an idea of perpetual energy, tell me what you think

Stryder,
As long as the system is entirely air tight, and there is a way to get the upper section of pipe filled, I see no reason that it wouldn't work. "No one will ever know anything until they try." Nathanael D. Moss.
 
Sorry, guys, but it doesn't matter whether the system is airtight or not. Water won't siphon "uphill". (It will siphon over a hill, but the outlet has to be lower than the inlet.)
Your system will siphon backwards until the two sides equilibrate - i.e. until the hydrostatic pressure is equal on both sides. Then it will stop.
Try it.
 
James R,
In the actual system admittedly it would have to be bled to get it flowing in theory, however I'll have to do a test on it when I get a chance (when I say bled, I mean the pipes would have to be filled with liquid and the container filled to just below the outlet pipe since an airgap would be necessary). No matter whether it works or doesn't it should be fun to try.
 
Stryder, it won't work, don't waste your time building it! Did you never play with manometers in science class? If you make a manometer;

http://www.efunda.com/formulae/fluids/manometer.cfm

it doesn't matter what gauge tube you use, or whether you join a wide tube to a thin one, the levels always balance out equally. This is because atmospheric pressure is measured in force per unit of area, so although more force applies to a larger area, it is spread over a larger area, making it equal.

Your apparatus is just a manometer with a spiral attached at one end. It doesn't matter that there is more 'weight' in water in the spiral part, than in the upward section of pipe, the sucking pressure due to gravity is the same all the way along the tube. Why would the water flow because the pipe opens to the air? If it were a closed system, gravity would apply to both sides equally, so how would the water know which way around to flow? The open end resolves this issue for you, as it would be absurd for water to jump into the end of an open pipe, but it doesn't make the mechanism sound. Not being able to move one way, doesn't mean it will flow the other!

All that will happen, is that the water in the coil will syphon down to the tank, and the water pipe will level of with the water level in the tank.

Think about the forces involved, gravity, and pressure, it should become apparent why it won't work, without you having to get wet.
 
Well put, Phlogistician.
The only disagreement I have is:
Stryder, please do the experiment, as long as it doesn't waste too much time or money (plastic bottle & aquarium tubing). If you see what happens, you'll be convinced.
There are so many perpetual motion ideas, and so many excuses:
-If I had the money to build a prototype...
-If I had a place to build it...
-If I could reduce the losses...
Stryder's machine could be built on the kitchen table with simple tools for less than $5. By all means, do it.
If you can make it work, I'll be the first one standing in line to buy it.
 
Phlogistician! If it's done right the water can't level out. Think about it... if the pipe is filled with water, (and given the pipe is small enough) no air can enter the pipe. And, as long as no air can enter the pipe, the weight of the water on the heavier side would cause it to flow. ...
 
Stryderunknown:

I urge you to try this. It won't work, but you might discover some interesting things about siphons.

Siphons can lift water over the side of a container, but only if the end in the air is lower than the surface of the water in the container you're siphoning from. Try it and see!
 
Energy Buff said:
Phlogistician! If it's done right the water can't level out. Think about it... if the pipe is filled with water, (and given the pipe is small enough) no air can enter the pipe. And, as long as no air can enter the pipe, the weight of the water on the heavier side would cause it to flow. ...
Click to expand...

Try it, video it, and link the video. I want a close up of your face when it doesn't work, please.

If water can get out, air can get in. Unless you add a non-return valve, in which case, nothing will happen.

If you don't believe it won't work, go build one, waste your time and money, and get laughed at by your neighbours. I don't care, just please, video the whole escapade so the good folks at sciforums can have a laugh too.
 
I'll see what I can do! I don't know if I can get it on the internet, but I'll do my best. just give me a few weeks.
 
Are there any natural Perpetual Motion Machines. Is the entire Universe a PMM ?

Two massive planets orbit very close to each other but their atmospheres don’t touch each. Due to their closeness, the planets are churned inside and they both generate tremendous heat due to that. Now, they orbit each other such that in a year they go away 1 millimeter from each other just like our moon. So where is the energy coming from to generate the heat. Unfortunately there are no such examples in our solar system. So can we call this a PMM that generates energy? If there is one example then there can be more !

I know how to create a PMM, but I want fame So I will tell about it only after creating it. U will see RawThinkTank in news someday. E=MC what ?
 
RawThinkTank said:
Are there any natural Perpetual Motion Machines. Is the entire Universe a PMM ?
Click to expand...

Nope, because nothing, the Universe included, lasts forever. The energy that the Universe has was put there during the big bang. Maybe the constant expansion and re-collapse of the Universe is a PM Machine. But that is speculation beyond physics.

Two massive planets orbit very close to each other but their atmospheres don’t touch each. Due to their closeness, the planets are churned inside and they both generate tremendous heat due to that. Now, they orbit each other such that in a year they go away 1 millimeter from each other just like our moon.
Click to expand...

There is a loss in that system, ie the gravitational potential that 1mm further separation gives. Therefore the heat caused by each planet's tidal disruptions of the other, is merely an expression of this loss. The system would eventually separate, so it's not 'perpetual'



I know how to create a PMM, but I want fame So I will tell about it only after creating it. U will see RawThinkTank in news someday. E=MC what ?
Click to expand...

Does it involve water moving uphill perchance? ;-)
 
phlogistician said:
There is a loss in that system, ie the gravitational potential that 1mm further separation gives. Therefore the heat caused by each planet's tidal disruptions of the other, is merely an expression of this loss. The system would eventually separate, so it's not 'perpetual'

Does it involve water moving uphill perchance? ;-)
Click to expand...

But what is it that is getting converted in to energy ?
So if they are not moving away from each other then what ?

