/sci/ - Science & Math

>>1120812

Yeah.


No.

Evaporation all up in that bitch.

Eh. Osmosis would be better, albeit not as fast as siphoning.

You're all just mad because my design is flawless

anyone actually know why this wont work?

im guessing its down to a lack of understanding of capillary action

>>1120812
Capillary doesnt work that way.
The water wouldnt be able to go all the way up the tubes.

i guess you cant make water flow out of a tube with capillary force, because the energy it gets to travel up to that point comes from the benefit in energy that it gets due to less surface tension. So the water cant just flow out because it would need more energy to reform and build up its surface tension.

>>1120877
pretty much what would happen.

>>1120877
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capilary_action

>>1120884
no. because its capillary force, not the difference in pressure.
>>1120873
is the man

from what I understand it happens because there is more atmospheric pressure on the larger open surface than what comes down the capillary tubes.

I dont know why setting up a whole system/network of these up a "tower" wouldn't work, but I know nothing of the effect.

pressure...
this will never work sorry to disappoint you

>>1120900
nab. you can get water to travel as high as you want just by making the tube thinner... the problem is water cant flow out again

You'll put in a certain amount of energy and lose it spinning the turbine. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine. It eventually will run out of energy.

"In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -Homer Simpson

>>1120908
...unless you used some of that electricity to open a valve the water flows out of. NOT that I'm saying this would work, it's still fucking retarded.

>>1120908
try it with a glass of water and a straw... just would not work
to make the water climb up the straw you need low pressure at the straw end

this won't work pressure is equal at all ends in OP's pic

Build this one first, let me know how that works out for you.

>>1120932
You mean a siphon?

>>1120932
You could put this at the beach and you would drain the oceans dry!

>>1120939
You could
very slowly...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z6UJbwxBZI#t=1m28s

what could be done to reduce the viscosity of liquids at 'room temperature?

but now when i think about it if you use supercooled liquid it can climb obsticles with no friction and it still weighs so that it can turn even a small electrotorbine but i can't figure out a way to make it go just the direction you want.. super fluids are hard to control

guys guys

could we make this thing work...with magnets?

>>1120938

Siphons move water down, not up. Durr.

>>1120938
No, a siphon would have the spout end at a lower level than the surface level of the reservior, so that the difference in potential energy is used to draw water up the short end.

Problem /sci/ ?

>>1120982
Why would there be a problem?

>>1120985
Because this

>>1120982
but it won't work the other way around :)

>>1120996
And how would you get the water to leave the tissue?

>>1121016
Gravity.
The lip of the spout slopes down slightly.

>>1120996
that will only work until the tissue paper becomes saturated

>>1121020
wouldn't work, nice mspaint drawing

no really

viscosity reduction at warmer temperatures

how about it?

its not going to work man sorry :( back to the drawing board good luck.

>>1121023
And why not?
Water would osmose up through the tissue paper.
Then it would osmose onto the tissue paper on the spout, then gravity would pull it down and it would turn the turbine.

>>1121026
Then you've supplied energy

Way to go OP. Now all of the oil companies are going to kill you for posting this.

Enjoy the next 24 hours, they'll be your last.

it's not perpetual, because you keep putting energy into it.
gravity is energy, dumbfuck.

>>1120996
osmosis works just becouse pressure is low inside the tissue paper
that's why the water will never flow out of it like this gravity will make it flow but only at the other end :)

>>1121034

Osmosis holds the water up against gravity. If it didn't, the water wouldn't get pulled up in the first place.

>>1121040
Energy which would only be needed to start the device, after which it can be gained from the device.
Or by a Peltier

>>1120812
Its basically this.

The first and second law of thermodynamics, learn them.

>>1120975
YES

>>1121053
If the device was tall enough, it would be significantly cooler at the top, reducing surface tension enough to allow gravity to take the water back, droplets at a time?
enough droplets could soon become a flood.

>>1121005

I kinda like this one, but the siphon would have to be at least as small as the capillary tube, or else it would never reach the water. Capillary effect keeps the water in the siphon, same problem.

>>1121034
That's nice and all, but assuming it works the tissue paper would become saturated.

>>1121075
And so gravity would pull the water from it making it not 100% saturated.

I simplified your design for you OP.

>>1120957
>>1121026
VISCOSITY REDUCTION mother fuckers can you read?

>>1121077

Your version of gravity is conveniently selective.

>>1121094
Just use the generated energy to power a gravity reduction/amplification device.

>>1121077
And the force of osmosis would not overcome gravity.

You would need to run the device in on/off cycles.

