|
wormburner
6,386 posts
122 months
|
R300will said: wormburner said: R300will said: wormburner said: dudleybloke said: best one iv seen so far was a bit like a watch or clock double escape movement but the parts dont touch, they use lots of permanent magnets, some repelling, some attracting to move a main cog round.
still not a true perpetual motion machine though. Nowhere near. This is exactly the same as all the other useless machines. for magnets to repel and move away, you need to use energy to move them close in the first place. Whether employing magnets, gravity, sunlight or anything else, the fundamental issues are always the same, and always unavoidable. Although if you could get that to work in a vacuum environment with a highly lubricated axle you would get pretty close No you wouldn't. You'd have solved precisely 0% of the challenge of perpetual motion. 'Close' only counts if you're throwing hand grenades. The difference between your 'close' and the theoretical 'eureka' moment is a million miles (since 'close' isn't impossible, but 'eureka', in this case, definitely is). One simple question: does energy need to be added to make it work? A: Yes. Ergo, this is the complete opposite of perpetual motion. Not 'close'. Don't get pissy with me. It would be pretty close actually because it would last for ages if you reduced friction to an almost zero level like, oh i don't know, the earth orbiting the sun? it will stop eventually but it's been going for billions of years so far and will continue to.  Every single machine is designed with minimising friction in mind. That doesn't put them 'close' to perpetual motion. 'lasting for ages' is also not really going to cut it either. Do you know what a perpetual motion machine is intended to be? Free energy. More out than in. Or at the very least, 100% efficient once you've got it started. You can't get close, because it is impossible. Nearly impossible is....still possible. Not impossible. Not close.
|
|
|
R300will
3,593 posts
20 months
|
wormburner said: Every single machine is designed with minimising friction in mind. That doesn't put them 'close' to perpetual motion.
'lasting for ages' is also not really going to cut it either.
Do you know what a perpetual motion machine is intended to be? Free energy. More out than in. Or at the very least, 100% efficient once you've got it started. You can't get close, because it is impossible. Nearly impossible is....still possible. Not impossible. Not close. Okay, firstly i wasn't making a serious point or claiming that perpetual motion is attainable i was meerly stating how a machine could become close to 100% efficient and therefore have similarities with perpetual motion. Secondly I'm not talking about every single machine ever invented in the world ever. I was talking about the one mechanism that i mentioned and how it could come close to 100% efficient. Perpetual motion is not 'more out than in' it is 'same out as in' as you can't create energy. Thirdly i have no idea what b  ks those last 3 sentences were meant to mean. Stop being pedantic and accept the fact that although perpetual motion isn't attainable as far as we know, it would be possible to create a machine that is very close to 100% efficient, as i just outlined, and therefore close to perpetual motion. The sun has been burning for over 5 billion years and will keep going for another 5 billion, relative to us that is very constant. The earth will keep orbiting at the same speed for a few billion years as will the other planets in the sloar system, that's pretty constant as well. Make friction practically zero and you can get close to perpetual motion. End of.
|
|
|
bebee
2,121 posts
94 months
|
|
|
wormburner
6,386 posts
122 months
|
R300will said: Okay, firstly i wasn't making a serious point or claiming that perpetual motion is attainable i was meerly stating how a machine could become close to 100% efficient and therefore have similarities with perpetual motion. Secondly I'm not talking about every single machine ever invented in the world ever. I was talking about the one mechanism that i mentioned and how it could come close to 100% efficient. Perpetual motion is not 'more out than in' it is 'same out as in' as you can't create energy. Thirdly i have no idea what b ks those last 3 sentences were meant to mean. Stop being pedantic and accept the fact that although perpetual motion isn't attainable as far as we know, it would be possible to create a machine that is very close to 100% efficient, as i just outlined, and therefore close to perpetual motion. The sun has been burning for over 5 billion years and will keep going for another 5 billion, relative to us that is very constant. The earth will keep orbiting at the same speed for a few billion years as will the other planets in the sloar system, that's pretty constant as well. Make friction practically zero and you can get close to perpetual motion. End of. Please define 'practically zero'. And 99.99% efficient is a huge, huge, huge way from 100% efficient. Your machine is nowhere near 99.99% efficient. The earth's changed speed while I wrote this sentence. Billions of years at the same speed? Calm down. And 'relative to us'? What has that got to do with anything? Have a look at the long, amusing history of perpetual motion machines. It was all about turning a mill, or driving a generator, or working a clock, hence my phrase 'more out than in'. They all weren't just turning, some were also performing extra work. None worked. Your magnets on a low friction axle 'machine' - how is it any better than just a flywheel on the same low friction axle?
|
|
|
R300will
3,593 posts
20 months
|
wormburner said: R300will said: Okay, firstly i wasn't making a serious point or claiming that perpetual motion is attainable i was meerly stating how a machine could become close to 100% efficient and therefore have similarities with perpetual motion. Secondly I'm not talking about every single machine ever invented in the world ever. I was talking about the one mechanism that i mentioned and how it could come close to 100% efficient. Perpetual motion is not 'more out than in' it is 'same out as in' as you can't create energy. Thirdly i have no idea what b ks those last 3 sentences were meant to mean. Stop being pedantic and accept the fact that although perpetual motion isn't attainable as far as we know, it would be possible to create a machine that is very close to 100% efficient, as i just outlined, and therefore close to perpetual motion. The sun has been burning for over 5 billion years and will keep going for another 5 billion, relative to us that is very constant. The earth will keep orbiting at the same speed for a few billion years as will the other planets in the sloar system, that's pretty constant as well. Make friction practically zero and you can get close to perpetual motion. End of. Please define 'practically zero'. And 99.99% efficient is a huge, huge, huge way from 100% efficient. Your machine is nowhere near 99.99% efficient. The earth's changed speed while I wrote this sentence. Billions of years at the same speed? Calm down. And 'relative to us'? What has that got to do with anything? Have a look at the long, amusing history of perpetual motion machines. It was all about turning a mill, or driving a generator, or working a clock, hence my phrase 'more out than in'. They all weren't just turning, some were also performing extra work. None worked. Your magnets on a low friction axle 'machine' - how is it any better than just a flywheel on the same low friction axle? Practically zero - Phrase. Nearly zero but not quite. Meaning to get so close to zero that the difference between the two, relative to the time of observation, becomes negligible. Is this really that hard for you to grasp? 99.99% is exactly one hundredth away from 100% efficient. That's not a huge, huge, huge way away what bloody maths did you learn? And everything's bloody relative you big daft cock. Look i don't want to make you out to be a bit of a simpleton but i fear i might be doing when i state, once again, that i'm not advocating perpetual motion machines as a realistic concept. I am simply stating that you could create a system that is able to operate with no energy input for a very long period of time that, now pay attention here, to us humans observing with an average lifespan of about 80-90 years is so much longer that it can be described as close to perpetual. FWIW it would be very hard to try to power something using perpetual motion because there will be inefficiencies along the system and because you can't create extra energy it would stop. Furthermore the earth hasn't really changed speed in the time we've been having this debate. It doesn't have any real decelleration force acting on it so the speed change would be billionths of billionths of mph so you're being pedantic once again. (unless you mean the acceleration towards the sun which will be changing the speed more measurably because we are starting to move closer to it now)
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
wormburner
6,386 posts
122 months
|
R300will said: wormburner said: R300will said: Okay, firstly i wasn't making a serious point or claiming that perpetual motion is attainable i was meerly stating how a machine could become close to 100% efficient and therefore have similarities with perpetual motion. Secondly I'm not talking about every single machine ever invented in the world ever. I was talking about the one mechanism that i mentioned and how it could come close to 100% efficient. Perpetual motion is not 'more out than in' it is 'same out as in' as you can't create energy. Thirdly i have no idea what b ks those last 3 sentences were meant to mean. Stop being pedantic and accept the fact that although perpetual motion isn't attainable as far as we know, it would be possible to create