Perpetuum mobile

Just out of curiosity, I would like to hear your opinion about Perpetuum mobile.
Do you think, it is possible to build a machine that will remain in operation forever and provide additional work as well?

No, perpetual machines are not possible by laws of physics. Our universe is shaped in such a way that it can exist out of nothing. It loses nor makes more energy than there already is.

But if one was able to disintegrate a sugarcube into pure energy, it could lit the world for 7 seconds:

4,17 gram of sugar
e = 0.00417(kg) * (3*10^8)^2 = 9*10^13 Joules (e=mc^2)

World energy consumption is (added up) 13 terawatt and a bit, is 13*10^12 watt.
Striping away all the zeroes (1 joule = 1watt/1sec), we are left with 90/13 = ~7 seconds.

So if you were able to convert matter into pure energy, no energy loss (or maybe a tiny fraction for continuing the conversion progress), you practically invented a perpetual machine. Yet nothing stays forever as it is. In the long run, even this matter-to-energy device will subject to decay. Theoretically and practically this is the closest approach to a perpetual device, I think.

As joozey alsready said, it can't be build
however, as I see it, there is one: the universe itself.

You should consider a key point :

Does the system deliver energy to the ambient ?

If so, perpetual motion is not possible

Otherwise it is possible
The motion of the electrons about the nucleus is an example of perpetuel motion

no it isn't.

why not ?

A Perpetuum mobile is not possible, because it is against common thermodynamic laws. There are two or more types of different perpetuum mobiles - but all fail at the first or second law of thermodynamics. For the newbie some constructions and effects seem to be an innovation - but looking at it, analizing it, you always come to the conclusion, that you put more engergy in, than you get out (due to loss in friction, heat etc. [but remember, energy can't be lost, it can only be transformed]).

You always have to stripe down the very complex constructions to a simple system - then you will always find out that something is wrong

Just a small sample: Every force in this world needs a counterpart, otherwise simple constructions as a chair / table etc. would never be able to exist ( they would roll over, begin to fly or collapse). So, transferring this to energy, you can't say that someone is producing energy, just transforming it. Otherwise we all would end up in chaos

The laws of Thermodynamics are statistical descriptions,
not exclusive laws.

Thus a perpetuum mobile is not impossible, but
statistically unlikely.

Quantum mechanic effects can create energy or order
out of a lower state. Its just statistically very unlikely.

So, mr Niels Bohr ignored the thermodynamic laws when he proposed his model of atom made od electrons orbiting about the nucleus without losing energy
A little bit unlikely , dont you agree ?

what about this?

the only thing needed would be perfect valves that don't lose water.

@ventilator: Your perpetuum mobile looks nice, but it would not work.

Even if we assume that the valves are perfect (which is not possible without additional energy), it will not work.

Because it only works when the left tube is completely filled with water. But in a completely filled tube there is not enough space for the ball. When the ball rolls into the tube filled with water, the water cannot expand because of the closed valves. So the pressure of the water would be too high. The ball would bounce off.

PERFECT valves that ...
1> doesnt let the water escape into the air side.
1> doesnt let the air escape into the water side.
2> dont required any energy to open and close
3> dont restrict the speed of the 'ball' in passing


Side question::
Does anyoneone know if permanent magnets (eg boron) are
reduced in their strength by being used...
eg: two equal boron magnets HELD north to north for an
extended period, and then are released.
Is thier strength (gauss rating?) still as strong as they were
in the beginning?
Has their 'strength' been diminished by being distorted for so long...

Yes, permanent magnets (ferromagnetic materials) lose their strength. But they can be magnetized again by using a strong magnetic field. They even can be demagnetized by using a certain magnetic field.

on the upper side there wouldn't have to be a valve at all. you could use something like a basketball that jumps out of the water. hm... but the ball would always take some water with it too.

Thanks Harry, Ive always wondered about that.

So any perpetual-motion machine using permanent magnets
as a propulsion system would only ever be 'virtually' perpetual...


