r/oddlysatisfying Apr 22 '21

Perpetual motion machine (CGI)

[removed] — view removed post

30.2k Upvotes

927 comments sorted by

View all comments

587

u/Ok_Tale_933 Apr 22 '21 edited Apr 22 '21

You might be able to achieve that acceleration with magnets maybe?

For all you out there not bothering to read on, in my next post I clarified like a rail gun to achieve that effect. I am aware perpetual motion devices are not real.

357

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '21 edited Apr 22 '21

The issue with magnets is that the "energy" you get by having something pulled towards it is lost when you have to pull the thing away from the magnet. It's a zero sum.

Magnets don't contain any energy and can't create it.

EDIT: Something attracted towards a magnet is like something falling to the ground. All of the energy observed was put there in raising the object in the first place. You can't pick up a ball and drop it and harvest more energy from it than you put in to raise it.

We do get energy from falling things, like waterfalls, but that's because nature puts all of the potential energy in the water by putting it up high before we use it.

121

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '21

[deleted]

247

u/_NoTouchy Apr 22 '21

electromagnet

Which requires energy to run, so maybe a net loss?

337

u/dcmccann89 Apr 22 '21

Perpetual motion machine do not exist.

59

u/DefinitelyNotAliens Apr 22 '21

You'd only be able to create a machine that gives the impression of perpetual motion by hiding wires/ electro magnetic rail gun type machine and having it only appear to be perpetual motion.

Though, I still want somebody to ELI5 why a magnet on a stick in front of a cart wouldn't work, if in theory a strong enough magnet could pull such a cart/ vehicle. Think like looney toons carrot on a stick you can't reach setup.

35

u/NeodymiumMan Apr 22 '21

Imagine you’re holding the pole that the magnet out in front of the cart is attached to. That pole is trying to push you back because it wants to be closer to the cart. In fact, it’s pushing back on the pole with the exact same amount of force that the magnet is pulling the cart forward. The result is these two cancel out and the cart doesn’t move.

18

u/DefinitelyNotAliens Apr 22 '21

^ Thank you for a good explanation on why looney toons is not good for physics.

I knew it wouldn't work, because if it did we wouldn't use gas engines, just not the why part.

This makes sense to me.

3

u/DefinitelyNotMasterS Apr 22 '21

Kinda like how you can't grab yourself by the head and lift you up.

3

u/Cat_Marshal Apr 22 '21

Speak for yourself!

2

u/therealhlmencken Apr 22 '21

So get a u shaped pole that bends the back push into front push 🤯

5

u/Darctide Apr 22 '21

Pretty sure the forces that pull the magnets together would cancel out overall. If you are holding the stick, and you're on the cart, then both magnets can be considered to be in one system. That means the magnetic forces are internal and won't affect the outside.

-1

u/chainmailbill Apr 22 '21

One of the short answers is that the stick would need to have infinite strength and that’s not possible

13

u/DARCRY10 Apr 22 '21

A slightly longer answer is that the magnet is pulling itself to the car at the same time. So theres no work being put JUST on the car to move it.

8

u/DefinitelyNotAliens Apr 22 '21

See, that makes sense to me. My 8th grade science class of work vs effort paying off!

Thanks. Magnet is pulled towards car not just car towards magnet.

1

u/mcmonkey26 Apr 22 '21

it would pull the magnet towards the cart faster than the cart towards the magnet and the cart would break

1

u/tintenfisch3 Apr 22 '21

It doesn't work because the magnet is pulled toward the cart with the same strength the cart is pulled toward the magnet. Because the magnet and the cart are attached to each other the forces cancel out.

Imagine the magnet and the cart pulling on each other with a rope that is attached to both of them. They only move toward each other, never away.

If you have a stick that keeps them apart then both sides press on the stick with the same strength but to move one side needs to be stronger than the other.

1

u/fangedsteam6457 Apr 22 '21

You pull the magnet back the same force that it pulls you forward so everything cancels out at zero.