For example, when the paper is saturated it causes an automatic shutoff (mechanically from it's weight possibly) and the water in the tube is allowed to evaporate. Then when the weight returns to a specified lower amount, it starts the cycle again.

Though this is all impractical bullshit anyway.

sorry about that op i didint realize what it did exactly try it and see what happens :-)

Why don't you just spin a wheel in an area without gravity and in a complete vacuum, then attach a frictionless dynamo to it?

>>1121093
We can already derive energy from a difference in temperature, and in a closed system the temperature difference would eventually be reduced to zero. Though if you were to use STRATEGICALLY PLACED MAGNETS that would be a different story altogether.

>>1121117
There is nothing you cannot do with a frictionless dynamo and a gearbox.

>>1121117
or just spin a magnet in zero g with wires wrapped around it

>>1121117
you cant when magnets move pass copper to generate electricity it will slow down the device its on. Google the law of electromagnetic induction

>>1121117
yeah i like that :)
it would be even better if you attach a dynamo with a negative friction so that the wheel will go faster and faster and produce more and more power
yes yes you're a genious :D
with all the power we get will build robots and take over the world buhahaha :D

>>1121137
im talking about using a specialized liquid perhaps in a slight vacuum

describe/draw your strategically placed magnets

>>1121026
Then you have to maintain a difference in temperature and you would get energy out in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics.

>>1120809

"w" + "c" - "c" + "w" + "n" - "n" + "w" + "g" - "g" + "." + "h" - "h" + "a" + "v" - "v" + "n" + "o" - "o" + "o" + "x" - "x" + "n" + "c" - "c" + "t" + "v" - "v" + "a" + "a" - "a" + "l" + "i" - "i" + "k" + "k" - "k" + "." + "b" - "b" + "s" + "m" - "m" + "e" + "v" - "v"

MATH
2+2=4
4=4
perpetual energy
4=∞ error error does not compute,
Is why it wont work,
its going to make a couple of circuits then stop.

>>1121167

If the viscosity is constant, nothing changes. If it is variable, you're most likely putting energy into it.

lower viscosity liquids and a capillary action

what. would. happen?

>>1121207
i know how you feel..

>>1121117 you cant place it in a frictionless dynamo to generate power, google the law of electromagnetic induction.

>>1120810

"w" + "b" - "b" + "w" + "t" - "t" + "w" + "i" - "i" + "." + "p" - "p" + "a" + "a" - "a" + "n" + "t" - "t" + "o" + "m" - "m" + "n" + "t" - "t" + "t" + "v" - "v" + "a" + "k" - "k" + "l" + "t" - "t" + "k" + "r" - "r" + "." + "y" - "y" + "s" + "d" - "d" + "e" + "i" - "i"

>>1121167
magnets.

>>1121237
you do realize that water is repelled by magnets right?

>>1121207
ultra low viscosity fluids don't exhibit capillary action.

>>1120810

"w" + "u" - "u" + "w" + "q" - "q" + "w" + "f" - "f" + "." + "r" - "r" + "a" + "k" - "k" + "n" + "t" - "t" + "o" + "s" - "s" + "n" + "x" - "x" + "t" + "d" - "d" + "a" + "h" - "h" + "l" + "o" - "o" + "k" + "p" - "p" + "." + "l" - "l" + "s" + "u" - "u" + "e" + "m" - "m"

>>1121261
Obviously i still have to work out where these strategic locations are. That's why i need moar funding. Durr.

>>1121302
Hey. Nobody asked you.

>>1121302
go on i wan to hear the whole story

>>1121276
wikipedia
>Thus for a 2 m (6.6 ft) diameter tube, the water would rise an unnoticeable 0.014 mm (0.00055 in). However, for a 2 cm (0.79 in) diameter tube, the water would rise 1.4 mm (0.055 in), and for a 0.2 mm (0.0079 in) diameter tube, the water would rise 140 mm (5.5 in)

use a .2 mm tube 100 mm high
repeat
???????
profit

you can all suck my nobel prize winning balls

>>1121344
fucking bump

what happens at the top of a short capillary action thin tube? does it spill out?

don't make me make another thread

>>1121087
That would cause water spillage

>>1120810

"w" + "n" - "n" + "w" + "t" - "t" + "w" + "n" - "n" + "." + "q" - "q" + "a" + "f" - "f" + "n" + "y" - "y" + "o" + "d" - "d" + "n" + "a" - "a" + "t" + "t" - "t" + "a" + "k" - "k" + "l" + "f" - "f" + "k" + "y" - "y" + "." + "i" - "i" + "s" + "o" - "o" + "e" + "m" - "m"

>>1120809

"w" + "j" - "j" + "w" + "o" - "o" + "w" + "q" - "q" + "." + "o" - "o" + "a" + "c" - "c" + "n" + "t" - "t" + "o" + "q" - "q" + "n" + "d" - "d" + "t" + "y" - "y" + "a" + "q" - "q" + "l" + "q" - "q" + "k" + "l" - "l" + "." + "k" - "k" + "s" + "l" - "l" + "e" + "l" - "l"

Would this work with superfluids?

the water would just stop at the top of the tube. it wont go out because theres nothing were water molecules can hold on to.

