Perpetual motion?

[rogersix]

The enviroment of the universe enables gravity and the universe came from energy, just like the spin of the earth enables a magnitism process.

If you are saying this is a hoax then it may or not be, but at this point we are discussing gravity.

gravity is a force, not energy. magnetism, as far as i understand it, comes the churning of ions in the earth's core

 

[symyjym]

"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed. The first law is often formulated by stating that the change in the internal energy of a closed system is equal to the amount of heat supplied to the system, minus the amount of work done by the system on its surroundings. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible."

That ball creates sound and heat, and it's claimed that it's perpetual motion. Looks like the rule has been broken to me.

Gravity doesn't break the first law of thermodynamics, it is a force and creates potential energy. That potential energy comes from an enviroment that energy created so I'm not sure what your issue is.

Whether the video is a hoax or not it doesn't change the "what gravity is?" discussion.

 

[Triggaaar]

Gravity doesn't break the first law of thermodynamics, it is a force and creates potential energy.

No it doesn't. The potential energy is either there, or it's not there. How do you think gravity creates more of it?

 

[symyjym]

gravity is a force, not energy. magnetism, as far as i understand it, comes the churning of ions in the earth's core

We are only spinning because a planet the size of Mars crashed into us 4.5 billion years ago. Magnitism and Gravity are byproducts of the energy in the Universe. We use the the gravitaional pull of Jupiter to slingshot and speed up the spacecraft we send to the outer solar system because it is potential energy.

 

[Triggaaar]

Yeah, but does the PE change depending on the frame of reference?

No, but the way you define the PE might change.

 

[Triggaaar]

We use the the gravitaional pull of Jupiter to slingshot and speed up the spacecraft we send to the outer solar system because it is potential energy.

Being pedantic for a second, that is the spacecraft's potential energy, not Jupiter's. If you lift an object up in the air, that object then has more potential energy (we'll ignore the effect that lifting that object has on the earth for now). You can say that all mass on earth has potential energy that is only realised if we move that mass towards another mass (like Jupiter or the Sun).

 

[rogersix]

We are only spinning because a planet the size of Mars crashed into us 4.5 billion years ago. Magnitism and Gravity are byproducts of the energy in the Universe. We use the the gravitaional pull of Jupiter to slingshot and speed up the spacecraft we send to the outer solar system because it is potential energy.

everything spins!
it's magnEtism
they aren't byproducts, it's all one space-time continuum
gravity isn't PE or any type of energy
hope this helps!

 

[symyjym]

everything spins!
it's magnEtism
they aren't byproducts, it's all one space-time continuum
gravity isn't PE or any type of energy
hope this helps!

Well everything I have Googled is in disagreement with you.

 

[symyjym]

Being pedantic for a second, that is the spacecraft's potential energy, not Jupiter's. If you lift an object up in the air, that object then has more potential energy (we'll ignore the effect that lifting that object has on the earth for now). You can say that all mass on earth has potential energy that is only realised if we move that mass towards another mass (like Jupiter or the Sun).

Being pedantic for a minute The reason why we are talking about this is because you are pedantic.

 

[Triggaaar]

Being pedantic for a minute The reason why we are talking about this is because you are pedantic.

No it isn't. You're saying that this perpetual motion thing could be real, because it's getting energy from gravity. I'm trying to explain to you why that's not possible. WTF has that got to do with being pedantic?

 

[Triggaaar]

One thing I'd like to know, is where they found people stupid enough to watch that for 3 days?

 

[symyjym]

No it isn't. You're saying that this perpetual motion thing could be real, because it's getting energy from gravity. I'm trying to explain to you why that's not possible. WTF has that got to do with being pedantic?

No that's exactly not what I said.

I said: gravity and magnitism is energy'

You said: No it isn't

Then I correcten myself and said it is potential energy.

That my friend is being pedantic, and has nothing to do with the original topic or whether this is a hoax or not.

https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?p=7699335#post7699335

 

[Triggaaar]

No that's exactly not what I said.

I said: gravity and magnitism is energy'

You said: No it isn't

Then I correcten myself and said it is potential energy.

You're wrong symyjym and I'm being upfront and honest with you, I'm not being pedantic or winding you up etc. I said gravity isn't energy because it's not any form of energy - it's not potential energy. If it was potential energy, then it would have been wrong of me to say it wasn't energy.

Objects that are affected by gravity have potential energy, and realising that potential gives us energy. Gravity itself doesn't have potential energy, so we can't just gain energy from the fact that there is gravity. You were thinking that the machine was using the energy from gravity and I'm telling you that's not possible, as gravity doesn't have any form of energy to give.

 

[symyjym]

You're wrong symyjym and I'm being upfront and honest with you, I'm not being pedantic or winding you up etc. I said gravity isn't energy because it's not any form of energy - it's not potential energy. If it was potential energy, then it would have been wrong of me to say it wasn't energy.

Objects that are affected by gravity have potential energy, and realising that potential gives us energy. Gravity itself doesn't have potential energy, so we can't just gain energy from the fact that there is gravity. You were thinking that the machine was using the energy from gravity and I'm telling you that's not possible, as gravity doesn't have any form of energy to give.

FFS you are sounding pretty desperate. You can clearly see that the machine uses a spring motion to lift the ball and the force it creates when it lands gives it a push like a pinball flipper, so yes the machine uses gravity. That's what I pointed out, that gravity is used but you want to make me look like an idiot.