Now back to topic...
But what about if we re-design Ventilators doo-dad a bit...
First, throw away the valves altogether.
Then we fill the air side with another fluid.
One that CANT mix with water, for-instance alcohol.
Then find a new ball with a density that allows it to
still float in water, bit sinks in the alcohol. (or vise-versa)
Then we extend the vertical tubes until the ball gains
enough momentum during both the rise and fall times to be
able to "pierce" the surface tension between the two fluids...

That way, we no longer worry about the valve energy requirements,
and if any fluid gets 'dragged' into the wrong tube it will
then either rise or fall as a bubble (like a lava-lamp),
and re-merge with its own type.

[EDIT]After further thought, I think we still need the top valve, just to keep
the 'up' tube fluids 'mostly' separate from the d'down' tube.
But it no longer needs to be perfect, as long as we get the
ball moving fast enought to push it open, its allowed to drag
a few drops through with it...

@EvilSOB
One thing is wrong in your idea
alcohol ( if we talk about ethanol the one you are drinking ) mixes with water.
alcohols in general doesn't mix with water with a chain lenght longer than 4 ( if i remember right so pentanol wouldn't mix with water.
A fluid which won't mix with water could belong to the group of Alkane ( sorry doesn't know the english term must be similiar )for example octan.

In general i believe a perpeetuum mobile is possible if it doesn't power something else or looses energy.

muffel

two different fluids that don't mix wouldn't stay next to each other though. one would rise and one would sink to the bottom.

OK, how about if I drop the alcohol and replace it with an oil?

If I remember correctly, oil and water will try to stay separate,
and oil is lighter than water...
Only the higher surface tension may be an issue....

What about water and petrol....??

Anyway, water is not strictly necessary. The concept only calls for two
non-mixable fluids with significantly differing density.

Ventilator: check my final note on my above post. The valve
at the top should stop what you say...

Can also be demagged by being exposed to heat higher than the Curie point.
But I beleive you would have to force 2 like-poles closer to each other, past the point they naturally repel each other to make them lose strength - just a guess...

PS> *Anything* is possible, just some things aren't likely - not on this planet anyway.
I'm sure that the laws of thermodynamics absolutely don't apply *somewhere* in our galaxy/universe.
Just so the Universe gets the last laugh at mankind...

Since water is considered the universal solvent, I wouldn't use water at all.
Water even mixes with oil - if you create an emulsion/emulsifier.
If I remember, I think egg whites do that - as in mayonnaise.

Also, I think liquids have to high a coefficient of friction for PM machines.
Perhaps gasses/plasmas?

Thanks for the interesting answers!
What do you think about Finsrud's Perpetuum Mobile ?



[video:google]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=553061720631716456#[/video]

Well, its actually pretty simple to build a perpetuum mobile and described already in "Jim Knopf" by Michael Ende (dunno the english title)

Finsrud Gravito Magnetic Device:

"He is 'too busy' to answer scientific questions"

... well, that can be expected of any fraud-guy...

Ventilator's device should not work even in ideal condition, regardless of any modification which may be suggested

The fluid can lift the sphere if :

a) Density of fluid > density of sphere

The sphere can enter the tube if :

b) Potential energy of the sphere > work of the pressure of the fluid

claims a) and b) are in conflict

hm... yes, the ball would have to pushed into the water with quite some force at the bottom. didn't think of that.

about finsrud's machine... i guess it's just well machined and quite long running and he sneaks in at night and gives the ball a push or something like that. kind of like a pendulum clock. didn't they just need one push a day too?

Finsrud's Perpetuum Mobile is cool, but not perpetual. The motion is very efficient but driven by magnetic fields, which costed quite some energy to create in the first place.

I once thought of putting a magnet in a coil in space. Give the magnet a swing and it would rotate forever. Free electricity!

http://www.opserver.de/ubb7/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=98875

If you spin a spoon in space, you will have a perpetuum mobile.

