Help improve this perpetual motion machine!

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Aren't you a scientist? If so, please abstain from further comments, at least for the time being. I'm concerned with the not scientifically trained for now. Give them a head-start, will you?

Also, the idea isn't to make it look like a successful perpetual motion machine. Just to make it work so that the ball does a few cycles, say, ten or one thousand, or even a million, since I don't expect any one of you to be smart enough to produce perpetual movement.

And, the best solution will be the simplest one. Yours is too complicated, although I'm sure you could do better.

It's also not the Socratic trip here. I'm interested to see what solutions people can come up with, not to get them to understand something. But, of course, one could still learn from it. Though, apparently, some will never learn.
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

Is this a joke or are you serious?

An attempt at a perpetual motion machine can still be improved even if it can never succeed. A goal could make it run as long as possible.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Is this a joke or are you serious?

An attempt at a perpetual motion machine can still be improved even if it can never succeed. A goal could make it run as long as possible.

But then, that would not be a perpetual motion machine. The OP should have asked (for whatever idiotic reason), "What would you do to modify this design to get the ball to cycle several times in succession" or the like. Then the answer is anything bilby has already mentioned. "Perpetual motion" is a red herring that actually has nothing to do with the question.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Is this a joke or are you serious?

An attempt at a perpetual motion machine can still be improved even if it can never succeed. A goal could make it run as long as possible.

But then, that would not be a perpetual motion machine. The OP should have asked (for whatever idiotic reason), "What would you do to modify this design to get the ball to cycle several times in succession" or the like. Then the answer is anything bilby has already mentioned. "Perpetual motion" is a red herring that actually has nothing to do with the question.

I'd argue that a perpetual motion machine is still a type of machine. We all know what it's for. Even if we also know it can never work. We also all know what a unicorn is even if we know that they don't exist. Unless rhinos are over-weight unicorns. In which they do exist.

 

[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.

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

I have no idea where you think you are getting. But none of these 'improvements' get you any closer to a machine that will make even a single cycle.

The design depends upon the magnetic field being stronger than gravity at a distance from the magnet; While simultaneously being weaker than gravity close to the magnet. That's not how permanent magnets behave. So the machine cannot work, and cannot be made to work, without a mechanism to change the strength of the magnet - ie, using an electromagnet with some kind of control mechanism.

Adding non-ferrous blades and/or adjusting the distances and angles does nothing to address the fundamental flaw - magnetic fields are stronger the closer you get to their source.

 

[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.

Aren't you a scientist?

Only insofar as everybody is.

If so, please abstain from further comments, at least for the time being. I'm concerned with the not scientifically trained for now. Give them a head-start, will you?

Why?

Also, the idea isn't to make it look like a successful perpetual motion machine. Just to make it work so that the ball does a few cycles, say, ten or one thousand, or even a million, since I don't expect any one of you to be smart enough to produce perpetual movement.

One cycle is impossible. Any number greater than one is therefore also impossible.

And, the best solution will be the simplest one. Yours is too complicated, although I'm sure you could do better.

It's also not the Socratic trip here. I'm interested to see what solutions people can come up with, not to get them to understand something. But, of course, one could still learn from it. Though, apparently, some will never learn.
EB

So you are interested to see how people who are incompetent to answer the questions answer the questions?

That's the same kind of cruelty that made the Bedlam insane asylum into a tourist attraction.

Why not ask non-historians to explain the causes of the Thirty Years War? Or ask people who know nothing about geography what the capital city of Burkina Faso is?

Perhaps we can then get a display of pictures from people who cannot paint, while we listen to a string quartet made up of people who have never previously held a musical instrument?

 

[bilby]

But then, that would not be a perpetual motion machine. The OP should have asked (for whatever idiotic reason), "What would you do to modify this design to get the ball to cycle several times in succession" or the like. Then the answer is anything bilby has already mentioned. "Perpetual motion" is a red herring that actually has nothing to do with the question.

I'd argue that a perpetual motion machine is still a type of machine. We all know what it's for. Even if we also know it can never work. We also all know what a unicorn is even if we know that they don't exist. Unless rhinos are over-weight armoured battle unicorns. In which they do exist.

FTFY.

 

[steve_bank]

Is this a joke or are you serious?

An attempt at a perpetual motion machine can still be improved even if it can never succeed. A goal could make it run as long as possible.

But then, that would not be a perpetual motion machine. The OP should have asked (for whatever idiotic reason), "What would you do to modify this design to get the ball to cycle several times in succession" or the like. Then the answer is anything bilby has already mentioned. "Perpetual motion" is a red herring that actually has nothing to do with the question.

Spin up a large flywheel on an air bearing and it could take months to spin down.

 

[steve_bank]

Is this a joke or are you serious?

An attempt at a perpetual motion machine can still be improved even if it can never succeed. A goal could make it run as long as possible.

In real world designs that is called improving efficiency. It is a routine effort in mechanical and electrical systems. Getting power supply efficiency above 95% was a major effort with a lot of research and experimentation over the last 50 years..

 

[Speakpigeon]

Aren't you a scientist?

Only insofar as everybody is.

If so, please abstain from further comments, at least for the time being. I'm concerned with the not scientifically trained for now. Give them a head-start, will you?

Why?

Also, the idea isn't to make it look like a successful perpetual motion machine. Just to make it work so that the ball does a few cycles, say, ten or one thousand, or even a million, since I don't expect any one of you to be smart enough to produce perpetual movement.

One cycle is impossible. Any number greater than one is therefore also impossible.

And, the best solution will be the simplest one. Yours is too complicated, although I'm sure you could do better.

It's also not the Socratic trip here. I'm interested to see what solutions people can come up with, not to get them to understand something. But, of course, one could still learn from it. Though, apparently, some will never learn.
EB

So you are interested to see how people who are incompetent to answer the questions answer the questions?

That's the same kind of cruelty that made the Bedlam insane asylum into a tourist attraction.

Why not ask non-historians to explain the causes of the Thirty Years War? Or ask people who know nothing about geography what the capital city of Burkina Faso is?

Perhaps we can then get a display of pictures from people who cannot paint, while we listen to a string quartet made up of people who have never previously held a musical instrument?

Er- We already have that, aplenty, I think. This is a forum, right?

I can't stop you and I'm sure you know best.

So, essentially, people should let you provide all the good answers and watch in dismay, realising, or not, they couldn't possibly have replied the same.

And you are overlooking the fact that it's possible the expert gets it wrong against the uncouth. You know that if you ask a group of people to assess a quantity, say the weight of a bull or the number of inhabitants in Paris, most will get it wrong. Right, but, the average of their answers will be quite close. Man of little faith, you should trust collective wisdom a little more. Several good points already from the "non-experts". From the experts? Just one.
EB

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

But then, that would not be a perpetual motion machine. The OP should have asked (for whatever idiotic reason), "What would you do to modify this design to get the ball to cycle several times in succession" or the like. Then the answer is anything bilby has already mentioned. "Perpetual motion" is a red herring that actually has nothing to do with the question.

I'd argue that a perpetual motion machine is still a type of machine. We all know what it's for. Even if we also know it can never work.

True, but semantics that doesn't apply because then SP is effectively asking that a fictional machine be modified to make it work.

It's a fictional machine. It doesn't exist, so it can't be modified period, let alone to make it work, let alone to make it work in a non-perpetual way.

We have scores of non-perpetual motion machines. Indeed, that's all we have. We just call them "machines." Modifying their behavior slightly to effect a moderately different outcome is therefore a trivial matter.

So, again, all SP is doing is presenting us with a picture of a machine and asking if we can modify it to make it work.

"Perpetual motion" isn't applicable to any part of the question, other than he simply wrote the words.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Reminder:

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?
EB

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Reminder:

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?
EB

Yeah, everyone's got that part. Electromagnet with strategic off/on trips. Done.

 

[bilby]

Only insofar as everybody is.

Why?

Also, the idea isn't to make it look like a successful perpetual motion machine. Just to make it work so that the ball does a few cycles, say, ten or one thousand, or even a million, since I don't expect any one of you to be smart enough to produce perpetual movement.

One cycle is impossible. Any number greater than one is therefore also impossible.

And, the best solution will be the simplest one. Yours is too complicated, although I'm sure you could do better.

It's also not the Socratic trip here. I'm interested to see what solutions people can come up with, not to get them to understand something. But, of course, one could still learn from it. Though, apparently, some will never learn.
EB

So you are interested to see how people who are incompetent to answer the questions answer the questions?

That's the same kind of cruelty that made the Bedlam insane asylum into a tourist attraction.

Why not ask non-historians to explain the causes of the Thirty Years War? Or ask people who know nothing about geography what the capital city of Burkina Faso is?

Perhaps we can then get a display of pictures from people who cannot paint, while we listen to a string quartet made up of people who have never previously held a musical instrument?

Er- We already have that, aplenty, I think. This is a forum, right?

I can't stop you and I'm sure you know best.

So, essentially, people should let you provide all the good answers and watch in dismay, realising, or not, they couldn't possibly have replied the same.

Not at all. I am sure that the vast majority of people here can see that your question is futile.

People should provide good answers for themselves, but no good answer exists that meets your criteria, so necessarily any good answer entails pointing out the futility of your question.

And you are overlooking the fact that it's possible the expert gets it wrong against the uncouth. You know that if you ask a group of people to assess a quantity, say the weight of a bull or the number of inhabitants in Paris, most will get it wrong. Right, but, the average of their answers will be quite close. Man of little faith, you should trust collective wisdom a little more. Several good points already from the "non-experts". From the experts? Just one.
EB

The world currently has a severe excess of stupid people who think, in spite of hard evidence to the contrary, that their opinions are of value.

Encouraging them is contraindicated, if we want to continue to have nice things.

Reality is not subject to democracy; No matter how many shit ideas you collect, you still have a pile of shit.

 

[steve_bank]

There is another problem. Magnets are polarized. Orientation of the ball matters.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Not at all. I am sure that the vast majority of people here can see that your question is futile.

Not something that would have been demonstrated. Most people have replied derails.

People should provide good answers for themselves, but no good answer exists that meets your criteria, so necessarily any good answer entails pointing out the futility of your question.

???

You would have to explain yourself here.

The world currently has a severe excess of stupid people who think, in spite of hard evidence to the contrary, that their opinions are of value.

I wasn't referring to stupid people but to most people.

Encouraging them is contraindicated, if we want to continue to have nice things.

Reality is not subject to democracy; No matter how many shit ideas you collect, you still have a pile of shit.

Sure. You do that. Me, I have my own life to live and if I'm not in the business of encouraging stupid people say stupid things. I'm interested in how most people think.

And the stupidity here, the moronic stupidity, is entirely in misunderstanding or worse, wilfully misrepresenting, what I asked. Six posters have posted genuine comments, thereby proving my post was perfectly understandable. Two have only posted crazy paranoid shit and two one idiotic comment and nothing else.

My post is perfectly understandable provided you try.
EB

 

[fast]

Someone said something about the ball not rolling but instead dragged toward the magnet. Would putting rollers on the straight edge part be too much of a design change?

 

[DBT]

Someone said something about the ball not rolling but instead dragged toward the magnet. Would putting rollers on the straight edge part be too much of a design change?

How would rollers help?

 

[fast]

Someone said something about the ball not rolling but instead dragged toward the magnet. Would putting rollers on the straight edge part be too much of a design change?

How would rollers help?

If we want to use a magnet of lesser strength (not sure we do, but under that possible scenario), we might want to reduce the friction that might be caused by dragging across a more course platform.

If we want to use a magnet of greater strength (whereby the ball would rapidly accelerate and blast into the angling device, we might want to aid whatever little help gravity gives by having a very smooth free rolling rollers underneath the ball giving it a slight edge in speed going up towards the magnet.

Either way, I just wanted to help compensate the negatives of being dragged by reducing such drag. I could have said melted butter, but I have a funny feeling it wouldn’t be admitted in the room.

 

[DBT]

Rollers need an object of a certain mass/weight to roll....so an object such as a small ball bearing would probably not be the correct ratio, magnetic attraction/friction of rollers, to work the rollers efficiently, as a rough guess. Slick ceramic surface may be better in that regard.