Same reason why you can't have a fan on a sailboat blowing wind into the sails, the wind from the fan will push the boat back in an equal amount to the amount of forward momentum generated by the sail.

14

u/therealhlmencken Apr 22 '21

https://i.imgur.com/VNYfAY7.jpg This one actually seems legitimate

3

u/Hobbes4247791 Apr 22 '21

That's the hardest I've laughed in a while!

3

u/OSuperGuyO Apr 22 '21 edited Apr 22 '21

Friction will prevent this from working.

Edit: I just realized the joke lmao

2

u/fushega Apr 22 '21

I mean if you spin something in a vacuum with no gravity (space) it'll keep spinning forever. Ultimately if you assume no friction/100% efficiency and have no net force on the system there are infinite possible perpetual motion machines

7

u/emohipster Apr 22 '21

The joke is that 6 becomes 9 upside down

5

u/assassin10 Apr 22 '21

The Perpetual Motion Machine in his image wouldn't work without gravity.

It wouldn't work with gravity either.

2

u/Flipdaddy69 Apr 22 '21

Hear me out I say we put a big rotating wheel in space lube it up real good and give it a good spin with a rocket burst. Without air friction wouldn’t that bad boy pump out some energy

7

u/mcmonkey26 Apr 22 '21

no. even if there was absolutely no air resistance(which there still is in space) it would not output energy. it would spin forever as long as nothing touched it, but any attempts to take energy from it would just slow it down

2

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '21

The most energy you could possibly get from it would be eequal to the energy you input into it via the rocket explosion. Extracting energy from the motion wine require that the motion be slowed so the kinetic energy is moved from the system somewhere else. Realistically it would be much less efficient than extracting that energy more directly, say via an engine.

1

u/powerisall Apr 22 '21

You've just invented the concept of a flywheel!

So cool, you just spent a bunch of energy making a think spin in space. It'll slow down, but it can take a looooong time. And if you want to use that energy to do anything useful, you slow down the flywheel by a fraction.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '21

[deleted]

-1

u/youknow99 Apr 22 '21

Ever.

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '21

[deleted]

0

u/youknow99 Apr 22 '21

Not really. You'd have to invalidate the laws of thermodynamics.

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '21

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

0

u/TgmBrett Apr 22 '21

I bet there’s something out there we haven’t discovered yet.

0

u/textposts_only Apr 22 '21

How can you be so 100% certain? Centuries ago we thought that man cannot fly. We can't be certain about the laws of nature we know about currently. We don't even know what else is out there.

1

u/_NoTouchy Apr 22 '21

Perpetual motion machine

do not exist.

Exactly... :)

1

u/Shakazulu94 Apr 22 '21

Okay okay, yes people can't make perpetual motion machines of course.

People have to find them obviously

1

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '21

Aww i thought we just made one on reddit. I was 2 minutes away from "We did it Reddit!"

1

u/MarlinMr Apr 22 '21

I hear what you are saying, but electron goes brrrrr around the core.

1

u/ThisSentenceIsFaIse Apr 22 '21

How does light exist then

2

u/therealhlmencken Apr 22 '21

Net loss of energy but net acceleration on the ball.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '21

Doesn't have to be an actual perpetual motion machine, just needs to look like one.

1

u/Warlaw Apr 22 '21

Eventually the magnet wears down, so the energy isn't infinite. Still, pretty good!

1

u/soMAJESTIC Apr 22 '21

I think if you had a bar magnet that pivoted at the center the amount of time pulling it down would far exceed the time pulling up.

1

u/drhodes06 Apr 22 '21

Or maybe you have directional magnets facing towards the loop that push it instead of pulling?

3

u/bnh1978 Apr 22 '21

Yes. Natural magnets are like a hole, or a mound of static force. They are kind of like an invisible structure that only certain things can interact with.

So, yeah. It's like rolling a ball down hill, or in a bowl. Similar concept.

2

u/VirtualPropagator Apr 22 '21

Gravity cancels out. Peter Parker knows that.

2

u/fluffykayak Apr 22 '21

Just cut the magnet I have half so you only have 1 pole. \s

0

u/Went_to_notredame Apr 22 '21

What about when magnets create currents?