It will not ever stop, if its like in a position like the
intergalactical space.

The earth is also a perpetuum mobile, else it would have fallen into
the sun.

the earth will fall into the sun sooner or later though. so it's not a perpetuum mobile. just very long running.

No I don't. The Bohr atom model is able to predict the energy levels of an atom to some extend but it is wrong. Electrons don't move around the core.

Also wanted to say something about that. But it's in vain, because most people won't accept any simple answer and them being not that into this stuff, explaining can be very hard.

Just one thing about the electron thingy; it is far more complex than you may think, and with Bohrs model you just try to model some facts. But keep in mind, that it is only a model, it can be used for certain thing but you can't port the macrocosmos to the microcosmos or the otherway round! It is just a model, a very simple model. Scientists can hardly describe the way of an electron, then there is the thing with not knowing where on the track this electron is. It is all a bit more complex than just sayin, ahh, electrons are perpetuum mobiles
And always keep in mind - it is just a model to cover certain physical phenomena - nobody knows what really goes on in these little dimensions. To describe certain things you also have to use different models, and there are way more models than just the one of Bohr.

So enough of it. If you want to know more, look up Heisenberg, Schrödinger & Co

The magnetic machine: Well nicely done but a waste of time because it loses energy, of course. It doesn't even run in vacuum, so you got to clean it. What now is the question of energy used to be the question to create gold. The alchemy was born and well - no one ever invented a process to get gold out of cheap components

The same applies for the perpetuum mobile - you can spend a lot of time improving new concepts etc. but it would be better to get a real job, because then you got at least a bit of money back

right , some meters a years, because there is some cosmic dust along its orbit
However it may exist in some remote part of the universe a planet moving along a 100 % clean path
This would be e perpetuum mobile
Instead of a planet I mentioned the atoms
Nobody has ever seen an electron falling on the nucleus

I did not go through Finsrud's Perpetuum Mobile

However if you need to create a magnetic field only at the beginning then it would be a perpetuum mobile ,regardless of the initial cost of energy
It is also possible both in theory and in practice to create a permanent magnetic field using super conductors

If you use the magnetic field to generate a current then the current itself shall induce in the super conductor a counter electromagnetic force which quench the magnetic field

The magnetic field is permanent as long as it does not supply energy

i always wondered about orbits of planets and moons. even with a perfect vacuum with no dust, wouldn't the velocity have to be perfectly adjusted too if there never should be a collision?

I guess this is the quirk then in such a device? The field weakens at the friction of the passing ball?

The centrifugal force Fc = m * V^2 / r

must match

The gravitational force Fg = g m * M / r^2

From the equation you get V

The exact calculus is much more complicated because the center of mass of the system is not the center of mass of the sun
The orbit is not a perfect circle
You should consider also a tangent inertial force

However the final result wiil be very close to the one you get from the simplified equation, the mass of the sun being much bigger than the one of the earth

two-body problems can still be solved analytically, you can reduce it to a one-body problem with fixed center. just replace the orbiting body's mass by its reduced mass (µ = (m*M)/(m+M)).
besides, circles are not the only stable orbits; in fact, any orbit is stable since the effective potential includes a repulsive centrifugal term which goes ~ 1/r^2, while gravity is ~ 1/r, so in principle you can't ever reach the center.
there are two orbit types (in theory there are three but the third one is not interesting):
1. passing by (high velocity): you get nearer to the center, pass by it and then fly away and never come back
2. oribt: everything else, you're captured in the potential. always stable

with stable i mean, of course, that the planet never falls into the sun. this is not correct, obviously, since the sun has a specific diameter and like that even not reaching its gravitational center could destroy the orbiting planet.

as for the moon: it is not a perfect perpetuum mobile, mostly because it pulls on earth's water and the friction on earth then drags energy out of the moon.

Interesting, I searched for that, and I ended on Tidal Acceleration
But it appears that your description is only the case for moons that orbit faster than their host planet rotates. Like Phobos moving much faster than its host, it slowly spirals down towards Mars. In turn the planet rotation speeds up (tides also exist on planets without liquid, the effect is just smaller).