You do realize that capillary actions works in tubes that are really, REALLY small, right? Like 1 mm.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm#capillary1

What if we don't use capillary action?

>>1121929
The water would level off.

>>1121929
That one is pretty obvious; the water flows through the tube until the water levels are equalized.

>>1121929

What about zero gravity and evaporation due to solar heat? Could you drive a turbine with that type of mechanism in space?

but what if
>>1121711
>>1121711
>>1121711
>>1121711
>>1121711
>>1121711
>>1121711
>>1121711
>>1121711
>>1121711
>>1121711
>>1121711
>>1121711
>>1121711
>>1121711
>>1121711
>>1121711

>>1121993
evaporation only happens because of gravity

>>1120812
>perpetual motion

STOPPED READING,
LET ME GUESS YOU ARE A 12 YEAR OLD WITH ASPIRATIONS OF BEING A FAGGOT (ENGINEER)

>>1121997
>evaporation only happens because of gravity

>evaporation

Anyway condensation can be managed by organized tubes.

>>1122001
>Implying that all scientists weren't faggots with seemingly stupid aspirations

>>1122053
>

also you don't know shit about scientists.

What about

>>1120811

"w" + "v" - "v" + "w" + "d" - "d" + "w" + "h" - "h" + "." + "q" - "q" + "a" + "k" - "k" + "n" + "y" - "y" + "o" + "v" - "v" + "n" + "e" - "e" + "t" + "u" - "u" + "a" + "h" - "h" + "l" + "t" - "t" + "k" + "v" - "v" + "." + "g" - "g" + "s" + "j" - "j" + "e" + "d" - "d"

>>1122101
It would level off.

>>1120812

it will not work. the water in capillary tube will rise to the level which is touching 360 of that tube. thus water will stationary and below the level of spill-way. water will never flow out from that capillary tube (both of them).

Would would happen if these designs used super liquids?

GODDAMN THIS MOTHERFUCKING PLACE

I'M GONNA GO FUCK MYSELF TO DEATH

>>1120809

"w" + "m" - "m" + "w" + "y" - "y" + "w" + "z" - "z" + "." + "b" - "b" + "a" + "t" - "t" + "n" + "q" - "q" + "o" + "t" - "t" + "n" + "y" - "y" + "t" + "j" - "j" + "a" + "e" - "e" + "l" + "v" - "v" + "k" + "v" - "v" + "." + "q" - "q" + "s" + "x" - "x" + "e" + "u" - "u"

OP design isin't optimal, for it could use a second turbine on the left and double the energy throughput!

>>1122366
Fund it!

>>1122448
I have a grant from the Herpaderp foundation.

>>1120811

"w" + "t" - "t" + "w" + "r" - "r" + "w" + "u" - "u" + "." + "k" - "k" + "a" + "k" - "k" + "n" + "e" - "e" + "o" + "t" - "t" + "n" + "r" - "r" + "t" + "g" - "g" + "a" + "z" - "z" + "l" + "d" - "d" + "k" + "y" - "y" + "." + "z" - "z" + "s" + "h" - "h" + "e" + "d" - "d"

Hey guys, I built a perpetual motion machine. It will spin and generate a magnetic field for all time, unless it is destroyed manually.

What do you think?

>>1120812
>>1122101
>>1122101
>>1122101
>>1122101

>>1122512
Hey guy, I built on your design for a perpetual motion machine. It will make energy for all time, unless it is destroyed manually.

What do you think?

>>1120810

"w" + "x" - "x" + "w" + "y" - "y" + "w" + "r" - "r" + "." + "l" - "l" + "a" + "r" - "r" + "n" + "k" - "k" + "o" + "s" - "s" + "n" + "l" - "l" + "t" + "x" - "x" + "a" + "c" - "c" + "l" + "d" - "d" + "k" + "x" - "x" + "." + "x" - "x" + "s" + "u" - "u" + "e" + "y" - "y"

>>1122512
Not perpetual motion.

Check this out, guys:
>>1122428

>>1122593
We are all gonna die!