a machine that is very close to 100% efficient, as i just outlined, and therefore close to perpetual motion. The sun has been burning for over 5 billion years and will keep going for another 5 billion, relative to us that is very constant. The earth will keep orbiting at the same speed for a few billion years as will the other planets in the sloar system, that's pretty constant as well. Make friction practically zero and you can get close to perpetual motion. End of. Please define 'practically zero'. And 99.99% efficient is a huge, huge, huge way from 100% efficient. Your machine is nowhere near 99.99% efficient. The earth's changed speed while I wrote this sentence. Billions of years at the same speed? Calm down. And 'relative to us'? What has that got to do with anything? Have a look at the long, amusing history of perpetual motion machines. It was all about turning a mill, or driving a generator, or working a clock, hence my phrase 'more out than in'. They all weren't just turning, some were also performing extra work. None worked. Your magnets on a low friction axle 'machine' - how is it any better than just a flywheel on the same low friction axle? Practically zero - Phrase. Nearly zero but not quite. Meaning to get so close to zero that the difference between the two, relative to the time of observation, becomes negligible. Is this really that hard for you to grasp? 99.99% is exactly one hundredth away from 100% efficient. That's not a huge, huge, huge way away what bloody maths did you learn? And everything's bloody relative you big daft cock. Look i don't want to make you out to be a bit of a simpleton but i fear i might be doing when i state, once again, that i'm not advocating perpetual motion machines as a realistic concept. I am simply stating that you could create a system that is able to operate with no energy input for a very long period of time that, now pay attention here, to us humans observing with an average lifespan of about 80-90 years is so much longer that it can be described as close to perpetual. FWIW it would be very hard to try to power something using perpetual motion because there will be inefficiencies along the system and because you can't create extra energy it would stop. Furthermore the earth hasn't really changed speed in the time we've been having this debate. It doesn't have any real decelleration force acting on it so the speed change would be billionths of billionths of mph so you're being pedantic once again. (unless you mean the acceleration towards the sun which will be changing the speed more measurably because we are starting to move closer to it now) I give up. You use phrases like 'close to perpetual' in places where I would use 'not perpetual' and you say 'negligible' where I would say something like 'hugely significant in the context of a conversation about perpetual motion'. Never mind.
|
|
|
R300will
3,593 posts
20 months
|
wormburner said: I give up.
You use phrases like 'close to perpetual' in places where I would use 'not perpetual' and you say 'negligible' where I would say something like 'hugely significant in the context of a conversation about perpetual motion'.
Never mind. Good because i was bloody about to as well. I was never saying it was perpetual just that it was close. Of course if you believe that time is infinite then yes close to perpetual would not be anywhere near to [b]true[b/b] perpetual, but time isn't infinite, so you can get close.
|
|
|
lazygraduand
1,510 posts
30 months
|
WHat about a magnetic bearing within a perfect vacuum- of course, infeasible, but would a spinning disc continue to spin 'forever' if those conditions were met?
|
|
|
Silver Smudger
1,324 posts
36 months
|
lazygraduand said: WHat about a magnetic bearing within a perfect vacuum- of course, infeasible, but would a spinning disc continue to spin 'forever' if those conditions were met? Yes - Until you try and get some power out of it, then it will slow down
|
|
|
wormburner
6,386 posts
122 months
|
R300will said: wormburner said: I give up.
You use phrases like 'close to perpetual' in places where I would use 'not perpetual' and you say 'negligible' where I would say something like 'hugely significant in the context of a conversation about perpetual motion'.
Never mind. Good because i was bloody about to as well. I was never saying it was perpetual just that it was close. Of course if you believe that time is infinite then yes close to perpetual would not be anywhere near to [b]true[b/b] perpetual, but time isn't infinite, so you can get close. Ok, i don't quite give up.  You refer to 'close to perpetual' and 'true' perpetual as if they are points on a spectrum. They aren't. The machines you call close to perpetual have only two states: stopping, and stopped. So no closer to perpetual than a kid's spinning top. Whether time is infinite is immaterial. A perpetual motion machine is capable of not stopping (until it fails, not until it runs out of momentum). The machines you refer to are not capable of that. It is a night and day difference. You refer to low friction. That is a meaningless term. You can improve that bearing from now until the end of time, and it will never be zero friction, will it? Nor will you be able to recover however much energy it 'wastes'.
|
|
|
R300will
3,593 posts
20 months
|
wormburner said: R300will said: wormburner said: I give up.
You use phrases like 'close to perpetual' in places where I would use 'not perpetual' and you say 'negligible' where I would say something like 'hugely significant in the context of a conversation about perpetual motion'.
Never mind. Good because i was bloody about to as well. I was never saying it was perpetual just that it was close. Of course if you believe that time is infinite then yes close to perpetual would not be anywhere near to [b]true[b/b] perpetual, but time isn't infinite, so you can get close. Ok, i don't quite give up. You refer to 'close to perpetual' and 'true' perpetual as if they are points on a spectrum. They aren't. The machines you call close to perpetual have only two states: stopping, and stopped. So no closer to perpetual than a kid's spinning top. Whether time is infinite is immaterial. A perpetual motion machine is capable of not stopping (until it fails, not until it runs out of momentum). The machines you refer to are not capable of that. It is a night and day difference. You refer to low friction. That is a meaningless term. You can improve that bearing from now until the end of time, and it will never be zero friction, will it? Nor will you be able to recover however much energy it 'wastes'. Oh come on man! Well because time isn't infinite they are more like points on a spectrum actually. The true perpetual motion device can go on forever but if time isn't infinite then there is an end point where no more measurement can take place and so it becomes pointless. So if you can get a machine to be very efficient i.e like. 99.999999999% then they will both reach the end of time and still be working. QED you can get close to perpetual motion in the fact that they will both be spinning by the end of time however the true perpetual one may be spinning a bit faster, hence the other being close but not quite perpetual.
|
|
|
wormburner
6,386 posts
122 months
|
R300will said: wormburner said: R300will said: wormburner said: I give up.
You use phrases like 'close to perpetual' in places where I would use 'not perpetual' and you say 'negligible' where I would say something like 'hugely significant in the context of a conversation about perpetual motion'.
Never mind. Good because i was bloody about to as well. I was never saying it was perpetual just that it was close. Of course if you believe that time is infinite then yes close to perpetual would not be anywhere near to [b]true[b/b] perpetual, but time isn't infinite, so you can get close. Ok, i don't quite give up. You refer to 'close to perpetual' and 'true' perpetual as if they are points on a spectrum. They aren't. The machines you call close to perpetual have only two states: stopping, and stopped. So no closer to perpetual than a kid's spinning top. Whether time is infinite is immaterial. A perpetual motion machine is capable of not stopping (until it fails, not until it runs out of momentum). The machines you refer to are not capable of that. It is a night and day difference. You refer to low friction. That is a meaningless term. You can improve that bearing from now until the end of time, and it will never be zero friction, will it? Nor will you be able to recover however much energy it 'wastes'. Oh come on man! Well because time isn't infinite they are more like points on a spectrum actually. The true perpetual motion device can go on forever but if time isn't infinite then there is an end point where no more measurement can take place and so it becomes pointless. So if you can get a machine to be very efficient i.e like. 99.999999999% then they will both reach the end of time and still be working. QED you can get close to perpetual motion in the fact that they will both be spinning by the end of time however the true perpetual one may be spinning a bit faster, hence the other being close but not quite perpetual. Nonsense. By that rationale, any machine that is running come armageddon, whether it is a pushbike or a toaster, is close to perpetual. Which clearly isn't the case. Why do you keep referring to true perpetual machines, as if implying that there's another type which isn't true? Its is either perpetual or it isn't. No shades of grey. No nearly. No close. Very efficient is possible. Perpetual is impossible. How can something which is possible be close to being something which is impossible? All your references to the end of time are meaningless. You could prove a machine was perpetual within a week if you'd actually managed to build one. All you need to demonstrate is that the machine is 100% (or 101%) efficient. You don't need to wait till the end of time to do that. Also, the materials you built you machine out of won't last until the end of time. Doesn't mean the machine isn't capable of perpetual motion. Take your 99.99% machine, and if you're so close, put a bit more work in and get it to 100%. Should be doable if you're close. If it isn't doable, perhaps it isn't close after all?
|
|
|
R300will
3,593 posts
20 months
|
wormburner said: Nonsense. By that rationale, any machine that is running come armageddon, whether it is a pushbike or a toaster, is close to perpetual. Which clearly isn't the case.
Why do you keep referring to true perpetual machines, as if implying that there's another type which isn't true? Its is either perpetual or it isn't. No shades of grey. No nearly. No close.
Very efficient is possible. Perpetual is impossible. How can something which is possible be close to being something which is impossible?
All your references to the end of time are meaningless. You could prove a machine was perpetual within a week if you'd actually managed to build one. All you need to demonstrate is that the machine is 100% (or 101%) efficient. You don't need to wait till the end of time to do that. Also, the materials you built you machine out of won't last until the end of time. Doesn't mean the machine isn't capable of perpetual motion.
Take your 99.99% machine, and if you're so close, put a bit more work in and get it to 100%. Should be doable if you're close.
If it isn't doable, perhaps it isn't close after all? Because it is a relative term you fool. This isn't hard really. Physics isn't a black and white world anyway thanks to quantum theory so if you can make something 99.9999999999999% efficient then by definition you are only 0.0000000000001% off being completely efficient and therefore perpetual, personally i'd say that's close. You can't get to perpetual because thermodynamics doesn't allow it but in terms of relative efficiency you could get close. Fact. Also of course the materials you build the machine out of will last till the end of time, they are atoms and they don't degrade at random unless they are radioactive. Stop being pedantic.
|
|
|
doogz
18,667 posts
56 months
|
I think you're confusing materials, with atoms.
Yes, materials are made of atoms, but that doesn't mean the materials won't change their state over time. when steel turns to rust, it's not really the same material any more. yes, the atoms still exist, but the material doesn't, in the same form.
|
|
|
R300will
3,593 posts
20 months
|
doogz said: I think you're confusing materials, with atoms.
Yes, materials are made of atoms, but that doesn't mean the materials won't change their state over time. when steel turns to rust, it's not really the same material any more. yes, the atoms still exist, but the material doesn't, in the same form. Certainly true. However in my scenario the magnets are spinning in a vaccuum on a very lubricated axle with negligible friction so wear and tear or redox reactions should be eliminated.... in theory
|
|
|
wormburner
6,386 posts
122 months
|
R300will said: doogz said: I think you're confusing materials, with atoms.
Yes, materials are made of atoms, but that doesn't mean the materials won't change their state over time. when steel turns to rust, it's not really the same material any more. yes, the atoms still exist, but the material doesn't, in the same form. Certainly true. However in my scenario the magnets are spinning in a vaccuum on a very lubricated axle with negligible friction so wear and tear or redox reactions should be eliminated.... in theory You keep saying 'negligible' in a way that equates it with 'zero'. 'Negligible' means 'not a lot, but certainly some' so why would 'some' friction lead to 'eliminated' wear and tear?
|
|
|
wormburner
6,386 posts
122 months
|
R300will said: wormburner said: Nonsense. By that rationale, any machine that is running come armageddon, whether it is a pushbike or a toaster, is close to perpetual. Which clearly isn't the case.
Why do you keep referring to true perpetual machines, as if implying that there's another type which isn't true? Its is either perpetual or it isn't. No shades of grey. No nearly. No close.
Very efficient is possible. Perpetual is impossible. How can something which is possible be close to being something which is impossible?
