Help improve this perpetual motion machine!

[Speakpigeon]

Here is an opportunity for experienced engineers to put their technical expertise on display...

Thanks to physicists, metaphysicists, metaphysicians and other people without the relevant expertise to abstain from posting, although you're welcome to look and take notes. It's never too late to learn from those who know these things.

The rough sketch below explains a possible principle for a perpetual motion machine...

Perpetual motion machine

The magnet at the top pulls the metal ball up the ramp. When the ball gets at
the top of the ramp, it drops through to the hole and returns by the curved slope
to the bottom of the ramp, where it is again attracted up the ramp by the magnet.​

So, what improvements do you think would have to be made to improve the contraption to the extent that the ball would do at least a few cycles?

Please note that the general principle should not be affected by your improvements.

Thank you to limit yourself to three or four modifications at most.

Thank you also to explain the modifications you propose.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

Is this a joke or are you serious?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Is this a joke or are you serious?

???

Sorry, I'm not sure where could be the problem...

This is a straightforward technical question. I've given a realistic representation of the contraption. The design is a very simple. I think it wouldn't work as pictured but perhaps a small number of minor improvements would make it work, meaning for example at least ten of the expected cycles of the ball inside the contraption. I would assume that the MIT or NASA could make it go on for 10,000 cycles or more but I'm not asking for the Moon. You can use the material you want, make the contraption bigger or smaller, within reason, use a large magnet or a small one, adjust its position, modify the curve of the downward slope and generally add whatever you think is absolutely necessary to make it work as long as you can explain why it is necessary.

I'm not sure why I need to explain all that. It seems to go without saying. I thought engineers where practical people.

Still, I'm not asking you personally. I'm sure there is a large number of people here who are or were engineers by profession. You can wait and see if they propose something. Maybe none of you have any idea how to make it work...

Still, I see that it's not just metaphysics that will nonplus you. A simple contraption to be made to work is already too much.
EB

 

[Old Woman in Purple]

Seems to me, in my admittedly simplistic understanding of physics:

In order for the gizmo to work, the magnetic attraction of the magnet on the ball would have to be stronger than gravity on the upper (straight) strip, while being weaker than gravity on the lower (curved) strip.

If the magnet is strong enough to pull the ball up the top strip, I don't see how the magnet would "let go" of the ball to let it fall through the hole & roll back to the starting position.

In other words, it couldn't work without some sort of outside influence, which, of course, means it doesn't qualify as a "Perpetual Motion Gizmo"

-----------------------------
I've never studied anything remotely related to physics or math beyond "College Algebra" some 40 years ago, so will not be the slightest bit offended if anyone cares to tell me how off-base I am.

 

[steve_bank]

Is this a joke or are you serious?

???

Sorry, I'm not sure where could be the problem...

This is a straightforward technical question. I've given a realistic representation of the contraption. The design is a very simple. I think it wouldn't work as pictured but perhaps a small number of minor improvements would make it work, meaning for example at least ten of the expected cycles of the ball inside the contraption. I would assume that the MIT or NASA could make it go on for 10,000 cycles or more but I'm not asking for the Moon. You can use the material you want, make the contraption bigger or smaller, within reason, use a large magnet or a small one, adjust its position, modify the curve of the downward slope and generally add whatever you think is absolutely necessary to make it work as long as you can explain why it is necessary.

I'm not sure why I need to explain all that. It seems to go without saying. I thought engineers where practical people.

Still, I'm not asking you personally. I'm sure there is a large number of people here who are or were engineers by profession. You can wait and see if they propose something. Maybe none of you have any idea how to make it work...

Still, I see that it's not just metaphysics that will nonplus you. A simple contraption to be made to work is already too much.
EB

Provide a demonstration or equations. What is the magnetic filed strength, the material of the ball, size of the ball, height...?

The ball will not roll up, it will be dragged. If the field strength is high enough to overcome gravity will the ball fall through the hole instead of sticking to the magnet at the top?



If the ball falls through the hole the field is acting on the ball along with gravity. As the ball rolls to the bottom what are the forces that will make it make the turn up the ramp and not get stuck on the bottom? Not enough information. What you describe could be described loosely as a form of a motor not perpetual motion.

 

[bilby]

Just put a microswitch or other sensor top and bottom, such that the passing of the ball over the hole switches off the electromagnet, and its arrival at the bottom switches it back on.

The electromagnet can be powered by a battery concealed in the plinth. With a suitable choice of materials to keep friction to a minimum, there's no reason why you can't get hundreds of cycles out if it.

Certainly enough to impress your investors and get hold of their cash before the battery goes flat.

Dead easy.