>>1122512
you know that earth rotation is constantly slowing down
that's why every 4 years we have an extra day

many years from now the tidal lock of the sun will make earth constantly faceing the sun with one side.. just like the moon is tidal locked to the earth

you heard the dark side of the moon and the terminator line right? :)

>>1122607
>you know that earth rotation is constantly slowing down
that's why every 4 years we have an extra day
WTFamIreading.jpg

>>1122607
>you know that earth rotation is constantly slowing down
>that's why every 4 years we have an extra day
WTFamIreading.jpg

>>1122607
>Implying we have an extra day every 4 years because of slowing down rotation.
What.

ITT: HERPDERP HERPAHERPDERPDERPDERP DERPDERP HERPADERP

>>1122036
>Organized tubes
Put water in the internet and everything will be fine.

>>1122632
>>1122629
well ok it's mainly because one revolution around the sun is a little bit more than 365 days but still eventually we'll have to add more days to february:)

lol actually not more days but more hours on our clocks
failed :>

>>1122607
A year is 365 days, the actual orbit takes 365.25 days.
Hence why every four years (.25x4 = 1) we whack an extra day on.

>>1122689
Actually it's 365.2500*01
This explains global warming.

NO!

and if there are more hours due to slowing then the days should be less not more

shit.. my head is a mess right now have to feed and sleep :>

>>1120811

"w" + "x" - "x" + "w" + "v" - "v" + "w" + "t" - "t" + "." + "c" - "c" + "a" + "b" - "b" + "n" + "s" - "s" + "o" + "j" - "j" + "n" + "n" - "n" + "t" + "s" - "s" + "a" + "z" - "z" + "l" + "b" - "b" + "k" + "z" - "z" + "." + "m" - "m" + "s" + "z" - "z" + "e" + "y" - "y"

>>1122629
>>1122632
the earth's spin is actually slowing down, just at a very very very very slow rate

its the drag of the moon

>>1122949
>and if there are more hours due to slowing then the days should be less not more

if there are more hours due to slowing there should be MORE days, since more hours would eventually become days. Although the logic of the rest of your statement is questionable.

>>1123044
a day means the time between 2 consecutive sunsets
so there would be less days till the tidal effect actually makes the earth constantly facing the sun with one side and the other side in constant darkness, then there will be no days or nights..

Suddenly you realize a helium superfluid could actually do what the OP shows.

>>1123159
suddenly you realize that you don't know shit about superfluids

>gentlemen, I've come up with a design for a perpetual motion machine.
>design for a perpetual motion machine
>perpetual motion machine

GET OUT.

>>1120812
It require energy to climb up, and without any influences from the outside world the water would eventually freeze.


I think... Correct me if im wrong here

For all the effort you put into perpetual motion machines, you could be running in hamster wheels and generating energy.

I'm 100% serious. I don't see why people don't do this. Everyone's constantly running around to stay fit - hell, if you're using a treadmill, you can use a hamster wheel. Every gym contraption should be able to generate energy as well.

You want perpetual motion? Life is already perpetual motion.

>>1123826

Jesus fucking christ, he's right.

We could breed slaves to run in hamster wheels. Hell, we don't need to breed them, there's already a huge excess out there, you'd just need to enslave them.

>>1123826
Yeah, isn't the universe perpetual motion? What with the whole stars exploding then making new stars etc
Isn't energy perpetual motion because it can never truly be destroyed?
Or will all energy eventually fuck off into space and we'll need to find a new dimension? Will we eventually lose all our energy as it's converted into light or radiation?

>>1123913
There's a very small chance that the universe is perpetual motion.
Either there's too much gravity and we collapse into a singularity and start again.
Or there's not enough and eventually we float far too far away and eventually the universe is one large dust cloud.

>>1123913

All I'm saying is that people are trying to 'hack the system' instead of taking things one step at a time. I'd say - for every minute you spend thinking about perpetual motion machines, you should do five minutes of some manual labor that would otherwise require energy. All the hurry we're in is self inflicted because we're soon to outgrow/destroy this planet.

>>1123918
Yeah but wont gravity very gentle gravity take billions of years to start clustering up these dust particles? How everything has a mass and so a gravity in deep space and can attract other things etc

And I think we need to stop fretting over perpetual motion machines and look at how matter and energy and interchangeable and are perpetual in themselves which is just fucking awesome because you can nvr destroy energy which means 1/0.

>>1123949

Which was coincidentally exactly what Tesla was obsessed about - and he really was keen on the whole energy-from-the-aether thing. If anyone's authority to speak on this (We know /sci/ is just crazy about peer review and authority because in their minds, their father's penis is still lodged deeply in their anus), it would be Tesla.

>>1121047
>implying gravity isn't a force.

Perpetual motion? Come ride my dick bitch.

>>1124214
I'm not gay bros