» Topics » Questions »My theory of perpetuum mobile (perpetual motion)

My theory of perpetuum mobile (perpetual motion)

Topics / Questions
Added 29 comments
I decided to bring to your court my idea of ​​a perpetual motion machine, or rather a theory. Maybe it’s wrong, or rather it’s definitely wrong, according to the smart uncles who came up with the law of conservation of energy.

I ask you to find a mistake, if any, so that I do not have to create this engine.

Go!


1. As a basis, we have centrifugal force, as well as another interesting phenomenon - the relationship of speed and mass.

Imagine that you are standing on a rotating stand and spinning at a certain speed. You have steel balls in your hands and you hold them near your chest. As soon as you spread your arms in different directions, you will begin to spin more slowly, since the "mass" has grown, figuratively speaking.
If you again reduce the balls to the chest, then your rotation speed will be the same.

So, regardless of how you throw balls and how fast you rotate, the kinetic energy does not change.

2. Now imagine a vertical axis on which two levers of the same length are fixed at an angle. The levers are lowered at a certain angle, and weights are installed at their ends. Once you untwist this design, the levers will rise to the level of their attachment points due to centrifugal force.

And then the fun begins. Will the kinetic energy of this whole body change if the levers with weights themselves rise up? I think not.

In this regard, we have a hole in the law of conservation of energy, namely, energy is taken from nowhere. We spin the axis with levers to a certain speed and spend a certain amount of kinetic energy, for example, E1. Then we turn off the lever locks, they are aligned along the attachment line and the design slows down, but the kinetic energy does not change, we can remove it in the same equivalent, let's call this energy E2.

As a result, E1 = E2, that is, the energy invested and the shot are the same (not counting the friction force and other crap). And we also get free energy, in the form of weights raised up, release the weights clamps, they lower and energy E3 is formed, which exceeds the efficiency for 100%.

Where am I wrong?
Question \ topic is automatically published in the social. site network - stay tuned for answers there:
1
Added 29 comments

Suitable for topic

Related topics

Add a comment

    • smilesmilesxaxaokdontknowyahoonea
      bossscratchfoolyesyes-yesaggressivesecret
      sorrydancedance2dance3pardonhelpdrinks
      stopfriendsgoodgoodgoodwhistleswoontongue
      smokeclappingcraydeclarederisivedon-t_mentiondownload
      heatirefullaugh1mdameetingmoskingnegative
      not_ipopcornpunishreadscarescaressearch
      tauntthank_youthisto_clueumnikacuteagree
      badbeeeblack_eyeblum3blushboastboredom
      censoredpleasantrysecret2threatenvictoryyusun_bespectacled
      shokrespektlolprevedwelcomekrutoyya_za
      ya_dobryihelperne_huliganne_othodifludbanclose
29 comments
Author 0
Reply To quote A complaint
Chernihiv bitter, a bit too much hop. Try Rogan - my favorite.
+1
Reply To quote A complaint
Regarding the Zhukovsky’s bench, besides the fact that it also shows that the energy of the system is spent on “combating inertia” (translating it into a potential one), in general, the EXAMPLE IS NOT CORRECT and does not fit this topic !!! The reason - in the system there is a source of energy - the muscle strength of a person !!! It is she who is wasted when the goods are being parted, reduced, or raised, and not the energy of the system at all ....
P.S. "Chernihiv" is also nothing .... smile
+1
Reply To quote A complaint
Dmitrij,
Well, I wrote to you what topics need to be "repeated" ... In my opinion, I and others justifiedly explained why this scheme will not work ...
AN ANSWERED answer to your question (which is in the topic)! ... Provided that you well understand what weight, mass, and how they differ ... What is a closed energy system ... what is momentum and inertia, and what do they depend on ... what is acceleration and what is uniform rectilinear motion and how do they arise ... what are centrifugal forces and how do they depend on angular and linear velocities ... and how do they differ and how do these depend on each other speed ... (Both in scalar and in vector form) ...
..If you understand all this and all these formulations and formulas are known to you, you should understand everything ...
And if at least one of the above you know only "at the level of names", then explaining it here in the comments is simply impossible !!!! For this, a few years are allotted in the school curriculum ...)))))
In the meantime, just believe: IT WILL NOT WORK !!!
P.S. .... Go and Obolon .... smile
In the summer, I’ll probably go to Black again, because it’s cheap ... So, until you buy it, it will turn sour ... I’ll go, I’ll phone, where to cross! good
Author 0
Reply To quote A complaint
With such teachers you will learn that ... Good luck.
+2
Reply To quote A complaint
All-all-all ... I'm leaving, I'm leaving ...))))

I see that it makes no sense to talk to a person who does not want to read nothing, to know nothing, but wants to be explained something ......
..And at the same time he confuses such elementary concepts as "mass" and "weight", "Energy, strength and work" and other, "similar" terms ....

Sorry .... And what did you have in physics? ...)))).