"Anything sufficiently weird must be fishy." - Liu Cixin, Three Body, translated from Chinese by Ken Liu.

If something is inexplicable, you are probably being scammed.

 

[steve_bank]

For a device to be labeled perpetual motion implies an efficiency of 100%.

 

[steve_bank]

Escher's perpetual motion

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Escher_Waterfall.jpg

 

[Speakpigeon]

Seems to me, in my admittedly simplistic understanding of physics: In order for the gizmo to work, the magnetic attraction of the magnet on the ball would have to be stronger than gravity on the upper (straight) strip, while being weaker than gravity on the lower (curved) strip. If the magnet is strong enough to pull the ball up the top strip, I don't see how the magnet would "let go" of the ball to let it fall through the hole & roll back to the starting position.

OK, you don't see.

In other words, it couldn't work without some sort of outside influence, which, of course, means it doesn't qualify as a "Perpetual Motion Gizmo"

I obviously don't believe it could work as a perpetual motion machine.

This is why I asked what improvements do you think would have to be made to improve the contraption to the extent that the ball would do at least a few cycles.

As I explained to Steve, I think it wouldn't work as pictured but perhaps a small number of minor improvements would make it work, meaning for example at least ten of the expected cycles of the ball inside the contraption. I would assume that the MIT or NASA could make it go on for 10,000 cycles or more but I'm not asking for the Moon.

You can use the material you want, make the contraption bigger or smaller, within reason, use a large magnet or a small one, adjust its position, modify the curve of the downward slope and generally add whatever you think is absolutely necessary to make it work as long as you can explain why it is necessary.

I've never studied anything remotely related to physics or math beyond "College Algebra" some 40 years ago, so will not be the slightest bit offended if anyone cares to tell me how off-base I am.

You're doing good as to physics, but not so good at reading the OP. But maybe still better than others...

Please refer to the Hobbies & Craft forum. Maybe I can get people with a more hands-on attitude interested!
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Just put a microswitch or other sensor top and bottom, such that the passing of the ball over the hole switches off the electromagnet, and its arrival at the bottom switches it back on.

The electromagnet can be powered by a battery concealed in the plinth. With a suitable choice of materials to keep friction to a minimum, there's no reason why you can't get hundreds of cycles out if it.

Certainly enough to impress your investors and get hold of their cash before the battery goes flat.

Dead easy.

You can do the same easier still, for less money and less complicated. Just pick up the ball with your bare hand and push it through the hole at the top of the ramp and then pick it up again at the bottom of the ramp. Thus you can adjust exactly how many times the ball does the trip.

"Anything sufficiently weird must be fishy." - Liu Cixin, Three Body, translated from Chinese by Ken Liu.

What's even weird about being like a fish?

If something is inexplicable, you are probably being scammed.

What's even inexplicable in the OP?

I suppose I could explain it if I knew what.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

For a device to be labeled perpetual motion implies an efficiency of 100%.

Thanks Steve.

Still the same old Steve!

Seems like perpetual old Steve to me.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

OK, let's call it a day. I guess it was the wrong venue for this thread.

I should have known. Logic!
EB

 

[steve_bank]

For a device to be labeled perpetual motion implies an efficiency of 100%.

Thanks Steve.

Still the same old Steve!

Seems like perpetual old Steve to me.
EB

Oh, I get it. This is a child's imagination game that is not supposed to be related to reality. That is ok if you frame it that way. You called a perpetual motion machine. That evokes a scientific response.

Current science precludes such a device here on Earth.

There are plenty of actual attempts detailed on the net.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Oh, I get it. This is a child's imagination game that is not supposed to be related to reality. That is ok if you frame it that way. You called a perpetual motion machine. That evokes a scientific response.

Current science precludes such a device here on Earth.

There are plenty of actual attempts detailed on the net.

Read again, old man...

So, what improvements do you think would have to be made to improve the contraption to the extent that the ball would do at least a few cycles?

This is a straightforward technical question. I've given a realistic representation of the contraption. The design is a very simple. I think it wouldn't work as pictured but perhaps a small number of minor improvements would make it work, meaning for example at least ten of the expected cycles of the ball inside the contraption. I would assume that the MIT or NASA could make it go on for 10,000 cycles or more but I'm not asking for the Moon. You can use the material you want, make the contraption bigger or smaller, within reason, use a large magnet or a small one, adjust its position, modify the curve of the downward slope and generally add whatever you think is absolutely necessary to make it work as long as you can explain why it is necessary.

EB

 

[bilby]

You can do the same easier still, for less money and less complicated. Just pick up the ball with your bare hand and push it through the hole at the top of the ramp and then pick it up again at the bottom of the ramp.

Sure. You can do an almost infinite number of different things to make the ball cycle around the machine.

But to make it complete a single cycle requires some input of energy from somewhere. It's not going to fool your audience if you use your hand, unless you are a master of misdirection.

There's no way that a permanent magnet with sufficient field strength to start the ball moving up the ramp will allow the ball to fall through the hole; The inverse square law means that getting closer to the magnet very quickly increases the attractive force.

The obvious solution if you want at least one cycle is to use an electromagnet, so you can reduce or eliminate that force once the ball reaches the top of the ramp - if you don't do that, then you need to counteract the magnetic attraction some other way. You could just use your hand; Or there are an almost infinite number of other options - put a small motor in the ball; add mass to the ball, perhaps by having it hollow and filling it with a dense material at the top of the ramp by some means, or simply replace it with a denser or non-magnetic ball of similar appearance (you could have a stash of such balls concealed somewhere).

Conjurers and stage magicians have loads of ways to make the seemingly impossible happen. But none require breaking the first law of thermodynamics. And obvious 'cheats', like just using your hands, are boring unless the conjurer is able to misdirect your attention and make you fail to notice that that's what he did.

Did you have a particular answer in mind when you asked your question? If so, you could share it now, as it seems unlikely that you are going to be able to tease it out of this audience via the pseudo-Socratic method you appear to be attempting.

If not, then I don't think there's anything more to discuss - the machine can only be modified to complete one or more cycles by introducing an energy source or storage of some kind, and while there are a very large number of ways to do that, only those which are non-obvious are particularly interesting.

 

[steve_bank]

Read again, old man...

This is a straightforward technical question. I've given a realistic representation of the contraption. The design is a very simple. I think it wouldn't work as pictured but perhaps a small number of minor improvements would make it work, meaning for example at least ten of the expected cycles of the ball inside the contraption. I would assume that the MIT or NASA could make it go on for 10,000 cycles or more but I'm not asking for the Moon. You can use the material you want, make the contraption bigger or smaller, within reason, use a large magnet or a small one, adjust its position, modify the curve of the downward slope and generally add whatever you think is absolutely necessary to make it work as long as you can explain why it is necessary.

EB

Again the words perpetual motion is a non starter.

The basic design will not work. As I said if the magnetic filed is strong enough to pull up the ramp, the ball will not br able to make the turn back up. Loren has the same comment on the second thread you started on hobbies.

For design work I charge by the hour. Read some engineering texts on electromagnetics, you say you know calculus. Hayt's Engineering Electromagnetics is an easy read.

Philosophy bakes no bread.

 

[fast]

The hole need not be at the top where the attraction is strongest. The point is to make full cycles, not cycles to their fulllest extent. Move the hole down slope by 5%, as measured by total length of straight path the ball takes. Also, the hole itself needs to be elongated giving the ball opportunity to drop prior to full ascent. A plastic blade angled such that the ball will be caused to take a downward trajectory due to combined magnetic and gravitational force. A second weaker and directional magnet can be situation underneath the hole to assist if necessary.

 

[bilby]

The hole need not be at the top where the attraction is strongest. The point is to make full cycles, not cycles to their fulllest extent. Move the hole down slope by 5%, as measured by total length of straight path the ball takes. Also, the hole itself needs to be elongated giving the ball opportunity to drop prior to full ascent. A plastic blade angled such that the ball will be caused to take a downward trajectory due to combined magnetic and gravitational force. A second weaker and directional magnet can be situation underneath the hole to assist if necessary.

Indeed. But you will also need some strategically placed unobtainium shielding to block the magnetic, or gravitational, fields (or both, but in different places).

 

[DBT]

Take it to another universe, somewhere where the physics enable magical activity.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The hole need not be at the top where the attraction is strongest. The point is to make full cycles, not cycles to their fulllest extent. Move the hole down slope by 5%, as measured by total length of straight path the ball takes. Also, the hole itself needs to be elongated giving the ball opportunity to drop prior to full ascent. A plastic blade angled such that the ball will be caused to take a downward trajectory due to combined magnetic and gravitational force. A second weaker and directional magnet can be situation underneath the hole to assist if necessary.

Good Lord, thank thee for that.

Apparently, the philosophically-minded appear to be those who not only can explain themselves in good English, but also understand the question to begin with, and, wait for it, provide sensible answers.

So, yeah, I take the elongated hole and the angled blade, plastic or not, though, OK, not ferric.

The second magnet is not accepted as too expensive and too complicated.

Moving the hole, OK, but just a bit. It's very expensive to move a hole, you know.

Not good enough but we're getting there.
EB