/sci/ - Science & Math

not bad

Beause explain how we make this special membrane "thing"

>>4400943
hehe. I draw stuff like this all the time even though I know they'd never work. The energy it takes to force it into the solution at the bottom would be greater than they amount produced from it floating to the top.

>>4400952
Even if you make the membrane, upon arriving on top, the object will have difficulty going from the less dense orange liquid into the more dense green one.

I've had a thought that proves energy an be made; When you stick an absorbent material in a stagnant body of water, the water climbs up this material. Thus the water has kinetic energy.

>>4400943
Plus the speed of which it floats would take 3 days to charge a phone battery.

The sealed container has two vertical tubes. The right one contains a liquid (cyan) such as water, and a very light ball (red), much lighter than the liquid.

Two "gates" G1 and G2 are made like iris diaphragms that can open and close quickly. They are, of course, watertight when closed.

Now we all know that when a light object, like a cork, is underwater, then released, it pops to the surface and can even pop above the surface. We take advantage of that fact. The machine is started with the ball at the bottom. As it rises, a high-tech sensor quickly opens gate G1 to let it through, closing the gate immediately, and then opening gate G2 in time for the ball to pass through.

Since one of the gates is closed at all times the water levels are maintained. The ball pops above the surface with some momentum, and the curved top of the apparatus deflects it to the other tube, where it falls, gaining speed and momentum in the fall, enough so that it goes under the liquid surface there and is bumped over into the right tube, where, of course, it begins to rise. This should go on forever, gaining speed each cycle.

>>4400959

The orange liquid is actually more dense, but you're right in principle

if its attached to a string, it will eventually come in the middle somewhere between the two liquids, because its kinetic energy will be trnasferred to the liquid particles(aka friction or viscosity) and eventually no kinetic shall be possesed by the mass on the string. similarly for a rod instead of a string, but this time the object will simply stop somewhere and then sink/float to the middle

also inb4 superfluids - the energy youd have to put in to keep the liquids cooled mean no 'infinite energiez!!!!!!'

>>4400968

Umm, that's called capillary action and it's very well understood. You can't create energy with it.

>>4400981
Yeah my bad... I always end up with a "minus" sign or a reversed inequality when I do things in my head.

>>4400952
I have a few ideas in mind. I won't draw them because they're too elaborate. But still, it shouldn't even matter. Stuff like that doesn't matter to the laws of physics.

>>4400959
why? wouldn't the velocity it obtains from accelerating in the liquid be enough to give it the push it needs to travel across to the other liquid?

>>4400957
but can't you fix this by increasing the size of the system, which would give it more room to accelerate and giving it more force to thrust through while keeping the force required to go through constant?

>>4400943
>mfw viscosity all the way

would it be possible to have a solution full of positive and negative particles, and apply a charge so that they go to seperate sides, and have each half be of different densities?

>>4401010
What a dumb and useless post.
Typical tripfag quality.

>>4401016
yup, just apply a non uniform electric field.

>>4401023
fuck you troll. If you don't know your shit, just get away.

>>4401016
what do positive and negative charges do? IF ONLY SCIENCE COULD ANSWER THIS QUESTION

>>4401025
I'm not OP, I just called you out for shitposting, tripfag.
Shut the fuck up.

>>4401010
Friction is never the only reason a perpetual motion machine doesn't work. If it ever were, we could take steps to reduce the friction in the design, and then we'd have free energy from nowhere. Try again.

>>4401026

>full of positive and negative particles, and apply a charge
>and apply a charge

or do you think a positive and negative particle that attract can never be overcome when a greater force is applied to seperate them?

>>4401040
it is a sufficient reason though. Unless I'm wrong, if there exists any friction, any hope of a conservation, let alone "creation" of energy is lost.

>>4401053

Friction only prevents something from perpetual motion. There is always another reason that the machine can't be overunity.

>>4401040
What? That's so wrong... You're mixing perpetual motion and getting energy from it. Friction is often the only thing that prevents perpetual motion from existing. But if you tend to a frictionless scenario, adding something that leeches energy from the system will stop your perpetual motion from being perpetual.

>>4401072
I should have said overunity rather than perpetual motion, but the point remains. This is an overunity ("infinite energiez!!!!!") device, and the reason it doesn't work isn't friction.

