A Perpetuum Mobile Machina is possible...

shazuga said:
Ok, Ok.. Perhaps has been an error to call it Perpetual Motion Machine, in fact I prefer the name that I have given him, ElectroMagnetic Levitation and Turbine Propulsion or EMLP Turbine...

But I believe that this machine would be a Perpetual Motion Machine of Third Class... :D
Click to expand...

Please answer this simple question: Does it produce more energy than is required to turn the turbine?
 
Perhaps this answers some questions...

I have calculated how much kinetic energy represents the Transrapid MagLeV Train with a speed of 400 km/h, transporting 15 ton.

EK = 1/2(m*(v*v)) = 333.366.667.500 J

And how much potential energy represents

EP = EK/s = 333.366.667.500 J / 3600 s = 92.601.852 Watts

Potencial Energy = 93 MW = 814.680 MWh/year =>> 81.468 residencial users that 10 MWh/year

At 450 km/h:

EK = 421.875.000.000 J

Potential Energy represents

EP = 117.187.500 Watts

Potencial Energy = 117 MW = 1.024.920 MWh/year =>> 102.492 residencial users that spends 10 MWh/year

At 800 km/h.

EK = 1.332.066.967.500 J

Potential Energy represents

EP = 370.018.602 Watts

Potencial Energy = 370 MW = 3.241.200 MWh/year =>> 324.120 residencial users that spends 10 MWh/year

In the first case, are created 93 MW of Potential Energy using hardly 4.7 kW per hour... Say me if this is not to create much energy with little energy?

That is simply much potential energy to be ignored!
 
shazuga said:
Perhaps this answers some questions...
Click to expand...

Yes, but I don't know whether to be happy or disappointed that I correctly guessed it on the third post. I'd explain why you are wrong, but if you didn't understand it then, I can't see it helping now.
 
I don't get it. Does he just want to capture some wasted energy on mag-lev trains? If so, I guess that's fine.

Or does he really think there's more energy to be gotten out of something than is put in?
 
Loss Leader said:
Or does he really think there's more energy to be gotten out of something than is put in?
Click to expand...

Yep. His math goes as follows:

A train has a lot of kinetic energy!
Divide that by an hour, and it gives us a 'potencial'! By which he means power.
Multiply that by the number of hours in a year! That's the same number as the energy a lot of houses use!

Or where he turns one power into another by dividing by time!
are created 93 MW of Potential Energy using hardly 4.7 kW per hour
Click to expand...

The math all works! My calculator agrees! Silly other people say you can't do that, they should really get a calculator. It makes multiplying AND dividing much easier!
 
There seems to be a small pool of "inventors" who are convinced that electromagnetic braking can recover more energy from a moving object than was required to get it moving in the first place.

Now this is of course correct, if the input energy is seen as "free" . A hydro-electric plant, by this definition, is a perpetual motion machine.
Or a free falling object, such as an asteroid...The trick is stopping the bastard without generating too much heat. (Not that friction can melt metal, as any good Loose Changer knows).
Now I recall seeing a film star step, uninjured, out of a free falling shack - a fraction of a second before the shack hit the ground leaving a crater. So it clearly can be done.
Indeed , instead of "Perpetual Motion Machine of the Third Class" I propose the title "Bugs Bunny Physics Device", in the film star's honour.
 
Last edited:
shazuga said:
Perhaps this answers some questions...

I have calculated how much kinetic energy represents the Transrapid MagLeV Train with a speed of 400 km/h, transporting 15 ton.

EK = 1/2(m*(v*v)) = 333.366.667.500 J
Click to expand...
Whoa, what strangeness is this? 400 km/h = 111.111 m/s, so that answer should be 92.6 MJ, not 333.4 GJ if you're going to work in SI units.


shazuga said:
And how much potential energy represents

EP = EK/s = 333.366.667.500 J / 3600 s = 92.601.852 Watts
Click to expand...
First off, that's kinetic energy of motion, not potential energy, though some of it could be recovered. Second, simply dividing the (wrongly calculated) energy by 3,600 because that's how many seconds there are in an hour and the speed was reckoned in km/h does not yield a power output in any meaningful way, as you seem to imply.

If the train decelerates to a halt from a speed of 400 km/h in a time t seconds, then the power dissipated over that time t is the initial kinetic energy of motion divided by that time t. For example, if the time is 2 minutes = 120 sec, then the energy is dissipated at an average rate of 92.6/120 MW = 772 kW for a period of 120 sec only, not forever. Moreover, assuming a more-or-less constant deceleration rate, the energy dissipation rate is higher while the train is still moving at higher speeds.