The moon is slower, causes the tides on earth to move ahead of the moon which accelerates the moon and decelerates earth's rotation.

You did not get the point
I know that the atom of Bohr is just a rough rappresentation of the reality
But if it were also in conflict with the law of thermodynamics, it would have been refuted from the very beginning
Just a matter of common sense

I wonder how much you are into this stuff

In fact it has always been known that this model is wrong when you describe it classicaly, this is because moving charge emits an electromagnetic wave which drags energy out of the system. You can calculate how much time it has before the electron falls into the nucleus and its, as far as I can remember, less than a second. So yes, it contradicts classical electrodynamics. Bohr knew about that problem.
The thing is that the Bohr model was successfully describing the discrete energy lines of quicksilver with high accuracy, something which other models were not able to do, so there has to be some truth to it (and there is, namely the quantization of angular momentum and the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics which give discrete energy levels).

There are many more problems with this model:
1. emission of electromagnetic energy
2. atoms are not "flat": conservation of angular momentom suggests flat orbits, though
3. angular momentum of the ground state is in fact zero, so there is no orbital movement
4. it contradicts Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: you cannot know momentum and position to an arbitrary high precision; alternatively you cannot know the complete angular momentum vector.


I've once read a physics book when I was... dunno... fourteen or so.

What does classic electromagnetism have to do with thermodynamics laws ?

Bohr claimed : let's assume that the moving charges do not emit energy in some conditions
He did not say : Lets assume that the termodynamica laws are not valid at atomic scale

Once you accept , by hyphotesis, that the electron does not emit energy then you accept also that certain orbits are stable even though the thermodynamics laws remain valid

what does an orbiting electron have to do with thermodynamics? thermodynamics describes an ensemble of states, not an individual particle. I didn't use the word thermodynamics, that was you.

Nothing but it is what Brederbrothers said
I did not quote only you

Though, objects that continue to orbit forever without decelerating is not yet perpetual. When it allows generating energy it is. But that would cause a deceleration.

well it depends on what you mean for perpetuum mobile

Objects which continue to orbit forever are , in my opinion, an example of perpetuum mobile which by itself is not in conflict with the laws of physics
The direct opposite

The generation of energy is a further requirement
If so, the first and the second laws of thermodynamics prevent the system from moving forever

Finsrud's device does not supply energy, as far as I understand
Mr Finsrud admit that some maintance is needed
In principle it may work

It does. Moving masses create gravitation waves which, just like electromagnetic waves, have an energy flow. So no moving perpetuum mobile is possible at all, even if it does not generate energy by design.

Come on...gravitation waves ...It could keep moving for milion years

Finsrud's device sooner or later shall stop because of passive resistance
However Mr Finsrud himself admitted that some maintance is needed to clean the trails , to lubrificate the axis etc
If so, I would not be surprised if his device can keep moving for years
It is not in conflict with physical laws

uhm...dont get offended but you should take out your physics books from the shelf
too long time has elapsed

The Bohr model did not succesfully describe the energy lines of the hydrogen ( Quicksilver ? )
The model by itself does not provide any explanation for the energy levels
The quantization of the energy levels is an empirical input gained by the experience while the quantization of angular moment is a direct consequence of the quantization of the energy levels

The Schondringer's equation provided an explanation for the discrete energy levels but it has nothing to do with its probabilistic interpretation which Schondringer himself alwayes rejected

Schondringer thought that electrons were a sort of negative electicity clouds ( waves) wrapped around the nucleus
The solutions of his equation were supposed to be a measure of the density of such cloud ( waves)
However this assumption were refuted by the experience
Moreove it could not be extended to more complex atoms
Consequently Born proposed a probabilistic instead of a physical interpretation of the solution of the equation which is nowadays universally accepted

As far as our discussion was concerned
Electrons are actually particles in perpetual motion about the nucleaus even though they dont follow the Newtonian laws

with quicksilver he meant mercury i think.

hah, that's the price to pay for using remailers o.O. of course I meant mercury.


you might be right here... so where do you get your knowledge about quantum mechanics from? You seem to know very much about it. *hust*


It does.