Dmitry, there is only one way out for you - build a model !!! When it will stop very quickly - you have a beer ...))))) .. You can buy now ... "Lvivske svitle" is desirable ....
0
Reply To quote A complaint
Quote: Dmitrij
Conversation with church priests some

No, with one priest, who, speaking about physical processes, did not bring none formulas, some muddy conversations and explanations "on the fingers."
Author 0
Reply To quote A complaint
The Zhukovsky bench is a horizontal platform that has a circle shape and rotates freely without friction around a fixed vertical axis OZ. The man standing on the bench holds massive gymnastic dumbbells in his hands and rotates with the bench around OZ.



By pressing dumbbells to the chest, a person reduces the moment of inertia of the system, and the angular velocity of its rotation increases.

Since the moment of external forces (gravity and reaction of bearings of the bench) relative to the axis OZ is equal to zero, the angular momentum of the system relative to the axis OZ in the process under consideration does not change
Author 0
Reply To quote A complaint
The axis slows down because ENERGY IS SPENDING !!!


But no, because body mass is growing, figuratively speaking. This is equivalent to spinning small weights, and then adding weight to them at speed. The axis will slow down, but the initial energy input for accelerating the axis will not change, since the axis will rotate more slowly, but "stronger", with a higher torque.

An axis with long arms is equivalent to an axis with short arms but with heavy weights.
0
Reply To quote A complaint
Dmitrij
Sorry ... Well, here you yourself just "point blank" do not want to hear what they say to you ...
Here, take at least this:
I wrote:
Even if the friction force is completely excluded, the energy supplied by you from the outside is spent not only on the rotation of the system, but also on overcoming the gravity of the goods. At the same time, the EE-SAME part simply goes into the potential, which is released when the goods move back down ..
...
... she WAS spent earlier! (Remember the slowdown of the whole system at constant values ​​of mass and energy supplied from outside! That is why the speed decreased, that some portion of energy was taken away for the transition to a potential state) ......

You in response:
Valery, duck from the fact that the axis slows down, energy is not wasted anywhere, it just transforms ...
,

....
Silent scene ...))))
...
RIGHT!!! Part of it is transforming into a potential ... she (this part) was spent on overcoming the gravity of goods !!! (And not only for this ... but about this later) - this is the “transformation into potential" - then, when the goods move down, they will EXACTLY give it ... (True, not completely ... Efficiency is everything equal to below 100% will be ... What a pity ...)

And here again:
duck from the fact that the axis is slowing down, energy is not wasted anywhere


... "The tail is waving the mare" ... but otherwise everything is correct ...)))
WHY IS THE AXIS SLOWING ???? If energy is not supplied, the movement will be uniform and straightforward, isn't it !! Any acceleration (and negative too) is possible only with a change in the energy of the system ...
(Well ё-mine !!! ... Dima! ... Well, school!))))))))

The axis slows down because ENERGY IS SPENDING !!!

ON THE LIFTING OF FUCKING GOODS, MOTHER THEM FOR A FEET !!!! ))))

And not only ... Because with this process
If weights just move from the center in different directions, the axis will also slow down,
to understand why, you need to read about such concepts as “inertia of bodies” and “acceleration” (and, as a consequence in this case, about the difference between linear speed and angular ... And then you will understand that linear with increasing diameter increases in "two pi" times for each unit, that is, the acceleration is very significant !! "!)
And in your example, in addition to this "waste of energy" there will also be the stopitso-mentioned time of overcoming gravity ....

Py.Sy ... And about priests in vain you are so ... Simply, they can explain their essence of theoretical religion only to those who have a degree in theology ....)))) ... And the rest is easier to say "go with God! You still do not understand! "....
Sorry ... But I'm already close to this ....))) ireful aggressive
0
Reply To quote A complaint
research biography first
H. Kuchling ... was he once a church priest ...
Author 0
Reply To quote A complaint
A conversation with church priests of some kind - "You don’t understand, this is dear ... just believe" xaxa
0
Reply To quote A complaint
Take H. Kuchling's "Physics Reference" section of Rotational Dynamics
Pokhmelev is right - the level of discussion is very low.
For perpetuum K should be> 1 You will have <1 (and much less)
Author 0
Reply To quote A complaint
Well, of course, you don’t know, they would say so.

Taki will have to assemble a model ...
0
Reply To quote A complaint
Well, justify. Or do you never peer into the essence of things?

Dmitrij, there is no desire to spend time refuting what has already been refuted a million times by much more educated people than you and me. In addition, your description is made in the style of all such "miracles" - very muddy and without formulas.
Author 0
Reply To quote A complaint
Well, justify. Or do you never peer into the essence of things?
0
Reply To quote A complaint
Then what you need
to believe smart uncles who came up with the law of conservation of energy.
Author 0
Reply To quote A complaint
So you have joined. Spend 2 minutes time and explain why it will work
+2
Reply To quote A complaint
I am amazed. it are commenting. Yes, even seriously! It’s clear, winter, there’s nothing to do ... But not to the same extent!
0
Reply To quote A complaint
This is an “inertial spinning top”. The weight of the sos is weighing. And (work) on untwisting of a top. And it doesn’t matter to him (in this canned mech. System) what you have for the balls on the levers move apart, increasing the moment of inertia - they slow down the weight. The thread ends (fixed to the axis) and it begins to pull the load back (up) due to the untwisted top. The reverse work is done to raise the weight. Turns fall, balls return to an axis. The weight does not reach the top point (previous) - resistance to air, imperfect thread, friction in the axes (heat) ...
And you can count in joules (mass, angular speed, time, etc.) Work received (weight up) / work spent (weight down) <1
More difficult from one type of energy to another. For example, the efficiency of a biochemical to electric converter. Or now, the efficiency of solar cells (Chinese) is already> 20%. They have their own "system"
Author 0
Reply To quote A complaint
Valery, duck from the fact that the axis slows down, energy is not wasted anywhere, it just transforms ...

If the weights are simply moved from the center in different directions, the axis will also slow down, although no "free" energy is generated.

And again, I don’t understand why the axis speed is lost if the weights rise up and accordingly move away from the center of the axis? Unless of course lost.

Earlier I had a slightly different theory. I came up with curved levers, as a result, when the axis rotates, the weights are shifted against movement, as a result, the speed is lost. And then I don’t understand how this happens ...
+2
Reply To quote A complaint
The energy of the AXLE LOAD SYSTEM is unchanged. Even if the friction force is completely excluded, the energy supplied by you from the outside is spent not only on the rotation of the system, but also on overcoming the gravity of the goods. At the same time, the EE-SAME part simply goes into the potential, which is released when the goods move back down ...
But it WAS spent earlier! (Remember the slowdown of the whole system at constant values ​​of mass and energy supplied from outside! That is why the speed decreased, that some portion of energy was taken away for the transition to a potential state) .....
Author 0
Reply To quote A complaint
I want to understand only one thing: is the kinetic energy of the axis lost when the weights move up, and why ...
Author 0
Reply To quote A complaint
Yes, damn it, the simplest scheme, I did not draw all the nodes, because it is long and tiring.

Well ok, let me give you an example ...

We wind the thread on the axis and hang a weight. The weight drops and spins the axis to a certain speed. Further, the levers are leveled horizontally, a certain gearbox is turned on and the axis winds the thread again, but through the gearbox, lifting the load to the same height.

As a result, there will remain raised weights on the levers, which when lowering form a certain amount of energy. This energy will be "free", according to my theory ... Well, of course, part of it must be given to overcome the friction forces of the main axis.

In general, you still don’t understand, apparently, too "legal" mind))
0
Reply To quote A complaint
You are trying to operate with general expressions through E (energy) in a mechanical system (!). Hence the absurdities of the type "Stop the axis of rotation and thereby compensate for the cost of unwinding the axis" ??
“Turn off the lever locks and they lower, forming the energy E3” And this is oppeosis - what kind of energy, where (what?).
Author 0
Reply To quote A complaint
Accidentally repeated ... delete ...
Author 0
Reply To quote A complaint
Here, like a transformer, it either gets high speed and low torque, or vice versa ... but you can’t increase the torque and speed of the transformer either ...


I know that all. but you didn’t understand me or read what I wrote. The balls are fixed, untwist the axis, then release the balls, they rise, again we fix and we remove the axis. Balls hang horizontally. Has the kinetic energy that we invested and removed changed?

In the first case, the speed was higher, but the moment of force was small, and in the second, the speed was lower, but the moment was greater. So?
+1
Reply To quote A complaint
that is, the axis is stopped not by the brake, but by a large rise of the balls ... Then they fall down due to gravity, to overcome which you spent energy before spinning ... The balls rise as a result of a decrease in axial speed and an increase in centrifugal inertia - it is directed away from the center of the axis and grows with rotation speed ... and since the centrifugal inertia is large at a high axial speed, it overcomes its equilibrium gravity ... in your case, the load on the lever (or thread) increases when the ball rises and ... Imagine this would not happen in zero gravity ... balls would fly in different directions and would not fall down ... on the contrary they would fly apart from the axis (balls do not rise above the axis perpendicular) ... Here, like a transformer, it either gets high speed and low torque, or vice versa ... but you can not increase the transformer and torque and speed ...
Author 0
Reply To quote A complaint
Yes, the stop will not be due to friction ... Suppose there is a certain battery, such as a mechanical one, a spring, roughly speaking. The spring spins the axis, and then the axis again stretches the spring to its original position. Roughly speaking...

But explain the raising of balls in more detail ...? Why is she wasting?
+1
Reply To quote A complaint
when the hands are extended, the moment of inertia increases and the speed decreases ...
kinetic energy when the axis stops, passes to stop friction and to lift balls ...

DIY categories

We advise you to read:

Hand it for the smartphone ...