Your physics and arithmetic are very odd indeed, as evidenced by the remainder of your post.

In any event, you still haven't answered the one very basic question that has repeatedly been put to you - a simple "yes" or "no" will suffice:

Does your machine produce more energy than it consumes?

'Luthon64
 
Last edited:
shazuga said:
And how much potential energy represents

EP = EK/s = 333.366.667.500 J / 3600 s = 92.601.852 Watts
Click to expand...

Oh, dear.

Er, the reason your machine doesn't run itself isn't because you don't have access to super-advanced technology only a few labs have, but because you don't understand the difference between "energy" and "power".

In the first case, are created 93 MW of Potential Energy using hardly 4.7 kW per hour... Say me if this is not to create much energy with little energy?
Click to expand...

Well, to answer the obvious, the reason it isn't creating "much energy with little energy" is that Megawatts are a unit of POWER, not of energy, "potential" or otherwise.

I suggest you pick up a basic physics book and learn what the difference is.
 
shazuga said:
Ok, Ok.. Perhaps has been an error to call it Perpetual Motion Machine, in fact I prefer the name that I have given him, ElectroMagnetic Levitation and Turbine Propulsion or EMLP Turbine...

But I believe that this machine would be a Perpetual Motion Machine of Third Class... :D
Click to expand...

Did I miss something? "Third class?" What are the first two, and what is the third?

In any case, the very name "Perpetual Motion Machine" can ONLY apply to a machine that, once started, requires absolutely zero additional input to keep running. If you have to do ANYTHING to it to keep it running, then it ISN'T "Perpetual Motion!"
 
Captain Trips said:
Did I miss something? "Third class?" What are the first two, and what is the third?

In any case, the very name "Perpetual Motion Machine" can ONLY apply to a machine that, once started, requires absolutely zero additional input to keep running. If you have to do ANYTHING to it to keep it running, then it ISN'T "Perpetual Motion!"
Click to expand...
Sorry do disappoint, but I am afraid he has little more to offer than ghastly an hideous attempts at basic physics. There are variations to the perpetual motion theme. But if you are interested, try a search engine. Not this troll. :)
 
Captain Trips said:
In any case, the very name "Perpetual Motion Machine" can ONLY apply to a machine that, once started, requires absolutely zero additional input to keep running. If you have to do ANYTHING to it to keep it running, then it ISN'T "Perpetual Motion!"
Click to expand...

So what would you call a machine that produced more energy than it took to run but every once in a while had to be stopped to (for some reason) polish the leads? The amount of energy in stopping it and polishing the leads including the amount of energy taken to manufacture the polish and the rag is less than the excess the machine produces. Would that be a "free energy" machine but not a "perpetual motion" one?
 
Loss Leader said:
So what would you call a machine that produced more energy than it took to run but every once in a while had to be stopped to (for some reason) polish the leads? The amount of energy in stopping it and polishing the leads including the amount of energy taken to manufacture the polish and the rag is less than the excess the machine produces. Would that be a "free energy" machine but not a "perpetual motion" one?
Click to expand...
If such a machine existed, I would happily call it ppm, and bow to the genius to overturned the most entrenched principle in all of science.
 
hgc said:
If such a machine existed, I would happily call it ppm, and bow to the genius to overturned the most entrenched principle in all of science.
Click to expand...
As would I. Stopping such a machine for maintenance would not negate the fact that it generates more energy than it consumes.
 
How they would call to a machine that is fed on its own energy?

To a machine that produces more energy of consumes it? And while that machine has energy will work, literally, FOR ALWAYS.

That anybody has not constructed a device that uses electricity to generate electricity it does not mean THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE?

It only means that nobody tried it before...
 
You are in the certain thing. I have already begun the steps to construct the first prototype.

Thanks for everything...
 
These are fun excersises that hopefully teach us something about the laws we're attempting to break. It is my hope that, once confronted with these laws, we have the ability to recognize them.

I, too, experiment with PMMs as a discourse for learning. I build them to help understand their impossibility. Usually their flaws are obvious. I've never gotten "Half-way-through" a design and felt God-like or created a website about it. In fact I gain laughter from those who would rather spend their time writing essays and designing websites for an idea, rather than actually pursuing it.

When lip service outweighs science, red flags go up. When not enough science exists the "establishment" becomes an easy scapegoat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom