/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5247371]

would an upscaled version of this perpetual motion toy work? its called a "V-gate magnetic generator". now i understand its not true perpetual motion (nothing really is) but at the very least would a larger version be able to power a turbine for a while before parts need replacing?

here's a video of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bssBAb6EzM4

[Anonymous No.5247373]

some more info on it.

replications of this device work so the original video is not a hoax.

http://pesn.com/2010/12/27/9501745_Roober33_V-gate_magnet_motor_for_real/

[Anonymous No.5247386]

>>5247371
the maximum energy you could harvest from this is the kinetical energy of the wheel, right?
And where does that kinetical energy com from? From a potential energy.
To build the device, you had to give that potential energy. (to get the magnets closer, for example)
And the energy of the wheel is only used to keep it spinning. If you take anything from it, it will be spinning slower than it is.
So basically, in the best case where you can convert energy with a 100% efficiency, you get back the energy you spent.

[Anonymous No.5247390]

>>5247389
source?

[Anonymous No.5247389]

>>5247386
but it can power lights.. there are videos with them extracting energy form it continuously

[Anonymous No.5247398]

>>5247389
I don't need a source, I know it's fake.

[Anonymous No.5247420]

>>5247386
Did you even watch the video? It visibly sped up from a stand-still (Of course, that energy to start it off could of just been the gravitational potential energy that was stored when it was kept as is. However, it did speed up beyond from when the potential energy was show.) which shows that it is putting out more then it takes to rotate the wheel.

It's not much at all, but it does put out more then it uses.

More powerful magnets and a refined design could give interesting results, but I'm not holding my breath on it.

[Anonymous No.5247424]

notice the white hand?
lol what is it with white peopel trying to still figure out that perpetual motion doesnt work?
well it probably is teh same hurr durr reason they still belive in race aand hate mexicans and chinese people

[Anonymous No.5247427]

>>5247420
>It's not much at all, but it does put out more then it uses.
I can handle people being ignorant of basic physics. What I can't handle are people who are ignorant of basic physics and yet enter a conversation as if they do.

[Anonymous No.5247430]

this thread gave me cancer

[Anonymous No.5247432]

>>5247420
>It's not much at all, but it does put out more then it uses.
I can handle people being ignorant of basic physics. What I can't handle are people who are ignorant of basic physics and yet enter a conversation as if they actually know what the hell they're talking about.
You clearly don't.

[Anonymous No.5247433]

>>5247427
Well, explain where you're coming from. I'm not ignorant, I may be wrong here (Oh no!), in which case I'm asking you to further explain how I am.

[Anonymous No.5247434]

>>5247433
/b/ pls go

>>>/b/

[Anonymous No.5247437]

>>5247434
>You're wrong!
>No, I won't explain why!

[Anonymous No.5247448]

I see lots of magnets conserving a lot of energy as this thing spins. I do not see this thing viably generating electricity.

[Anonymous No.5247449]

>>5247398
> don't give me evidence, i'm blindly believing anything that makes me feel safe

[Anonymous No.5247459]

>>5247449
>>5247437
>>5247433

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

And just for you

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

[Anonymous No.5247525]

>>5247459
Well for a start, linking a Wikipedia article isn't an explanation. Not to mention that if this is a perpetual motion machine, it invalidates the laws, meaning that instead of saying that the laws say that it can not exist and therefore it's wrong, we need to change the laws.
(Or we could just throw the scientific method out the window and call it a day.)

I also didn't display the Dunning-Kruger effect. Arguably, >>5247449 did, but I'm not him.

Can I have a proper explanation please?

[Anonymous No.5247527]

>>5247525
>Well for a start, linking a Wikipedia article isn't an explanation
Yes it is, begone troll

[Anonymous No.5247544]

>>5247525
Or it's just youwho are too retarded to comprehend the difference between a magical device that create energy out of thin air, and a device that uses earths two permanent forces to leapfrog them together and generate the energy that is already out there.
As far as OP's video goes, yes it's possible to generate light from it, but it will be far too poor to subserve the cost of the device. Do you know how fast a dynamo has to turn just to even light up a small LED ? You need a 5 times bigger replica of that device to light up an average desklamp. And the magnet cost will be something close to 30 average desklamps. People would already build things like these if they were efficient.
TLDR : Yes it's possible, but it doesn't worth it.

[Anonymous No.5247551]

>>5247371
>would an upscaled version of this perpetual motion toy work?
>perpetual motion
No.

[Anonymous No.5247554]

the energy comes from the magnets. eventually the magnets will lose their magnetism and the machine will stop working.

or: what is entrophy

[Anonymous No.5247561]

>>5247525
>>5247525
article from other site than Wikipedia would be too complicated to you i guess..

[Anonymous No.5247566]

>>5247371
>this perpetual motion toy work?
Gonna need citation, of course.

[Anonymous No.5247570]

This is the science and math board. Subhuman crank perpetual motion anti-science nonsense belongs on >>>/x/.

[Anonymous No.5247580]

>>5247570
> magnets are paranormal

[Anonymous No.5247587]

>>5247580
The electromagnetic field is conservative. You do not get perpetual motion from magnets.

[Anonymous No.5247588]

>>5247525
>Not to mention that if this is a perpetual motion machine
But it's not.
Conservation of energy in classical mechanics can be demonstrated, it's not an experimental principle.
It works as long as the field generated by magnets is constant.
Verifying that the field generated by a magnet is unvarying is not hard. I've done it, hundreds of thousands of people have done it.

[Anonymous No.5247592]

>>5247587
And the video is just CGI right ?

[Anonymous No.5247594]

>>5247592
So help me here, when you watch a magic show on TV, you believe those guys can really make people levitate or cut a woman in hald and then put her back together?

[Anonymous No.5247595]

>>5247592
You realize it will not spin forever? And that you have resistance from the air and on the bearing? You gain finite potential energy from the arrangement of the magnets. It costs work to arrange the magnets in such a configuration, and to initially spin the device. It does not produce energy. No free lunch.

[Anonymous No.5247596]

>"On Nov. 18, Roobert wrote to Stefan Hartmann at Overunity.com saying: "Yes, It was a joke that I should not do! I apologize to you and all your friends who have lost time in commenting on .... The device had to operate the magnet inside a coil that I had in my shirt."
Bad troll fuck off.

[Anonymous No.5247602]

>still responding to this spastic
>2011+1

[Anonymous No.5247603]

>>5247592

You're missing the meaning of "perpetual motion." A perpetual motion machine would be able to generate energy from a small motion forever.

What you have here is very well-conserved motion. The acceleration you see is coming from the fact that the magnets provide constant magnetic fields. It certainly doesn't get faster as the video comes on.

[Anonymous No.5247605]

>>5247588
if you know some physics then why are you here?
If the force exerted by the magnets on each other derives from a potential, then it can reach an equilibriuum, which means no perpetual motion.
If not, there is no conservation of energy, which also means no perpetual motion because of the losses.
now go away;

[Anonymous No.5247606]

>>5247594
> hurrr what is testable, observable experiment
Retard of the day
>>5247595
> ofcourse, but magnets don't wear out in an hour, or days, or months. We had this thread before so I know that there is no research on how fast they lose their magnetic alignment. Did you think perpetual energy meant infinite energy or something ?

[Anonymous No.5247610]

>>5247594
> hurrr what is testable, observable experiment
Retard of the day
>>5247595
> ofcourse, but magnets don't wear out in an hour, or days, or months. We had this thread before so I know that there is no research on how fast they lose their magnetic alignment. Did you think perpetual energy meant infinite energy or something ?

[Anonymous No.5247615]

>>5247594
> hurrr what is testable, observable experiment
Retard of the day
>>5247595
Ofcourse, but magnets don't wear out in an hour, or days, or months. We had this thread before so I know that there is no research on how fast they lose their magnetic alignment. Did you think perpetual energy meant infinite energy or something ?

[Anonymous No.5247617]

>>5247606
That's just wrong. It has absolutely nothing to do with "magnetic alignment". Have you even taken a high school physics course? The energy is stored INSIDE the magnetic field, not the magnet itself. It is the separation of the magnets which gives you the potential energy.

[Anonymous No.5247622]

>>5247605
I don't get your point.
Any unvarying electromagnetic field is conservative.
It's not hard to verify by measuring the magnetic field of a magnet that it is conservative.

[Anonymous No.5247620]

This device is definitely not a motor, since you can't harvest energy from it without slowing it down. You can watch it work alone for a long time (and even like this it will eventually stop) but as soon as use as a generator it will quite quickly. Doing this is actually less efficient than simply pushing a generator like he pushed the device.

[Anonymous No.5247623]

>>5247615
>watching a youtube video is an experiment
woaw good thinking dumbass

[Anonymous No.5247625]

>>5247620
>as soon as use as a generator it will quite quickly

sorry I meant:
as soon as you use it as a generator it will stop quite quickly

[Anonymous No.5247627]

>>5247620
>You can watch it work alone for a long time
The only reason is the guy was making it spin with a coil under his shirt. He said it.

[Anonymous No.5247630]

>>5247623
It shows you how to do it with full instructions. Where you can actually experiment yourself to see if it works or not.
Does your mommy spoon feeds you ? Or dresses you up to school ? Because you sound like someone who never had any challenge in your life, and everything you wanted was put infront of you.

[Anonymous No.5247636]

>>5247630
Trolling is forbidden on this board.

[Anonymous No.5247640]

>>5247636
You seem hurt. It seems I was right.

[Anonymous No.5247644]

>>5247640
>baby's first provocation.

[Anonymous No.5247654]

>>5247527
>Yes it is
No it isn't, you're getting words mixed up.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanation
>"An explanation is a set of statements constructed to describe a set of facts which clarifies the causes, context, and consequences of those facts."

You simply posted links, which while they can be helpful, it is by no definition an explanation.

>>5247544
>device that uses earths two permanent forces to leapfrog them together and generate the energy that is already out there.
You say the energy is already out there (Which of course it is to an extent.), but the energy that the wheel utilizes is converted from the two magnetic fields contained within the device repelling each other.

An isolated system is:
>"In the natural sciences an isolated system is a physical system without any external exchange – neither matter nor energy can enter or exit, but can only move around inside."
>"Truly isolated systems cannot exist in nature, other than possibly the universe itself, and they are thus hypothetical concepts only."
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system

Perpetual motion is:
>"Perpetual motion describes "motion that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy"
>"the motion of a hypothetical machine which, once activated, would run forever unless subject to an external force or to wear"
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

[Anonymous No.5247655]

>>5247654
Cont.

What we're talking about it:
>"Magnetic motor is a theoretical device capable of continuously converting the force of magnetic field into mechanical energy, often creating a torque. Under normal conditions the degradation of permanent magnets is very slow (on the order of approximately one percentage point every 10 years)[1] and magnetic motor is thus sometimes considered to be a perpetual motion device. Notable claims of magnetic motors include the so-called Perendev magnetic motor."
>Theoretical
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_motor

As far as I can see, this is a machine that would run forever ('till the magnets run out) within the (Relatively!) isolated system that it is in. While over time, the magnetic fields in the magnets would eventually wear out, it doesn't appear as if any energy/matter is removed from the system during that time, keeping it an (Relatively!) isolated system.

The cost of the magnets being more then the cost of the electricity produced is a nonsensical argument, we should be looking at how much energy is required to magnetize material, and if the machine would produce a net gain with the energy made. Of course, then you have to go through about a billion variables to see if that is correct.

[Anonymous No.5247664]

>While over time, the magnetic fields in the magnets would eventually wear out
I can never tell if the guys who come up with the explanation "it doesn't because magnets wear out' are trolling or simply ignorant.

[Anonymous No.5247670]

>>5247664
Can you please rephrase that? (If you want a reply, that is.)

As far as I can see, while magnetic force would be lost from the constant exposure of the opposite fields, there is no matter lost during the transition.

[Anonymous No.5247677]

>>5247670
Yes dipoles in a magnet can lost alignment with time, but it has nothing to do with classical ED, and is not the reason why magnetic motors don't work.

They don't work because the magnetic field created by a dipole is a conservative field.

[Anonymous No.5247678]

>>5247525 Not to mention that if this is a perpetual motion machine, it invalidates the laws,

You understand this.


>>5247525 meaning that instead of saying that the laws say that it can not exist and therefore it's wrong, we need to change the laws.

Absolutely. However, you better have some damn good evidence and a flawless experiment. One big problem is finding something that disagrees with thermodynamics will be like finding a sun that has no gravity. It's a safe bet to say the crackpot selling his machine is less likely to be correct than thermodynamics.

>>5247525 (Or we could just throw the scientific method out the window and call it a day.)

Confirmed for troll

[Anonymous No.5247683]

>>5247678
It's not even thermodynamics. All you need to have to show conservation of energy in classical eletrodynamics is
A. Newton's law (preeetty much flawless at macroscopic size/ low energy limit)
B. The shape of magnetic fields, so they can be expressed as deriving from a potential (pretty easy to verify too).
No element of those motors breaks any of those 2 laws, so the end result can't break conservation of energy.

[Anonymous No.5247690]

That bit where it kicks the attraction magnet out of the way would consume all the energy you've created from the rotation. You don't just pull magnets away from each other without using energy.

[Anonymous No.5247700]

>>5247655

You have some misunderstanding of energy and work.

The initial push of the rotor was an energy input into the system. The magnets in this case act are analogous to a spring. The initial energy input is just highly conserved but there is no excess energy being generated in the system.

[Anonymous No.5247721]

You ever just think that people who support these things just don't understand the difference between an object that spins freely and an objected grounded to something that takes effort to turn?

[Anonymous No.5247745]

>>5247677
Well I can't say I know enough about magnets to write a meaningful reply to your post.

Can you explain/give me another word for "Classical ED" so I can research that in time? A quick google search gave me nothing.

>>5247678
>Confirmed for troll
Ever heard of a joke?

I couldn't care less for the dick biting that goes on on this site, (Because it's childish, and ruins discussion.) I attempted to make a joke, but sarcasm falls flat on it's face through text.

>>5247700
While I understand where you are coming from, wouldn't the fact that this thing would continue until the magnets ran out, invalidate your point that there is no excess energy being generated? (Not to mention that it needs to over-come friction.)

Or am I missing something here?

[Anonymous No.5247747]

The question here is not if this device can support itself to turn on its own without external power. The question is how long does it take the magnets to lose their magnetic property. Which will also answer if it's beneficial to build this or not.

[Anonymous No.5247755]

I really wish these foil-hatters would start calling them ultra-high efficiency machines rather than perpetual motion.

[Anonymous No.5247754]

>>5247745
I meant electrodynamics (and should have meant electromagnetism).
Just look up conservative fields.

[Anonymous No.5247756]

>>5247754
though its worth noting that a changing magnetic field is not necessarily conservative.

[Anonymous No.5247760]

>>5247755
efficiency means there's a high ratio of extracted work to waste energy. There's no extracted work, so they're just low-loss machines, efficiency is meaningless in this context.

[Anonymous No.5247763]

>>5247760

Oh, right. Pardon me. :-)

[Anonymous No.5247765]

>>5247756
Well yeah, but a magnet generates a static MF.

[Anonymous No.5247768]

>>5247754
>>5247756
OK, thanks for that.

[Anonymous No.5247782]

>>5247765
but the machine moves the magnet with each cycle

[Anonymous No.5247790]

>>5247782
Making the problem more complex doesn't cause unexplained things to appear.
This device is equivalent to a fixed wheel with the metal bar turning around it.
In this case it's pretty obvious the magnetic field is not changing.

[Anonymous No.5247798]

>>5247790
except the magnetic field is still changing in that case, the magnets on the wheel are arranged in an angularlly dependent way. As the wheel rotates it does indeed change, and every cycle the bar is lifted and falls.

I'm not claiming energy conservation is broken, I'm just pointing out that you can use an E&M 101 approach to the problem. The magnetic field is not constant so you can't just say "lol magnetic fields do no work"

[Anonymous No.5247800]

>>5247798
You don't understand.
I'm saying make the same experiment with a fixed wheel and a rotating bar.

[Anonymous No.5247803]

>>5247800
And I'm saying it doesn't change the problem at all which reference frame you take.

[Anonymous No.5247815]

>>5247803
It does...
The field would be unvarying then.

Maybe you are missing something. When we say an unvarying field is conservative, we mean a field with no time dependence.

[Anonymous No.5247814]

>People are still dedicating their lives to this shit.

The humans susceptibility to deluding himself into thinking he's the only person smart enough to see what no-one else around him sees is quite amazing.

How's the alchemy going?

[Anonymous No.5247825]

>>5247815
the field produced by the wheel would be constant then, but not the field experienced by the bar, or experience by the wheel from the bar.

[Anonymous No.5247832]

>>5247825
You fail so hard at basic dynamics.

[Anonymous No.5247835]

>>5247832
No. The wheel is not angularlly constant, and the bar as to move radially up and down with each cycle. There's no way to reduce this to some statics problem.

[Anonymous No.5249368]

Alright, give us an analysis of the overall magnetic field and show mathematically how it can work.

Oh that's right, you can't do that. These free-energy people never use mathematics, they just talk in vague verbal terms.

[Anonymous No.5249420]

magnets lol

[None !KTptazBGsU No.5250043]

>>5247371
<span class="math">W=\int_{d=0}^{d=d_i}\sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty}(d_i-(d\mod d_i))\sin\theta\cos\theta\int_{x=\frac{\pi}{2}-\theta-\arccos(\frac{d_in}{\sqrt{d_i^2n^2+h^2}})}^{x=
\frac{\pi}{2}-\theta} \frac{\mu q_m_1 q_m_2}{4 \pi (\sin^2x+(d_in-d)^2\sin^2\theta+A(d)^2)}[/spoiler]

find a functon (design a 'cam') A(d) that returns an altitude whose work required (<span class="math">\int_{d=0}^{d=d_i}[/spoiler]) (after gravity, friction and <span class="math">\sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty}(d_i-(d\mod d_i))\sin\theta\cos\theta\int_{x=\frac{\pi}{2}-\theta-\arccos(\frac{d_in}{\sqrt{d_i^2n^2+h^2}})}^{x=
\frac{\pi}{2}-\theta} \frac{\mu q_m_1 q_m_2}{4 \pi (\sin^2x+(d_in-d)^2\sin^2\theta+A(d)^2)} [/spoiler] does not exceed W.

mu is permeability
qm1, qm2 are magnitude of magnets
theta is the incline of the row of magnets (positive)
di is the circumference of the magnet ring thing.

by virtue of <span class="math">x-(x+y)\leq 0[/spoiler] I don't see how this could work as anything other than a brake.

[None !KTptazBGsU No.5250061]

>>5250043

shit tier jsmath

<span class="math">\int_{d=0}^{d=d_i}\sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty}(d_i-(d(d/d_i-\lfloor d/d_1\rfloor)))\sin\theta\cos\theta\int_{x=\frac{\pi}{2}-\theta-\arccos(\frac{d_in}{\sqrt{d_i^2n^2+h
^2}})}^{x=\frac{\pi}{2}-\theta} \frac{\mu q_m_1 q_m_2}{4 \pi (\sin^2x+(d_in-d)^2\sin^2\theta+A(d)^2)}[/spoiler]

[None !KTptazBGsU No.5250070]

>>5250061
JESUS FUCKEN CHRIST

look at the goddamn pic

[Anonymous No.5250073]

>>5250043
>>5250061

Lol at over-unity deniers, can't even into jsmath, yet seek to set out what is possible and what is not.

[Anonymous No.5250100]

>>5250073
jsmath simply wants overunity to be true.

[Anonymous No.5250105]

Why do people always think scaling shit up will for some reason make it more efficient?

[Anonymous No.5250131]

>>5247814

You laugh at the futility of something seemingly impossible but because of alchemy came chemistry. Chemistry has been one of the main reasons why technology has advanced to where it is today.

[Anonymous No.5250147]

>>5250131
and pseudoscience shall stem from physiscs and forevermore change the wrold.

[Anonymous No.5250158]

Well I am too late to beat the shitfest but as others have pointed out this is not a perpetual motion machine, it is simply a low friction machine. It's a nifty toy and I congratulate him for a cool design but nothing to see here.

The energy of motion comes from two things: first there is stored potential energy in the top, mobile magnet that falls. Second look at the configuration of the magnets on the wheel and you will realize that the starting place of the wheel happens to be also the highest potential energy position of the system because the largest amount of wheel magnets are facing the mobile, top magnet. If he were to have rotated the wheel a little bit to the lowest magnetic potential energy position then the falling top magnet probably wouldn't have had enough energy to force it through a rotation.

Together these two effects account for all the increase in wheel speed. Note that the wheel speed stabilizes after about 2 full rotations. If it were a perpetual motion machine it would continue to generate energy in some form and the wheel would continue to speed up or heat up or something.

Finally we only get to see it rotate for about 1 minute which is not long enough. I am sure that if you left it going and came back the next day it would be slowed/stopped.

[Anonymous No.5250179]

perpetual motion: electrons orbiting a nucleus.

deal with it. perpetual motion exists. We just need better heads on the subject.

[Anonymous No.5250197]

>>5250179
what if the electron turns into a photon.

[Anonymous No.5250212]

>>5250197
what if we live in the matrix? a lot of what is but electrons forever spinning around a nucleus can be considered a perpetual motion machine.

[Anonymous No.5250224]

>>5250212
not really because there's only one electron and you don't know for how much longer it'll stick around, considering that it takes up so much time space that it's bound to run out before the predicted classical death of the universe.

[Anonymous No.5250228]

>>5250179
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
electrons don't "orbit" the nucleus, they just kind of exist as a big smudge in a weird shape near it, and they only move when they're hit with something

[Anonymous No.5250240]

>>5250179

>perpetual motion: electrons orbiting a nucleus.

what happens when we slow them down?

[Anonymous No.5250239]

>>5250228

ok, bad example. Earth spinning around the sun. perpetual motion.
Dealwithit.jpg

[Anonymous No.5250248]

>>5250179
Electrons are a stupid thing to use as an example.

Here's one:

The Earth orbiting the sun is an example of perpetual motion.

Alternatively, super conductors can be examples of perpetual motion.

What makes these things not perpetual motion is that you cannot obtain energy from them.

Which I think is inherently stupid, because the 'practicality' of a system should not change whether it can be considered something entirely unrelated.

[Anonymous No.5250251]

>>5250248
>The Earth orbiting the sun is an example of perpetual motion.

This is not an example of perpetual motion. The orbit is very very slowly decaying

[Anonymous No.5250256]

>>5250251
Classical orbits do not decay.

[Anonymous No.5250258]

>>5250256
yes they do, unless you mean classical as "without general relativity".

[Anonymous No.5250267]

EVERY MOTION IS PERPETUAL MOTION UNTIL COUNTERACTED. END OF TRANSMISSION.

[Anonymous No.5250271]

>this whole thread

[Anonymous No.5250283]

Magnets are weak