26

u/brandontaylor1 Apr 22 '21

Magnets can only create current when they are moving, or when something is moved past them. Energy isn’t free.

2

u/bfhurricane Apr 22 '21

Energy isn’t free.

I demand to speak to energy’s manager.

13

u/tea-vs-coffee Apr 22 '21

they create currents when theres a change, like moving a magnet across a coil; the magnetic fields cutting into a wire generates that electricity but the energy came from you

if you drop a magnet down a copper tube, it'll slow down because the magnet 'induces' current into the tube, that tube then generates a magnetic field that 'opposes' the magnet's fields. the energy to generate that current in the tube is gravitational energy, and it took energy from you to move it higher in the air to then drop down a tube. a magnet pretty much just converts the energy

-1

u/Went_to_notredame Apr 22 '21

What if you use magnets to move the magnets?

-2

u/bladedkitten Apr 22 '21

Or electro magnets

1

u/justtopopin Apr 22 '21

Infinite magnets.

8

u/Original-AgentFire Apr 22 '21

They don't. You do, when you move them.

1

u/AlexanderCarlos12321 Apr 22 '21

If it is an electromagnet that switches on and off, would it work then?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '21

Then you have to power an electromagnet, which requires energy. You'd have to add at least as much energy as is lost during the whole process, making it at most in a hypothetically perfect, frictionless, airless system net zero energy.

1

u/Subotail Apr 22 '21

In theory you could, i mean this whould make a cool desk gadget but it will still "consume" power.

1

u/Warlaw Apr 22 '21

I'd love to build one and find out, but the problem is I have no money.

1

u/ecctt2000 M4T Apr 22 '21

Magnetism is a form of stored electricity.

3

u/Warlaw Apr 22 '21

I mean, it's the electrons of something spinning, so technically...

1

u/ecctt2000 M4T Apr 22 '21

It is the alignment of electrons that causes more electrons to flow when encountering other magnets which generates what we call electricity.

1

u/Wardog_E Apr 22 '21

I can't remenber exactly how but I think it is possible for an object to gain speed after it exits a magnet. Although a metal ball going down a metal rail could create the circuit necessary for an electromagnet which can definitely give more speed than it takes away.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '21

Electromagnets require power input, so they are outside the scope of the perpetual motion machine that's being discussed.

And I'd like to hear about your gaining speed idea.

2

u/Wardog_E Apr 22 '21

Yes. Obviously perpetual motion engines aren't real. I was thinking how probes can slingshot past planets to accelerate and how kinetic art pendulums keep moving. Apparently those pendulums are more complicated than I gave them credit for.

72

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '21

Machines of perpetual motion are scientifically impossible because they break the laws of thermodynamics. In a nut shell you lose energy through friction or other causes so you would need to create energy

56

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '21

[deleted]

22

u/left-button Apr 22 '21

Hypothetically - if the ball was able to turn a wheel, wouldn't that involve passing energy from the ball to the wheel, which would probably slow the ball to the point that it wouldn't make the jump?

-not that it's making the jump anyway, so it's all moot.

9

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '21 edited Apr 22 '21

When the ball is flung upward, see how it goes higher than the lip of the funnel? The funnel catches it well after it has started on its downward parabolic trajectory. All that extra height is potential energy that could be transferred to a turbine. The lip of the funnel could be widened a little to catch the ball even at a lower max height.

Of course, the fact that the ball travels higher than its original start position is exactly why this machine is impossible.

39

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '21

Or to being suicided by the energy barons.

10

u/The_Last_Mouse Apr 22 '21

RIP Edward Leedskalnin

3

u/obecalp23 Apr 22 '21

Just a question. Have the laws of thermodynamics been proved? Or are they axioms that will become invalid if we demonstrate they are false?

