area to know the optimal choice(s).

Also, I think it would be pretty damn hard to get a negative work efficiency out of it. You would certainly have to try for that. Any way I look at it now, I could produce enough energy and make enough money off it to buy and maintain parts even if I fail at creating perpetual motion.

Originally Posted by funmonkey54

Exactly. Also, I did not think of liquid nitrogen as a tool of keeping super-conductivity. But even then, it would require a constant supply of this to remain useful.

Addressed this.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

You can't get a "perpetual motion" system with free energy. Energy/matter is not created or destroyed -- it merely transfers or finds other forms. Perpetual motion completely craps on the energy laws we've established so thoroughly to date.

This may be the least intelligent post I've ever seen from you in Critical Thinking, Rubix =/. And I've been around a lot longer than this current profile.

I'll give you a chance to clarify your post before I wreck this one.

I understand what you're saying, and know exactly what you mean, but you hold yourself too high on your little intellectual pedestal for me to let you get away with a crap post like this.


Anyone else care for me to clarify anything further?

I'm always open to constructive criticism and insight. I don't think I've left too much to improve upon, but there's always something someone else may know that I don't

[-zeroSKILL-]

Whoops, missed a post while multi-quoting. Flame me if you want for double posting. The above post holds about as much content as an average users 25 posts. Get over it.

Originally Posted by Xx{Midday}xX

About perpetual motion...

Matter/Energy is technically perpetual through existence, just saying.

The fact that they exist already makes them perpetual. They self-sustain their existence. If there is something that "causes" matter/energy to exist, then that "cause" is perpetual. In conclusion, this whole system of existence is perpetual.



As for this experiment, it's a deficit.

Matter is constantly being destroyed, and converted into energy. The energy is lost forever after being used. The entire Universe is in a 'deficit', and neither are perpetual.

Also... I don't even know how to reply to last two paragraphs, other than "You're wrong.". Matter and energy do not work in harmony continually fueling each other. Matter fuels energy. Energy is not created without the loss of matter. Our Universe will eventually become nothing, essentially ceasing to exist. Therefore it is not perpetual. Nothing ever will be. I'm just trying to get as close as humanly possible to something worthwhile that is. I think I'm on the right track.

[devonin]

Hey zeroskill, don't need to flame you for double posting, just warn you not to. The arrogant superior attitude can stay outside CT as well. If you don't want to take the time to rationally and calmly discuss your position, and address people's comments, you can post elsewhere.

As a minor note, your statement

Matter is constantly being destroyed, and converted into energy.

seems to be falling afoul of a problem in semantics. Matter is being converted into energy. It is not being destroyed at all any more than converting water into ice does not -destroy- water.

[foilman8805]

Originally Posted by -zeroSKILL-

Also, I think it would be pretty damn hard to get a negative work efficiency out of it. You would certainly have to try for that. Any way I look at it now, I could produce enough energy and make enough money off it to buy and maintain parts even if I fail at creating perpetual motion.

I only brought it up because I actually have little education on the free energy concept. I'm curious to know. That's why I asked you to supply rough estimates of energy costs associated with your design before I asked you if you'd achieve any sort of reasonable work efficiency.

Anyone can say that they think their design could produce a substantial amount of energy, but to actually do the math and go beyond simple dreaming is important, and in this case, critical.

[funmonkey54]

Yes, I do realize this is a bump.
I am bumping this thread because I believe there is more discussion to be had in this thread. It is a fairly strong topic and I am intrigued and want to learn more about this.


My questions/comments I am proposing now are these:

-With this concept, what are some limitations within the original idea that could be solved through logical thinking?

I believe one issue with it is the keeping it cold. While we have proposed the fact that it would require an almost constant flow of liquid nitrogen, we haven't really discussed the effects of the environment. If we were to place it in a much colder atmosphere, would we be able to reserve some of the liquid nitrogen and possibly cut back on cooling methods? This is just one idea.


-Also, what would be the desired method for harnessing the power emitted in the most efficient way?

Would we want to form almost a magnetic net to receive the energy, or would we simply have an outlet that could be essentially "plugged in" and transfer the energy to a central collection area?

[Xx{Midday}xX]

Originally Posted by -zeroSKILL-

Matter is constantly being destroyed, and converted into energy. The energy is lost forever after being used. The entire Universe is in a 'deficit', and neither are perpetual.

Also... I don't even know how to reply to last two paragraphs, other than "You're wrong.". Matter and energy do not work in harmony continually fueling each other. Matter fuels energy. Energy is not created without the loss of matter. Our Universe will eventually become nothing, essentially ceasing to exist. Therefore it is not perpetual. Nothing ever will be. I'm just trying to get as close as humanly possible to something worthwhile that is. I think I'm on the right track.

What is the source of existence? The "force" (because it is not necessarily "energy", because "energy" is a quantified existence equal to that of matter.) to cause existence, or the source of the big bang, is what I am questioning here. If the big bang did indeed come from nothing, then that "force" is perpetual. That first cause of existence is still maintaining itself here, in the form of matter and energy as we can perceive it now. If something caused that force, then that cause is perpetual. If the cause of that force is part of a closed loop of causes and effects, then that whole system within the loop is perpetual. What I'm saying is, SOMETHING has to be perpetual. The universe either started from nothing and is maintaining itself here, or is part of a cycle of events that are not concluding and is maintaining itself here. The origin of the universe is perpetual.

I am talking about neither energy nor matter. I am talking about existence, and the maintenance of spacetime fabric.

If I was to advocate a theory of the existence of matter and energy, I would think a universe repeats the following cycle.
Big Bang > stabilization of forces, expansion of spacetime fabric > further expansion of spacetime fabric > eventual tear in spacetime fabric > all spacetime fabric condenses at that one point > causes another Big Bang

This is supported by the supposed existence of dark energy. Dark energy is not necessarily a quantifiable substance. It may just be one effect of the spacetime fabric. To explain it in the simplest way possible, as spacetime fabric expands, the distance of (arbitrarily choosing) 1 meter becomes longer. However, that change of relative distance is only noticeable when one is comparing the distances of a past time and the present time. If we watch a car go by at 20 miles per hour now and go back to 20 billion years ago and watch a car at 20 mph 20 billion years ago, both cars would look like it's going at 20 mph. However, if we watched both cars go by from this present time, the car 20 billion years ago would seem much much slower than the car at present. Therefore, how everything is moving away from us "faster" than before is nothing more than a comparison of material movement with a difference of a few million years. Everything is moving at the same rate of expansion in a quantitative sense (disregarding the effects imposed by other intra-universal forces). The illusion of spacetime expansion is causing all scientists to perceive that everything is moving away faster in comparison to some quantity of time in the past. All information we gather from space can come no faster than the speed of light. All distant information gathered from space is in the past. Hence that illusion is apparent.

As the fabric expands and the value of 1 meter becomes relatively longer, the fabric becomes weaker and eventually ruptures. That rupture causes the condensation of the fabric into that one point, which provides the force for the big bang.

Several points from this theory.
Everything we perceive from outer space is actually bigger than the actual size it would be at front, because the information we get from outer space is usually noticeably much more in the past than our present. The expansion of spacetime would be apparent.
This theory is nothing more than an abstract expansion of my imagination. It is unnecessary to take any of it seriously, but it can be used as a source of criticism. Don't kill me over it. =_=

[dooey100]

I'm not entirely sure I understand, but I think that the magnets would reach an equilibrium where they are being pulled in opposite directions equally.