All your references to the end of time are meaningless. You could prove a machine was perpetual within a week if you'd actually managed to build one. All you need to demonstrate is that the machine is 100% (or 101%) efficient. You don't need to wait till the end of time to do that. Also, the materials you built you machine out of won't last until the end of time. Doesn't mean the machine isn't capable of perpetual motion.
Take your 99.99% machine, and if you're so close, put a bit more work in and get it to 100%. Should be doable if you're close.
If it isn't doable, perhaps it isn't close after all? Because it is a relative term you fool. This isn't hard really. Physics isn't a black and white world anyway thanks to quantum theory so if you can make something 99.9999999999999% efficient then by definition you are only 0.0000000000001% off being completely efficient and therefore perpetual, personally i'd say that's close. You can't get to perpetual because thermodynamics doesn't allow it but in terms of relative efficiency you could get close. Fact. Also of course the materials you build the machine out of will last till the end of time, they are atoms and they don't degrade at random unless they are radioactive. Stop being pedantic. I'm not being pedantic. I'm challenging you on your incorrect use of several important words. You are determinedly ignoring or overlooking a few things which are at the very heart of the question of perpetual motion.
|
|
|
wormburner
6,386 posts
122 months
|
R300will said: doogz said: I think you're confusing materials, with atoms.
Yes, materials are made of atoms, but that doesn't mean the materials won't change their state over time. when steel turns to rust, it's not really the same material any more. yes, the atoms still exist, but the material doesn't, in the same form. Certainly true. However in my scenario the magnets are spinning in a vaccuum on a very lubricated axle with negligible friction so wear and tear or redox reactions should be eliminated.... in theory You still haven't answered my question about how magnets on an axle are any better than a flywheel on an axle...
|
|
|
hairykrishna
8,964 posts
72 months
|
The best flywheel storage systems have zero friction, magnetic levitation, bearings and spin in a hard vacuum. Left to their own devices they'd spin for many years. However, a long time is not equal to perpetual.
|
|
|
98elise
3,148 posts
30 months
|
wormburner said: R300will said: wormburner said: Nonsense. By that rationale, any machine that is running come armageddon, whether it is a pushbike or a toaster, is close to perpetual. Which clearly isn't the case.
Why do you keep referring to true perpetual machines, as if implying that there's another type which isn't true? Its is either perpetual or it isn't. No shades of grey. No nearly. No close.
Very efficient is possible. Perpetual is impossible. How can something which is possible be close to being something which is impossible?
All your references to the end of time are meaningless. You could prove a machine was perpetual within a week if you'd actually managed to build one. All you need to demonstrate is that the machine is 100% (or 101%) efficient. You don't need to wait till the end of time to do that. Also, the materials you built you machine out of won't last until the end of time. Doesn't mean the machine isn't capable of perpetual motion.
Take your 99.99% machine, and if you're so close, put a bit more work in and get it to 100%. Should be doable if you're close.
If it isn't doable, perhaps it isn't close after all? Because it is a relative term you fool. This isn't hard really. Physics isn't a black and white world anyway thanks to quantum theory so if you can make something 99.9999999999999% efficient then by definition you are only 0.0000000000001% off being completely efficient and therefore perpetual, personally i'd say that's close. You can't get to perpetual because thermodynamics doesn't allow it but in terms of relative efficiency you could get close. Fact. Also of course the materials you build the machine out of will last till the end of time, they are atoms and they don't degrade at random unless they are radioactive. Stop being pedantic. I'm not being pedantic. I'm challenging you on your incorrect use of several important words. You are determinedly ignoring or overlooking a few things which are at the very heart of the question of perpetual motion. I'm with you. Its like asking for a number less then zero, and someone says.... 1. How about 0.1 thats close isn't it? How about 0.01 then. What about 0.001 thats very nearly a minus number isn't it? etc...etc...etc. Perpetual motion is a black and white thing because it would disprove a fundamental law. Being very very efficient is not getting any closer to perpetual motion.
|
|