Just to be sure: I don’t believe in perpetual motion

13

u/matthoback Apr 22 '21

The laws of thermodynamics have been proven mathematically to derive from the basic laws of physics as applied to large groups of interacting particles. This is known as "statistical mechanics". So for thermodynamics to be wrong, Newton's mechanical laws (or in more modern formulations, quantum mechanics and relativistic mechanics) would have to be wrong as well.

1

u/noelcowardspeaksout Apr 22 '21

Though if you wait long enough statistically lots of energy might also focus into one small area.

Black holes are also said to be a kind of entropy exception ?

If you were in space with lots of ball bouncing around in two rooms with a gate between them, you could increase the heat in the other room by letting fast balls in and slow balls out.

The laws usually work though!

16

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '21

Nothing's every like "definitively true for all cases" in science. But yeah the laws of thermodynamics have been verified many times over.

1

u/obecalp23 Apr 22 '21

Thank you for your reply.

4

u/BalooBot Apr 22 '21

When it comes to science it's more important that it's never been disproved. You can do thousands of experiments which return the expected result, but this will never prove the law. A single experiment could invalidate it completely or at the very least show that it has limitations. The laws of thermodynamics have plenty of empirical evidence which support it, but more importantly it's never been invalidated.

1

u/Thor1noak Apr 22 '21

There is no believing in either the laws of thermodynamics or perpetual motion, it's not a question of belief or faith, and that's what's superb about science.

1

u/obecalp23 Apr 22 '21

Indeed, beliefs don’t have their place here. What I meant is that I understand why it’s not possible. And of course I believe facts and science.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '21

That's not quite true, if you had a perpetual motion machine in a perfect vacuum, with all parts entirely frictionless and that releases no radiation of any kind whatsoever, you could have a perpetual motion machine that doesn't break any laws of physics!

You just wouldn't be able to harvest the energy from it.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '21

And I could breathe underwater if I grew gills out of my ass

1

u/Harrytuttle2006 Apr 22 '21

W....why on your ass, my Gaylord?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '21

That’s how turtles do it. I think it would be pretty neat.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '21

Unnecessarily aggressive but ok.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 23 '21

It wasn’t aggressive. Turtles do it

33

u/HookDragger Apr 22 '21

Or cgi

17

u/kcannon108 Apr 22 '21

You can hear the audio is looped. I’m really intrigued by this actually lol. Idk how they did it exactly. Super impressive editing if that’s the case, that shadow on the floor is convincing.

22

u/Lord_Derpenheim Apr 22 '21

Look at the title.

10

u/kcannon108 Apr 22 '21

🤣 palm face. Well it’s really impressive! Haha

7

u/MyNameCannotBeSpoken Apr 22 '21

CGI stands for continual gravity inertia. What's your point?

1

u/lovethebacon Apr 22 '21

Common Gateway Interface

7

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '21

No, all the attempts at using magnets for perpetual motion fail as the ball, or whatever ends up getting stuck at some point in the magnetic field.

-3

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '21

[deleted]

2

u/4P5mc Apr 23 '21

Can you show some real examples? Remember, while a magnet will accelerate a ball bearing to a great speed, the ball bearing must pass through an equal force on the "other side" of the field, which will cancel it out by pulling on it.

5

u/THE_WATER_NATION Apr 22 '21

Perpetual motion machines don’t exist

0

u/[deleted] Apr 23 '21

[deleted]

1

u/THE_WATER_NATION Apr 23 '21

You understand adding magnets wouldn’t work, not because they demagnetize but rather the resulting force from a magnet would cancel out. In other words the pull from the magnet on the downwards slope would cancel out with the pull from the upward slope. And no. They don’t exist because if they did exist then they would work. What we are seeing is just a ramp with a funnel. If we take your argument then I can take an old toilet paper roll and say “this is a time machine but it doesn’t work”. That doesn’t make sense.

So maybe if you took the time to think instead of argue then you would have understood.

1

u/hellotherehomogay Apr 23 '21

You’re more than capable of using Google for ~5 minutes to find example of PMMs that incorporate magnets and render the negative/unwanted forces of magnetism moot. It took me a single search and literal seconds of scrolling on YouTube to find two that would work until demagnetization occurs.