I don't want to criticise you here, but when you're talking about scientific stuff you should try to not mix up stuff so much. While it might sound impressive for people who do not know much about it, I don't like to discuss with someone who can't express a clear idea.
It's true that the quantization is proven empirically. But it is not true that quantization of angular momentum is a direct consequence of the quantization of energy levels. In fact it has nothing to do with each other. In the Bohr model, though, you can derive either one from the other. Still, this does not make it a consequence.


Never heard of that.

Again.

Assuming you mean Schrödinger, it might be true that he rejected the probabilistic interpretation. Nevertheless, the state the equation acts on is the probability amplitude. If you say "it has nothing to do" - where do you get that from? I am curious.

Sorry for hijacking this thread. To add something to the discussion: one thing I always found fascinating is the following wheel:

Of course it doesn't work but I find it quite impressive, because its counter-intuitive that it doesn't work.

Since rojart explicitely stated the addition of work, I take that requirement as part of the perpetual machine definition, as well as the poll result. If people filled in without stated condition, then the poll is not accurate anymore .

Yes if you stick to the original post , you are right but if you go through the following posts you can see yourself that the " additional work " has been ignored while this is the key point
Finsrud's and Ventilator's device for example do not produce work

I also think that infinite motion mechanisms theoretically exist, such as, plausibly, electrons around a nucleus. In optimal environment conditions I may suppose Finsrud's device is one of these. But in practice I think I can safely say that it is impossible to create an infinite-motion machine. The only true infinite motion system is the universe in its entirety.

Needless to say, I'd love to have that ball machine in my room.

Of course I understood that you meant mercury but you said that the Bohr's atom can predict its energy levels
Sorry it is a nonsense
I guess you made a confusion witn the Hertz experiment




From university, at 14 years old my main interest was soccer



It does.
No it doesn't

Why did you not try to better support your opinion instead of making childish issues ?
Anyway

A mass of hydrogen , same as any other elements, can only absorbs or emit radiation having certains frequencies
The set of fequencies being known as the spectrum of the elemet
At the time it was also well known that :

E = h * f

whereas E is the energy of the photon of the radiation and f its frequency
According to Rutherford's experiment , electrons should orbit about the nucleus
Bohr put the above experimental evidences together
He said
Well there are some energy levels : e0 - e1 - e2 ...en which are stable despite classic electromagnetism
Electrons can jump only from one of these state to an other one, absorbing or emitting a photon whose energy is the difference between the final and the initial energy level
All the other energy levels are forbidden to the electron
Why ?
He did not provide any explanation

The explanation came from the Schrödinger's equation
The solutions of the equation for the atom of hydrogen prove that the energy levels associated with its spectrum are the only ones which allow a stable configuration

However Schrödinger thought that electrons were waves
If so, you can have an intuitive rappresentation of the stable configurations of the electrons

Further experiments and theoratical analysis refuted such interpretation in favour of a probabilistic interpretation

In conclusion
Electrons are particles in perpetual motion about the nucleus even though they dont follow the Newtonian laws

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model#Electron_energy_levels


Hey I study physics. That 14 years old story was a joke (did nobody get that?). What do you study?


Okay, see the above link. It took me like five seconds to find it. I really don't get where you get that claim from. The Bohr model gives you the frequencies. Via E=hf you get the energy levels. You even explained that yourself o.O. But I'll try again: no matter how Bohr came to the conclusion, he sais that angular momentum is quantized. From that or alternatively from requesting a continuous wave circle (with the electron's de Broglie wavelength) you get discrete orbits. The frequency of these orbits give you the energy levels via E=hf. So the explanation for the discrete energy levels in the Bohr model is the quantized angular momentum or, alternatively, the continuous wave about the nucleus (standing wave). Of course you can say that Bohr derived the quantized angular momentum by looking at the discrete energy levels since they were known before. But that doens't matter. The Bohr model requires the quantized angular momentum to describe the energy levels. Whether or not this explanation is true does not matter. Neither does it matter how Bohr developed his ideas. Nowadays, the Bohr model is derived from the quantum rule for angular momentum, and that's where the discrete energy levels come from.


