Unlimited power, discuss!
Discussion
To be fair to sidekick, there are a lot of people insulting and pouring scorn on it and I have yet to see a single person adequately explain why it wouldn't work.
Friction? INadequate torque? Im scientifically useless but that sounds like a load of crap to me. I would have said that if a machine could be made that produced more power than it took to function then it could be refined enough to make friction irrelevant.
If I were to take a pure guess it would be that the force needed to open the trap door with the weight of water would be equivalent or greater than the lift provided by the balls in the water.
Friction? INadequate torque? Im scientifically useless but that sounds like a load of crap to me. I would have said that if a machine could be made that produced more power than it took to function then it could be refined enough to make friction irrelevant.
If I were to take a pure guess it would be that the force needed to open the trap door with the weight of water would be equivalent or greater than the lift provided by the balls in the water.
mattnunn said:
rohrl said:
The energy required to generate temperatures lower than deep space of course mean that it won't really be perpetual motion of course but it'd certainly look that way.
Why waste the energy?2. Upload to Youtube.
3. ????
4. Profit
rohrl said:
mattnunn said:
rohrl said:
The energy required to generate temperatures lower than deep space of course mean that it won't really be perpetual motion of course but it'd certainly look that way.
Why waste the energy?2. Upload to Youtube.
3. ????
4. Profit
Odie said:
wouldnt you need balls the size of say the millenium dome in order to produce the torque to turn a car alternator...
Doesnt matter though. THe whole point of these sort of fantasies is whether it is scientifically possible, not how big the balls are in the set-up.THere is a base assumption that perpetual motion = unlimited power = completely impossible according to all current scientific understanding.
blindswelledrat said:
THe whole point of these sort of fantasies is whether it is scientifically possible, not how big the balls are in the set-up.
I began watching the video I'm on about with a scientific curiosity and a null hypothesis, but if you watch the video you'll realise just how wrong you are with that statement.I fear physics may not be your friend here.
The forces to be overcome would be:
Magnetic resistance from the generator, and friction from any of the wheels and turny things invovled.
Friction on the pulleys in the system.
Would air provide sufficient lift in water to overcome the friction (bearing in mind..ahem...the larger your balls, the larger the pulley system and the larger the force needed to turn it)? Answer - probably not.
So we need to start thinking about lighter than air gasses. the problem with this is that it introduces the problem of any balls outside of the cylinder now providing lift rather than being neutral (or the negligible weight of whatever the balls skin is made from acting as an accelerator).
In that one from 1925, if you need a ball heavy enough to turn the mechanism, you need a very strong vacuum pump to get them up the tube. (Presumably this is what is run by the machine). How would you get the ball out without breaking the vacuum and comprimising efficiency?
The forces to be overcome would be:
Magnetic resistance from the generator, and friction from any of the wheels and turny things invovled.
Friction on the pulleys in the system.
Would air provide sufficient lift in water to overcome the friction (bearing in mind..ahem...the larger your balls, the larger the pulley system and the larger the force needed to turn it)? Answer - probably not.
So we need to start thinking about lighter than air gasses. the problem with this is that it introduces the problem of any balls outside of the cylinder now providing lift rather than being neutral (or the negligible weight of whatever the balls skin is made from acting as an accelerator).
In that one from 1925, if you need a ball heavy enough to turn the mechanism, you need a very strong vacuum pump to get them up the tube. (Presumably this is what is run by the machine). How would you get the ball out without breaking the vacuum and comprimising efficiency?
sidekickdmr said:
RobCrezz said:
How is the water moving? A river?
Its not, the air filled balls float, so they will try and rush to the top of the water!No moving water needed
blindswelledrat said:
To be fair to sidekick, there are a lot of people insulting and pouring scorn on it and I have yet to see a single person adequately explain why it wouldn't work.
Friction? INadequate torque? Im scientifically useless but that sounds like a load of crap to me. I would have said that if a machine could be made that produced more power than it took to function then it could be refined enough to make friction irrelevant.
If I were to take a pure guess it would be that the force needed to open the trap door with the weight of water would be equivalent or greater than the lift provided by the balls in the water.
Super Slow Mo said it and as did youFriction? INadequate torque? Im scientifically useless but that sounds like a load of crap to me. I would have said that if a machine could be made that produced more power than it took to function then it could be refined enough to make friction irrelevant.
If I were to take a pure guess it would be that the force needed to open the trap door with the weight of water would be equivalent or greater than the lift provided by the balls in the water.
Super Slo Mo said:
The friction won't help, but the overriding factor is going to be the force needed to push the water out of the way at the bottom, to lift the trapdoor.
The force to open a trap door or whatever to push the water out of the way would be greater than the force from the lift of the balls.You also have to consider that a system such as that posted by the OP contravenes the first law of Thermodynamics, which I know is very dull and techy, but unfortunately, that's just the way it is.
To paraphrase, 'energy cannot be created or destroyed', therefore from that we can deduce that, in this particular set of circumstances where we're not adding energy to the system, it will not work. Friction in the bearings,friction in the generator, plus the induction forces generated inside the generator all require a positive energy input just to remain turning at constant speed. There's no energy being put into the system externally so it will fail.
That's it. There's no secret to it, it's fundamental physics. I'd suggest googling the laws of thermodynamics, but it very quickly gets difficult to understand if you haven't got a background in it to begin with, as the actual laws are not written in laymen's terms.
To paraphrase, 'energy cannot be created or destroyed', therefore from that we can deduce that, in this particular set of circumstances where we're not adding energy to the system, it will not work. Friction in the bearings,friction in the generator, plus the induction forces generated inside the generator all require a positive energy input just to remain turning at constant speed. There's no energy being put into the system externally so it will fail.
That's it. There's no secret to it, it's fundamental physics. I'd suggest googling the laws of thermodynamics, but it very quickly gets difficult to understand if you haven't got a background in it to begin with, as the actual laws are not written in laymen's terms.
Inserting the ball at the bottom of the tank would mean displacing the ball's volume in water. The energy required to raise the water level in the tank would be the same as the energy provide by the ball pulling the rope to the surface. It's just another perpetual motion machine (which won't work in a world with friction) attached to a generator (a ploy which wouldn't work even in a world without friction).
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff