• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Help improve this perpetual motion machine!

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?

Yes and no. I take the general idea that friction should be reduced to a minimum. Rollers are a bit too complicated to assess in terms of overall friction. For example, rollers would inevitably make the ball bounce, probably in a chaotic fashion. Still, I would take anything than would do the same job as a ramp covered with ice, or possibly even better, preferably a material that doesn't not need to be refrigerated.

That being said, any material made of atoms could probably be usefully modelled as made of rollers, or bearings.

I take it we couldn't make friction disappear altogether, but we can assume minimal friction, not just on the ramp, but all along the path of the ball.

Good point. Thanks.

Anything else?
EB
 
I could have said melted butter, but I have a funny feeling it wouldn’t be admitted in the room.

Well, butter would make you fat, not fast, which seems to be what you prefer.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

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.

OK, I take the slick ceramic surface...

Unless there's even better than ceramic without going on the Moon or something?
EB
 
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.

I don't think so. A machine is used to power something. Perpetual motion machines are only designed to power themselves.
 
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.

I don't think so. A machine is used to power something. Perpetual motion machines are only designed to power themselves.

Perpetual motion machines are classified into three groups, and what you describe here is a perpetual motion machine of the third kind (aka 'type 3') - a frictionless system that once set in motion will continue forever. This is the least problematic type, as it doesn't violate any of the laws of thermodynamics, although that's a pretty low bar. In fact, any object in a perfect vacuum is a type 3 PMM, and will continue to move without external influences until acted upon by another object. As a perfect vacuum is not achievable, this type of PMM is impossible to construct in reality, though fast moving bodies in space well away from planetary atmospheres come very close. The planets orbiting the sun, or moons orbiting planets, are good examples - they don't keep going forever, but they do keep going for billions of years.

A 'type 1' PMM is one from which energy can be extracted - ie it generates more energy than is required for itself to continue to function. This type violates the first law of thermodynamics. As there are no frictionless surfaces, the machine in the OP is of this type - while the ball moves, it will constantly lose energy to frictional heating of the ramps on which it rolls, and that energy has to come from somewhere else, if the ball is to continue moving.

A 'type 2' PMM is one that can utilise the energy of its environment without (or against) an energy gradient, so it can run on the heat energy that surrounds it, in contravention of the second law of thermodynamics.

None of these three types of machine can actually work, as they are precluded from doing so by fundamental physical laws and the nature of our universe.
 
Objects in motion represent Newton's law of inertia. The kinetic energy of an object can do work on an object in another frame depending on relative velocity.

A frictionless, or lossless system violates LOT.

A perpetual motion device involves a process that does work. In the case of an object in space it has kinetic energy which can do work but not indefinitely. An object in space will be influenced by gravity however weak, and collisions with dust and gas. Eventually.

Perpetual motion refers to devioce or system that has no losses or renews itself.

The universe itself may be in perpetual motion, but the topic refers to man made systems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

Perpetual motion is motion of bodies that continues indefinitely. A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work indefinitely without an energy source. This kind of machine is impossible, as it would violate the first or second law of thermodynamics.[2][3][4][5]

A perpetual motion machine of the first kind produces work without the input of energy. It thus violates the first law of thermodynamics: the law of conservation of energy.

A perpetual motion machine of the second kind is a machine which spontaneously converts thermal energy into mechanical work. When the thermal energy is equivalent to the work done, this does not violate the law of conservation of energy. However, it does violate the more subtle second law of thermodynamics (see also entropy). The signature of a perpetual motion machine of the second kind is that there is only one heat reservoir involved, which is being spontaneously cooled without involving a transfer of heat to a cooler reservoir. This conversion of heat into useful work, without any side effect, is impossible, according to the second law of thermodynamics.

A perpetual motion machine of the third kind is usually (but not always)[15][self-published source] defined as one that completely eliminates friction and other dissipative forces, to maintain motion forever (due to its mass inertia). (Third in this case refers solely to the position in the above classification scheme, not the third law of thermodynamics.) It is impossible to make such a machine,[16][17] as dissipation can never be completely eliminated in a mechanical system, no matter how close a system gets to this ideal (see examples in the Low Friction section).

Impossibility[edit]

October 1920 issue of Popular Science magazine, on perpetual motion. Although scientists have established them to be impossible under the laws of physics, perpetual motion continues to capture the imagination of inventors. The device shown is a "mass leverage" device, where the spherical weights on the right have more leverage than those on the left, supposedly creating a perpetual rotation. However, there are a greater number of weights on the left, balancing the device.
"Epistemic impossibility" describes things which absolutely cannot occur within our current formulation of the physical laws. This interpretation of the word "impossible" is what is intended in discussions of the impossibility of perpetual motion in a closed system.[18]
 
Objects in motion represent Newton's law of inertia. The kinetic energy of an object can do work on an object in another frame depending on relative velocity.

A frictionless, or lossless system violates LOT.

A perpetual motion device involves a process that does work. In the case of an object in space it has kinetic energy which can do work but not indefinitely. An object in space will be influenced by gravity however weak, and collisions with dust and gas. Eventually.

Perpetual motion refers to devioce or system that has no losses or renews itself.

The universe itself may be in perpetual motion, but the topic refers to man made systems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

Perpetual motion is motion of bodies that continues indefinitely. A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work indefinitely without an energy source. This kind of machine is impossible, as it would violate the first or second law of thermodynamics.[2][3][4][5]

A perpetual motion machine of the first kind produces work without the input of energy. It thus violates the first law of thermodynamics: the law of conservation of energy.

A perpetual motion machine of the second kind is a machine which spontaneously converts thermal energy into mechanical work. When the thermal energy is equivalent to the work done, this does not violate the law of conservation of energy. However, it does violate the more subtle second law of thermodynamics (see also entropy). The signature of a perpetual motion machine of the second kind is that there is only one heat reservoir involved, which is being spontaneously cooled without involving a transfer of heat to a cooler reservoir. This conversion of heat into useful work, without any side effect, is impossible, according to the second law of thermodynamics.

A perpetual motion machine of the third kind is usually (but not always)[15][self-published source] defined as one that completely eliminates friction and other dissipative forces, to maintain motion forever (due to its mass inertia). (Third in this case refers solely to the position in the above classification scheme, not the third law of thermodynamics.) It is impossible to make such a machine,[16][17] as dissipation can never be completely eliminated in a mechanical system, no matter how close a system gets to this ideal (see examples in the Low Friction section).

Impossibility[edit]

October 1920 issue of Popular Science magazine, on perpetual motion. Although scientists have established them to be impossible under the laws of physics, perpetual motion continues to capture the imagination of inventors. The device shown is a "mass leverage" device, where the spherical weights on the right have more leverage than those on the left, supposedly creating a perpetual rotation. However, there are a greater number of weights on the left, balancing the device.
"Epistemic impossibility" describes things which absolutely cannot occur within our current formulation of the physical laws. This interpretation of the word "impossible" is what is intended in discussions of the impossibility of perpetual motion in a closed system.[18]

What was gained by your cutting and pasting from wikipedia an article that said exactly what I just said in the post above?

If I wanted to read wikipedia articles, I would go to their website, not this one.

If you just wanted to agree with me, you could have saved a lot of time and effort, and just posted:

 
Popular Science. It always had ads in the back for 300mpg carburetors and free electricity devices. Perpetual motion plns.

A ship traveling in space. launces a ball. It accelerates past the ball and stops. It recovers the ball by catching it in a spring. The spring compresses but the total amount of energy captured by the spring will be less than the energy expanded in launching the ball.

A ball moving in space is not a perpetual motion machine.

The LOT set a low bar?
 
Popular Science. It always had ads in the back for 300mpg carburetors and free electricity devices. Perpetual motion plns.

A ship traveling in space. launces a ball. It accelerates past the ball and stops. It recovers the ball by catching it in a spring. The spring compresses but the total amount of energy captured by the spring will be less than the energy expanded in launching the ball.

A ball moving in space is not a perpetual motion machine.

The LOT set a low bar?

Not violating LoT is a low bar. Plenty of things that don't violate the LoT are, nevertheless, impossible. Such as type 3 PMMs.

A perfect vacuum isn't a breach of any LoT. And an object in motion in a perfect vacuum will continue in motion indefinitely.

But a perfect vacuum is unobtainable, so type 3 PMMs are impossible, despite not breaking any of the LoT.

Your spaceship/spring/ball device would be a type 1 PMM due to frictional losses.
 
Perfect vacuums don't exist. So judging laws of motion and energy within one is impossible.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

Perfect vacuums don't exist. So measuring motion for judging laws of motion and energy within one is impossible.

Follows?
EB
 
Objects in motion represent Newton's law of inertia. The kinetic energy of an object can do work on an object in another frame depending on relative velocity.

A frictionless, or lossless system violates LOT.

A perpetual motion device involves a process that does work. In the case of an object in space it has kinetic energy which can do work but not indefinitely. An object in space will be influenced by gravity however weak, and collisions with dust and gas. Eventually.

Perpetual motion refers to devioce or system that has no losses or renews itself.

The universe itself may be in perpetual motion, but the topic refers to man made systems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

Perpetual motion is motion of bodies that continues indefinitely. A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work indefinitely without an energy source. This kind of machine is impossible, as it would violate the first or second law of thermodynamics.[2][3][4][5]

A perpetual motion machine of the first kind produces work without the input of energy. It thus violates the first law of thermodynamics: the law of conservation of energy.

A perpetual motion machine of the second kind is a machine which spontaneously converts thermal energy into mechanical work. When the thermal energy is equivalent to the work done, this does not violate the law of conservation of energy. However, it does violate the more subtle second law of thermodynamics (see also entropy). The signature of a perpetual motion machine of the second kind is that there is only one heat reservoir involved, which is being spontaneously cooled without involving a transfer of heat to a cooler reservoir. This conversion of heat into useful work, without any side effect, is impossible, according to the second law of thermodynamics.

A perpetual motion machine of the third kind is usually (but not always)[15][self-published source] defined as one that completely eliminates friction and other dissipative forces, to maintain motion forever (due to its mass inertia). (Third in this case refers solely to the position in the above classification scheme, not the third law of thermodynamics.) It is impossible to make such a machine,[16][17] as dissipation can never be completely eliminated in a mechanical system, no matter how close a system gets to this ideal (see examples in the Low Friction section).

Impossibility[edit]

October 1920 issue of Popular Science magazine, on perpetual motion. Although scientists have established them to be impossible under the laws of physics, perpetual motion continues to capture the imagination of inventors. The device shown is a "mass leverage" device, where the spherical weights on the right have more leverage than those on the left, supposedly creating a perpetual rotation. However, there are a greater number of weights on the left, balancing the device.
"Epistemic impossibility" describes things which absolutely cannot occur within our current formulation of the physical laws. This interpretation of the word "impossible" is what is intended in discussions of the impossibility of perpetual motion in a closed system.[18]

It's a very sad reflection on our time that people can no longer find anything relevant to say. They quote Wiki.
EB
 
LOT is about a system. launch a ball towards another ship and all the energy can not be removed by the seined ship. 100% of the change in energy of the ball can not be used to do work. A machine involves a processes involving work.

A ball in motion is not a machine , Using the energy of the ball to do continuous work without replenishment would be a perpetual motion machine.

Work is force time distance. Once a ball in space is in motion there is no applied force hence no work is being done.


A perpetual motion machine of the third kind is usually (but not always)[15][self-published source] defined as one that completely eliminates friction and other dissipative forces, to maintain motion forever (due to its mass inertia). (Third in this case refers solely to the position in the above classification scheme, not the third law of thermodynamics.) It is impossible to make such a machine,[16][17] as dissipation can never be completely eliminated in a mechanical system, no matter how close a system gets to this ideal (see examples in the Low Friction section).
 
Perfect vacuums don't exist. So judging laws of motion and energy within one is impossible.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

Perfect vacuums don't exist. So measuring motion for judging laws of motion and energy within one is impossible.

Follows?
EB

Everything in the universe from our vantage oint appears to run down. The erth is slowing down. At the Universescale the question is open.

Gravitaion is a long range force. It may be very small in deep space but it does effect an object however small the effect may be.

From the link a large flywheel spun up in a vacuum can take years to run down due to friction.
 
Perfect vacuums don't exist. So judging laws of motion and energy within one is impossible.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

Perfect vacuums don't exist. So measuring motion for judging laws of motion and energy within one is impossible.

Follows?
EB

Yes, I would agree with that.

But we can certainly extrapolate to a theoretical perfect vacuum.

In a perfect vacuum, an object in motion relative to an arbitrary reference will continue in motion forever unless acted upon by an external force - for this NOT to be true would violate the first law of thermodynamics.
 
Perfect vacuums don't exist. So measuring motion for judging laws of motion and energy within one is impossible.

Follows?
EB

Yes, I would agree with that.

But we can certainly extrapolate to a theoretical perfect vacuum.

In a perfect vacuum, an object in motion relative to an arbitrary reference will continue in motion forever unless acted upon by an external force - for this NOT to be true would violate the first law of thermodynamics.

Exactly.

And, suddenly, the role of logic (logic, not necessarily formal logic) is revealed as absolutely crucial to all rationality, including scientific rationality. Humans reason in the abstract or they don't reason.
EB
 
Perfect vacuums don't exist. So measuring motion for judging laws of motion and energy within one is impossible.

Follows?
EB

Yes, I would agree with that.

But we can certainly extrapolate to a theoretical perfect vacuum.

In a perfect vacuum, an object in motion relative to an arbitrary reference will continue in motion forever unless acted upon by an external force - for this NOT to be true would violate the first law of thermodynamics.

Exactly.

And, suddenly, the role of logic (logic, not necessarily formal logic) is revealed as absolutely crucial to all rationality, including scientific rationality. Humans reason in the abstract or they don't reason.
EB


It appears revelation to you. Valid logic can support both rational irrational thought. All depends on the hypothesis.

It us illogical to try r to make a PPM work or 'improve it'. It is irrational.

I am taking my company SB Perpetual Motion Machines public. We are on the verge of a breakthrough. Anyone want to buy stock?
 
Exactly.

And, suddenly, the role of logic (logic, not necessarily formal logic) is revealed as absolutely crucial to all rationality, including scientific rationality. Humans reason in the abstract or they don't reason.

It appears revelation to you.

I already knew you can't read the subtext.

Valid logic can support both rational irrational thought. All depends on the hypothesis.

It us illogical to try r to make a PPM work or 'improve it'. It is irrational.

I am taking my company SB Perpetual Motion Machines public. We are on the verge of a breakthrough. Anyone want to buy stock?

What is evidence of your profound irrationality is your persistance in not understanding the actual question asked and in opting instead for a red herring.

You are just one of a bunch of people like that here. You're not even remarkable in that. You're all pathetic, though.
EB
 
Back
Top Bottom