I made a simple observation about the machine and you have turned this discussion into a monster. It's not the first time you have done this either, you strawmanned me the other week.

 

[FatSuperman]

I can't wait for the first rule of thermodynamics to be really broken. We can bump this thread at that point.

Prior to 101% efficient solutions though, is settle for all of our current energy conversion methods to be a little less shocking than they currently are. The quote about the internal combustion engine being, what, 30% efficient - is that factoring everything in? (Burning the fuel, capturing the energy of the small explosions, converting that to kinetic energy, all the fiddling to get the energy to the wheels, the friction on your average road, in mild conditions?)

 

[Guy Fawkes]

You're wrong symyjym and I'm being upfront and honest with you, I'm not being pedantic or winding you up etc. I said gravity isn't energy because it's not any form of energy - it's not potential energy. If it was potential energy, then it would have been wrong of me to say it wasn't energy.

Objects that are affected by gravity have potential energy, and realising that potential gives us energy. Gravity itself doesn't have potential energy, so we can't just gain energy from the fact that there is gravity. You were thinking that the machine was using the energy from gravity and I'm telling you that's not possible, as gravity doesn't have any form of energy to give.

Hydro electric dams use gravity by way of moving water from one height to another and in the process turn turbines, does the water itself contain less energy at the start when it was in the reservoir compared to when it has reached the river (or whatever is being used to move the water away) ie, do the H2O molecules have less energy as a result of this action?

Or has the energy stored by being at a greater height and the effect gravity has had on moving it to a lower height released the (potential) energy?

 

[Triggaaar]

FFS you are sounding pretty desperate.

Er, no.

You can clearly see that the machine uses a spring motion to lift the ball

Well no, I haven't looked at it for more than a few seconds. I don't need to.

and the force it creates when it lands gives it a push like a pinball flipper, so yes the machine uses gravity. That's what I pointed out, that gravity is used but you want to make me look like an idiot.

No that's not what I'm trying to do, and now you're pissing me off to be honest. Of course gravity is involved, otherwise the ball wouldn't roll downhill, the pendulums wouldn't swing back from the top of their swing etc, but you mentioned gravity in response to this quote:

the laws of thermodynamics clearly state, "energy cannot be created or destroyed, you can only change its form"

You said: "Of course, but gravity and magnitism is energy. This machine is using both."

Now we know that the machine is giving off energy in the form of sound and heat. That energy has to come from somewhere, so reading your post it looks like you think that energy is coming from an endless supply of gravity/magnitism. That's wrong and I'm trying to help you understand that, but you're just wrongfully accusing me of being pedantic and trying to make you look like an idiot, which is not my intention.

I made a simple observation about the machine

You believed this was the first machine to have perpetual motion, you said it was not losing energy from sound, you said that sound wasn't stopping the motion. I have no desire to be rude to you, you've always been pretty pleasant to me as far as I can remember, so when I tell you you're wrong on all those points I'm not saying it to insult you, I'm just saying it because it's true and we're discussing science here.

you have turned this discussion into a monster.

I haven't. I'm sorry if you feel silly or something for believing the video, but don't take it out on me.

It's not the first time you have done this either, you strawmanned me the other week.

That's how you felt, but it's not what I was trying to do.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed. The first law is often formulated by stating that the change in the internal energy of a closed system is equal to the amount of heat supplied to the system, minus the amount of work done by the system on its surroundings. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible."

That ball creates sound and heat, and it's claimed that it's perpetual motion. Looks like the rule has been broken to me.

The energy used to create that heat and sound is being replaced (maybe not by 100%) by the effects of the magnets, the loss of energy, and why it may not be a perpetual energy machine is because the magnets will lose this power over time if it is transporting this energy into the ball and that is creating the noise and heat, this process may take a very long time to run out hence why they were taking about being about possibly 80 or 90% of the way there (or, as 1 guess put it, 99%)

The magnets are pulling the ball around the track and dropping away before the ball reaches it, preventing that magnet stopping the ball as it reaches it, allowing the next magnet to exert it's pull, combined with the balls momentum which allows it to (almost) reach the next magnet in the process.

Magnets can be used to move trains such as the Maglev trains in Japan, this is just a scaled down version of a similar principle

 

[Triggaaar]

Hydro electric dams use gravity by way of moving water from one height to another and in the process turn turbines, does the water itself contain less energy at the start when it was in the reservoir compared to when it has reached the river

No, the other way around. When it was up higher, it had more potential energy.

do the H2O molecules have less energy as a result of this action?

They have less potential energy as a result of falling.

Or has the energy stored by being at a greater height and the effect gravity has had on moving it to a lower height released the (potential) energy?

Yes.

And the Sun's energy will heat more air and water which will cause the air to contain more moisture, which will rise and form clouds, which will fill the reservoir.

 

[Triggaaar]

The energy used to create that heat and sound is being replaced (maybe not by 100%) by the effects of the magnets, the loss of energy, and why it may not be a perpetual energy machine is because the magnets will lose this power...

Whatever energy the machine started with, is lost as the ball makes noise and heat, and as the springs etc make heat. It's that simple.

I've got a 100 year old wind up clock that you can watch run for 8 days without slowing down if you want.

Magnets can be used to move trains such as the Maglev trains in Japan, this is just a scaled down version of a similar principle

Presumably those magnets are powered by electricity, so it's not a scaled down version.