Hey, I found it, Europa has tidally generated heat due to Jupiter’s gravity and its not escaping anywhere.

PMM, sorry no clues from me.
 
I think for what it's worth, that we have to distinguish between force and energy. A magnet provides a relatively static force, gravity could also be considered to be a static force, electricity could be considered as an energy but is realy a force over time and distance.
So we have two types of force. Static or stationary forces and forces that change over time and distance.

When a static force is made to move it can be considered an energy.

So the trick to perpetual motion or energy is to convert a static force in to a moving one.......

Gravity for example will generate a centrally moving force or a magnet will generate a moving force ( both are conserved )

Gravity is omni attractive and ferro magnetism is mono attractive ( iron)

When you can get a perpetually moving force ( energy) out of a stationary one then you have the answer.....
 
RawThinkTank said:
?

Hey, I found it, Europa has tidally generated heat due to Jupiter’s gravity and its not escaping anywhere.
Click to expand...

Oh yes it is, it will be gradually losing energy;

"So, the moon moves away from the planet and the planet rotation rate slows until
either the satellite is lost or the spin and orbital periods become the same.
Much of the energy is dissipated in the bodies as heat. Thus we see Io,
the closest body to Jupiter, and to some extent Europa, the next, subject to
large amounts of tidal heating."

(Source: http://www.apl.ucl.ac.uk/lectures/3c37/3c37-6.html)
 
phlogistician said:
Oh yes it is, it will be gradually losing energy;

"So, the moon moves away from the planet and the planet rotation rate slows until
either the satellite is lost or the spin and orbital periods become the same.
Much of the energy is dissipated in the bodies as heat. Thus we see Io,
the closest body to Jupiter, and to some extent Europa, the next, subject to
large amounts of tidal heating."

(Source: http://www.apl.ucl.ac.uk/lectures/3c37/3c37-6.html)
Click to expand...

Actually gravitational heating is quite common. Even earth has been found to have its heat flow from the core to areas on the surface correspond to gravitational flux at that point.

Although such systems eventually will run down they do represent a conversion of gravitational energy into useable energy. This suggest that gravity is an energy phenomena and not some mathematical extrapolation devoid of energy.

While there is no direct evidence (yet) that gravity actually causes heating by its process, the observation is suggestive. While core heating has several non-gravity sources, i.e. - radioactive decay, continental drift, impacts, and residual formation heat, to name a few. The fact is earth and most large bodies have more radiant heat than heat received from the sun. Other bodies that display the affect don't have the same known sources as earth and are even more suggestive of direct heating from the production of gravity. It may well be that ontinental drift is being powered by energy (heat) in the core.

The following is not considered a viable device but is interesting academically (especially with the valve converted to an electro-rheological or ferro-fluid system).

http://my.voyager.net/~jrrandall/McCoinPatent.html

Since this is Mr Randall's drawing or version of my patent, I am compelled to point out the bladder valve is miss drawn, and to a lessor degree so are some of the patent drawings. The valve is supposed to be sufficently thick to insure the differential pressure across it doesn't become applied to the spheres, although that point is not maintained in the specific design discussion.

Dan K. McCoin
 
Last edited:
MacM, the point being, that the heat generated by gravitational forces is _not_ perpetual. IE, gravity doesn't create heat without some expense.

Yes it's a common phenomena, so what? It isn't perpetual, which is what this thread is about.
 
phlogistician said:
MacM, the point being, that the heat generated by gravitational forces is _not_ perpetual. IE, gravity doesn't create heat without some expense.

Yes it's a common phenomena, so what? It isn't perpetual, which is what this thread is about.
Click to expand...

I really wish you would read what I wrote. I said all such system will eventually run down. I was not claiming perpetual energy.
 
I don't think this thread is about perpetuality in absolutum, and if treated as such will always fail. If a device lasted and provided energy for a thousand years would it be considered virtually perpetual, especially if some of the energy created was utilised to create the devices replacement and so on infinitum.....?
 
phlogistician
Every heavenly body is going to have tidal effects on each other and hence generating fantastic amounts of energy, so r u tring 2 say that its impossible that there can exist 2 bodies that revolve around eachother and wont change their orbital distance ? How many here agree with that ?

I think the time taken for any orbital decay is so huge that it sounds impossible to believe that the tidal energy generated for billions of years is equivalent to the amount of orbital deacy. For this it is necessary to calculate how much energy is generated and how much will b required 2 reposition the moon in original orbit after billions of years.
 
magnet energy

aight look Arch_Rival instead of having a bell make it an hourglass, with a + charge aight, and then there is a ring around the hourglass with little beads of +.

then you put little slices of - charged magnetic strips on the hourglass going spaced evenly, then you ajust the little beads of + nrg until one pulls a - closest to it, then you put another uneven on the other side aight, and it pushes and pulls when the negative and positive get close, then when it gets a - charged magnet then you freeking get the other one that it just messed up to mess its own self up, which would result in spin!!!!!!! Please give thoughts on this extremely krusty visual i just put in ur head. kind of look like this
\/
-+-
/\ exept for better, lol

I gots another idea if that one dont work, look
\/
-+- 0
/\

aight act like it is all connected, it looks like an hourglass with a disk in the middle, you have the - strips evenly placed on the hourglass, and the you take a + magnet and place it where the O is on the krustydiagram the the -would atractto it, the you place another + Magnet close the the one you just put, and the - would move to it, when it the the + would push away, making the whole thing sping, i know you scientitis dudes have problems with it moving, so you just spin it with your hand, and then i would never stop, and i think may actually go faster becasue inertia would pull the way thru and it could SPIN even if you attached a pipe to the end of the hourglass that spins a generator and does its stuff!!!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top