Again, to summarize: I don't know what Bohr did. The Bohr model though gives the explanation. It sais that all other orbits give no standing wave and thus are forbidden.


In fact the Schrödinger equation is a postulate so it can hardly qualify as an explanation, if I follow your argumentation. For me, though, it gives an explanation (why does the Schrödinger equation give you an explanation while the Bohr model does not? Both are just theories...).


What do you mean with stable?
Ok, time to use the knowledge from the book I read when I was fourteen. JOKE
The time-independent SE is a differential equation. If you plug in the hamiltonian for a Coulomb potential, which is spherically symmetric in the case of a hydrogen-like atom (which is the only one you can solve analytically anyway), you can factorize the wave function into a radial and an angular part. The angular solutions for all spherically symmetric potentials are the sperical harmonics Y_lm, where l is just the angular momentum quantum number and m its z-component (or, alternatively, its magnetic quantum number). For the radial part you get laguerre-polynomials P_nl, where n is the energy quantum number. The energy of this state now can be measured with the hamiltonian and are just its eigenvalues.


Of course electrons are waves. This does not conflict with the probabilistic interpretation.


No. Nothing is moving. Hydrogen wave functions are completely stationary, there is absolutely no time dependence involved (see my derivation above, you use the time-independent SE).

Once again an interesting discussion =).

I took a degree in nuclear engineering



It is exactly what I say
Not only
The Bohr's model is more or less valid for the atom of hydrogen only and just a few others atoms ( including mercury)
It is not even compatible with the atom of helium

For this reason it must be understood as semi empirical model



You provided yourself the scientific explanation

Let's translate it into a plain spaghetti English

Generally speaking you can describe a physical model using a differential equation
However it does not mean that all the solutions of the equations must have a physical meaning
Having said that, let's write the Schrödinger's equation for the atom of hydrogen
The equation contains the parameter "E" for energy
If you assign to "E" an arbitrary value then the solutions of the equations do not have any physical meaning
Only for some discrete values of E ( the eigenvalues ) the solution of the equation make sense from a physical point of view
This set of E values comply with the the experimental values
In other words for Bohr the quantization of the energy levels is an input for Schrödinger it is an ouput
I suppose there is a difference



If you mean some stuff such as the collapse of the wave form well there is still a minority of scientists who believe in this theory ( The great Roger Penrose for example ) but it has been refuted by the vast majority of scientists
Electrons are supposed to be particles even though they dont behave same as the normal particle we are used to
Right or wrong this is the state of art of modern quantum physics



I agree, at least for us

i dont think a perpetuum mobile is possible

Just a few words more
The Schrödinger equation is a postulate ...up to a certain extent
The actual postulate is the duality particle / wave
Once you accept this postulate, the equation can be derived by merging the D'Alambert equation ( wave) and the Hamilton equation (particles) via Debroglie
The similarity between rays of light and material particles had already been noticed in the 18° century but nobody dared to draw the logical conclusion

Apart from that the Schrödinger equation can be applied also to the study of the atom of hydrogen but it is not, so to speak, "Hydrogen " dependent
On the contrary
The postulate

m*v * 2PI * r = nh

It has been proposed by Bohr "ad hoc " for the atom of hydrogen due to the fact that Bohr knew in advance the results to be achieved

For this reason the Schrödinger equation is a step forth in the study of the secret of atoms

As a side-note::

Speaking of Schrödinger always makes me think of being cruel to cats.
So this is almost on topic...
Take this Antigravity Machine...
Add a spindle between the cat and the toast...
Connect the spindle to a generator...