>>4401112
this is why I like /sci/

Okay, let me tell you why you're all fucking idiots and why perpetual motion can exist:

Physics say perpetual motion can't exist because energy likes flying away out of the atoms or something, I don't give a fuck, but that just means it can't exist FOREVER. What if we just create semi-perpetual motion machines? They would just need to last until the Universe freezes. It's possible. Free energy for everyone

Teacup/EK: 1
Stupid physisissts: -515616156r15154

>>4401112
Perpetual motion can't be proven because nobody lives forever to check that it's still moving. MIND=BLOWN.

>>4401117
I'm glad to make someone happy

>>4401129
The universe itself is perpetual motion

Teacup 29054259258
Physissistscsts -52628985109491569158

>>4401023
>Expecting anything useful from Psistar

>>4401112
Because any energy you extract from them was energy you had to have originally put in. For example, if you had a giant flywheel in space with, say, 10 gigajoules of kinetic energy, you would have to expend 10 gigajoules to spin it up, and by extracting that energy you slow and eventually stop it.

You can STORE energy with motion, you cannot CREATE energy.

>>4401117
a lot has changed since i last visited /sci/...

>BUT THE FLYWHEEL WOULDNT SLOW DOWN CAUSE ITS SPAAAAAAAAAAACE

Creationists: 10^10^10^10
Biologists: 19

>>4401159
AND WHAT AM I SAYING YOU STUPID APE
I'M JUST SAYING THAT IF WE TAKE OUT VERY LITTLE ENERGY WE CAN MAKE THE ENERGY BE STORED FOR THE REST OF THE TIME THE UNIVERSE EXISTS

OP is insult to SCIENCE. Get the fuck out, you retarded idiot.

>>4401112
because we dont have anything that contain energy that well

>>4401140
How do you know it's perpetual? Is you age INFINITY?

>>4401194
Put ions inside mason jars and store them inside the moon

>>4400943
Everyone shouts that OP is wrong and this is impossible/black magic. But in theory this is possible you just couldn't get any energy from it since it would stop as soon as you take away energy. But in real life there are more forces that will deny you such construct.

One of the best forms of seemingly unlimited energy is by harnessing the forces of gravity.
look into nasa's space tether.
Nasa used a copper tether attached to a orbiting space station to generate a lot of electricity, (copper rotating through earth's magnetic field) which created more than they calculated because the electricity, arc'd from the tether to the station, and ripped the tether. good bye 350 million dollar experiment.
:(

>>4401232
Well no one is denying you perpetual motion in a closed-system.

>>4401232
so make a really big one. Then you can get plenty of energy

infinite stupid

>>4400943
it would't work because although the system might stay in movement, it would not be creating energy because it would not be constantly accelerating. Instead, would, when entering a new liquid, accelerate, then once it reaches the middle of the liquid, decelerate, and repeat when it enters the next liquid (because of the fact that this is rotation and that you can think of this as a pendulum)

sorry if this makes no sense, I'll draw it if you need me to

>>4402331
actually, not really

>>4400943
let's say orange is mercury ( bricks float on it)
and green is water ( bricks GLU GLU to the bottom of it.
let's say you get to remove liquid friction and you can move your brick is moving in circle.
brick go from mercury to water(if they are at the same level you just need to push it over the border...it has enough speed :D) and fall down ( and you harvest energy...good!).
now your brick is still moving but is almost on the bottom of the water tank and you need to push it in the mercury. now if it go in the mercury it will rise up creating energy...but your membrane/door stuff need to push it in the mercury...and guess what? you need ton of energy thanks to pressure, because mercury develop 13 times the water pressure at the same depth and you have to win it. and here you lose all the energy. you can't ignore the pressure because is the same very force that allows your brick to floats on mercury.

you can harvest energy from:
radiation and waves, even sea waves.
Earth spinning momentum ( you need a very long pendulum or an object that go up and down from a big height).
if you move consistently across Earth magnetic field ( i guess idk how it works that part of physic...still studyng).
if you have two things at different temperature.
yes salt and other stuff that solve in water or something may create heat/require heat even if it isn't what we exaclty call chemical reaction.
but if you try to reverse the process it will give back/require the same amount of energy. just like anything else.

OP

Law of conservation of energy would directly contradict your proposition, energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transferred from one source to another

The only way for you to get energy from what you are proposing is a constant input of material or energy transferrance to keep everything going. If it was vertical, gravity would limit/stop it, if horizontal, it will eventually stop spinning unless a motor is used to move it via centrifuge.

>>4404058
not good enough for me, sorry