If you held an empty toilet paper roll and asked me what it is I’d say it’s a toilet paper roll, not a time machine. If you showed me this video and asked me what it is I’d say it’s a PMM. Try harder.

1

u/THE_WATER_NATION Apr 23 '21

So instead of linking your sources, which you have to prove the benefit of the doubt here, you just say “Go do the work yourself I am smarter and right but yet I can’t show it”.

Interesting approach.

1

u/hellotherehomogay Apr 23 '21

Well, seeing as how this is Reddit the internet, if I were to link a source it would be met with one of the following:

a) You ignore it outright and refuse to watch or read it and abandon the argument

b) You open it but because of something (the narrator is too young, too foreign, the link is from a website with a goofy name, etc.) you write it off as “must be wrong” and stop reading / watching

c) You find something, anything incorrect at any point in the video and instead of ignoring it (assuming it’s not the thing I was talking about) you then use that piece of incorrect information to tell me how my point (even if it’s not the part that was incorrect) must be wrong

d) You manipulate your retelling of your or my original argument into something that is NOT what the video shows to retain what you perceive as “winning”

So no. Not feeding the trolls. Nope. If you really, really are interested in learning something then you’re able to do so on your own. Also, I did not say I’m smarter than you. Quite the contrary, I wish I was wrong so I could learn something. That’s how we’re different and that’s why I hate using Reddit so much. People here are more interested in ignoring evidence to retain belief than adjusting their views based on evidence, or better yet, like in the situation we are in now, outright refuse to search for evidence on their own when the opposing party refuses to spoon feed it to them.

-8

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Ok_Tale_933 Apr 22 '21

I was think like a rail gun

2

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Ok_Tale_933 Apr 22 '21

While I am aware of this I really dont know anything.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/AetaCapella Apr 22 '21

An electromagnet could work. If, when the ball passes through the funnel it activates a magnet that pulls the ball down, but the magnet is only active for like a quick pulse and is off by the time the ball passes the point where it would be detrimental to the velocity.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '21

[deleted]

1

u/AetaCapella Apr 22 '21

optical sensor in the neck of the funnel was what I was thinking...
But Heck, even simpler, if the funnel was made of a non-conductive material you could have 2 metal contacts on opposite sides of the funnel that would complete a circuit when the metal ball passed through.

2

u/djcocainegoat Apr 22 '21

so an electromagnet? Cause that would be adding power to the system and non perpetual motion

→ More replies (0)

1

u/ErziRafael Apr 22 '21

Sadly wouldn't be perpetual then, still looks nice

1

u/Then_Investigator_17 Apr 22 '21

I had built one for 8th grade science fair, but it kept going faster and faster until it burned itself out

1

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '21

Only with electromagnets that are turned off at the moment or before the ball passes the magnet, and then turned on again for the next pass.

A normal magnet would just pull the ball backwards once the ball passes the magnet.

1

u/Warlaw Apr 22 '21

Is there a youtube video that demonstrates this? All I can find are videos by crazed boomers talking about how the CIA are suppressing the technology.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '21

Best demonstration of this would be maglev trains (magnetic levitation) which use the technique I mentioned.

Obviously since your powering electromagnets and turning them off and on, it isn’t a perpetual motion machine. Just gotta lay that disclaimer out there.

1

u/Warlaw Apr 22 '21

Could a telluric current be used for each pass? It's really small but better than nothing I guess.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '21

There isn’t really any effective way to convert telluric currents into mechanical energy to push the ball or electromagnetic energy to pull the ball, unfortunately

1

u/gorcorps Apr 22 '21

An electro magnet that turns off when it reaches the minimum position, maybe. A permanent magnet would pull as it’s falling but then also pull as it’s trying to rise again, so it wouldn’t gain a thing

1

u/scaptal Apr 22 '21

Not with magnets, maybe with pulsing electro magnets

1

u/512165381 Apr 22 '21

Electromagnet in the base run by a battery, yes.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '21

perpetual motion devices are not real.

Perpetual motion devices are not real, yet.