Perpetual energy?

Yes, I see your point. But, as I said earlier, we no longer take the energy levels as input for the Bohr model, although Bohr himself might have done that once. What we do say, though, is that angular momentum is quantized. With this prerequisite, discrete energy levels are as well an output from the Bohr model.


Of course electrons are particles. But they're waves, too, in every sense. In quantum field theory, which is the most successful theory so far for the whole matter, electrons are nothing but filled modes in momentum space.
I don't know exactly what you meant with Penrose, but I don't know a physicicst who sais that electrons cannot be described as waves.


Maybe I should stop looking for physical discussions around here. Seems to kill topics

Ok I agree , this is my last post on this topic



Maybe I am rusty, I studied this stuff may years ago, but honestly I dont think that you are right
Both the Bohr's and the Schrödinge's model make use of the duality particle / wave but there is a huge difference
The Bohr's model lacks the equation !
it can not be an exhaustive model, more inputs are needed
The Bohr's model is , relatively speaking, quite a rough one
You even need to introduce empirical parameters taken from the Balmer equation
You can imagine
Unless for Bohr's model you mean some further development which I am not aware of
The original one is not for sure what you have been talking about
It may have an hystorical interest, nothing more




In the past most of the scientists believed that electrons were really both particles and waves
Nowadays the associated "wave" must be understood just as a mathematical entity

EvilSOB, ventilator: Why would the ball ever enter the leftside medium? (Be it alcohol+water, water+air, or any other two substances)
Even with perfect Valves, I don't think it would enter a medium from the bottom if that medium is denser than the one one it's in.

yes, this already did come up. the only solution to make this thing work would be a very energy efficient teleporter.

what about doing it on a smaller scale and using osmosis or something? but there would be the same problem. it would only work in one direction.

http://www.tga-fachplaner.de/Funktions-Prinzip-eines-Osmose-Kraftwerks,QUlEPTI2NDY0NCZNSUQ9MzAwMDI.html

Summing up, in my opinion, each materia will end its life in a black hole, therefore perpetual motion is not possible, but one thing will exist very long (maybe infinitively) as there exist a black hole, simply gravitation.
Therefore gravitation is itself ala perpetual mobile imho.

Anyway, to build an experimental PM will be costly to.
What would you say about a little contest for the best PM with physX engine?

MY 'belief' with the ball entering the left-side media is based on the length of the vertical pipes...

Once the pipe is long enough, the ball will pick up enough momentum during its 'fall' to push it across
the boundary between light and dense media.
Whenever there are two media face-to-face (as at the boundary) there will be an equivalent of 'surface tension'.
The greater the difference in density, the greater the tension.
So if our two media are close to the same density, then the tension the ball needs to break is less, so the slower
it can be moving.
BUT THEN the density of the ball needs to be more accurately calculated in order to sink on the right side but float on the left.

Remember, it has been a LONG time since scool for me, so this is all based on rusty theory...

game physics engines wouldn't be good to simulate something like this. they gain or lose energy quite quickly because of float imprecision.

@EvilSOB I meant just for fun and not the scientific method.


Yes, with the same inaccuracies everyone had the same float imprecision, because everyone will have the same results and only one physx engine will be used.

Would anyone like to take a part in this contest ala Perpetuum mobile with PhysX engine?
Of course, if I find much willing users to the contest, then I give the rules of that contest in a new thread.

Consider a square section and a cube , instead of a sphere , just to make it easier

The work made by the fluid is:

W = P * A * L

With P = density of the fluid * H

W = density of the fluid * V * H

The potential energy of the cube is :

U = density of the cube * V * H

If U > W Then density of the cube > density of the fluid

If the cube enters the pipe the fluid can not lift the cube

I think he didn't mean enough momentum to push the cube all the way up the fluid.

Edit: what could be possible, though, is a suprafluid substance such as He4. I just don't see how you would keep it on the left side.