christopherkirkreves

Mr Skeptic "Capillary action is the same sort of thing as surface tension -- the attraction of the fluid molecules to the capillary walls. Please do read up on it" The answer was in the link you sent me (as well as on other pages), but I just had to dig for it to understand it. I was thinking, incorrectly, that a dry capillary had a certain amount of potential energy. But it does not. Rather (I now think I understand) as a fluid enters a capillary, there is a decrease in the surface area of the fluid. And, to quote from the link you sent me: "Since mechanical systems try to find a state of minimum potential energy, a free droplet of liquid naturally assumes a spherical shape, which has the minimum surface area for a given volume." Or, to state it in the terms I was thinking of: as the fluid enters the capillary, there is an increase in kinetic energy, which is corresponded to with a decrease in surface area of the liquid, which is a decrease in potential energy. Did I get it right? The whole premise of my "A Second Post" is wrong. There is not potential energy in the capillary, but rather in the fluid. And, so, there is only a decrease in this potential energy when the fluid actually enters the capillary. Before that, before the fluid enters the capillary, there is no potential energy to create or destroy when assembling or disassembling a capillary. It makes perfect sense, and energy is conserved. And while I've taken a side step in the last couple of posts, my original challenge still stands: If the design presented in my first post here is a failed perpetual motion machine design, then: 1. there must be a simple mechanical explanation as to why it fails akin to the simple mechanical explanation I gave for why the half submerged wheel is a failed perpetual motion machine design, and 2. this includes not just that the ferrofluid might become corrupted when moving through the first capillary in a way so that it cannot move through the second, but, rather, a simple mechanical reason as to why the ferrofluid necessarily becomes corrupted when moving through the first capillary in a way that keeps it from moving through the second. Thank you.

Mr Skeptic “Capillary action is the same sort of thing as surface tension -- the attraction of the fluid molecules to the capillary walls. Please do read up on it” I should not have posted that question. It’s distraction and a waste of other people’s time. I read the link you gave me, and while it did not talk about potential energy, I think I’ve figured it out. I think the whole premise of my question was wrong. And I’ll keep looking for more answers, and not waste people’s time with this stuff. What I suspect is that there is no such thing as “potential capillary action energy.” So, there is no point in asking whether or not it’s positive or negative. Rather, I suspect that when a capillary is assembled or disassembled, and dry, the potential energy is zero. Before fluid enters a capillary there is no guarantee that the capillary will remain one. However, once fluid does enter the capillary and rise (and increase in kinetic energy), then perhaps something more like capillary action energy appears, and it’s always a negative quantity. And by increasing in negativity as more fluid enters the capillary, energy is conserved. This makes sense to me. But, again, I never should have posted this question. I need to find answers on my own more and ask less questions. I think I just got carried away with the interactivity of this forum. Thank you. And I apologize.

------- [A second post] I'm working on the next experiment. However, I was hoping that some of you guys still have enough interest to help me vet another conservation of energy question: The assembling and disassembling of a capillary, and the assembling and disassembling of potential capillary action energy. 1. If potential capillary action energy is a positive quantity, then: Time One. Two glass plates sit some distance apart. Time Two. I push them together. I use my body's energy (so a decrease in physiological energy) while creating a capillary (an increase in potential energy). Time Three. I then pull them apart. I use my body's energy (so a decrease in physiological energy) while undoing the capillary (a decrease in potential energy). A decrease in one form of energy leads to a decrease in another form of energy. Energy would not be conserved. 2. If potential capillary action energy is a negative quantity, then: Time One. Two glass plates sit together. There is a negative amount of potential capillary action energy. Time Two. I then pull the two glass plates apart. I use my body's energy (so a decrease in physiological energy) while undoing the capillary (an increase in potential energy (negative potential energy becomes less negative) ). Time Three. I then push them together. I use my body's energy (so a decrease in physiological energy) while creating a capillary (a decrease in potential energy (negative potential energy becomes more negative) ). A decrease in one form of energy leads to a decrease in another form of energy. Energy would not be conserved. 3. If potential capillary action energy is not really a form of energy, then: When a fluid rises into a capillary (an increase in kinetic energy) where is offsetting decrease in another form of energy if not from potential capillary action energy? Energy would not be conserved. 4.1. If potential capillary action energy is only a form of energy when in the proximity of a fluid, and if potential capillary action energy is a positive quantity, then: Time One: A capillary sits some distance from a container of fluid. Time Two. I move the capillary to the container of fluid. I use my body's energy (so a decrease in physiological energy) while increasing potential capillary action energy (an increase in potential energy). Time Three. I then move the capillary away from the container of fluid before it fills up with fluid. I use my body's energy (so a decrease in physiological energy) while decreasing potential capillary action energy (a decrease in potential energy). A decrease in one form of energy leads to a decrease in another form of energy. Energy would not be conserved. 4.2. If potential capillary action energy is only a form of energy when in the proximity of a fluid, and if potential capillary action energy is a negative quantity, then: Time One. The capillary is in the proximity of the fluid. There is a negative amount of potential capillary action energy. http://www.continuousfrictionedmotionmachine.com/images/299_more15.gif (Sorry, but I've reach the limit on how many images can be posted. I'm sure my drawings seem excessive, but I think they make the ideas much easier to understand.) Time Two. I move the capillary away from the container of fluid before it fills up with fluid. I use my body's energy (so a decrease in physiological energy) while increasing potential capillary action energy (an increase in potential energy (negative potential energy becomes less negative) ). http://www.continuousfrictionedmotionmachine.com/images/299_more14.gif Time Three. I then move the capillary to the container of fluid. I use my body's energy (so a decrease in physiological energy) while decreasing potential capillary action energy (a decrease in potential energy (negative potential energy becomes more negative) ). A decrease in one form of energy leads to a decrease in another form of energy. Energy would not be conserved. http://www.continuousfrictionedmotionmachine.com/images/299_more13.gif I'm sure there're more rabbit holes of logic to explore. Thank you.

Mr Skeptic "Or the fluid could have made it back to the starting point but was somehow different than before." I thought about this. If the fluid necessarily changed while moving through the first capillary in a way that made it impossible to move again through the second capillary, then, yes, this would be a failed design. Ferrofluids, in my understanding, are actually little solids suspended in an actual fluid. So, if somehow when going through the first capillary, part of the overall ferrofluid was stripped from the other part, then there might be a problem here for my design. But I don't think this is happening. I don't think, one, the solid magnetize_able parts get stuck in the capillary, because what makes it drip at the end of the capillaries is the magnetic attraction. And, two, if the fluid part of the ferrofluid filled spaces in the capillaries that the solid parts of the ferrofluids are too big to enter, then I think this would be a onetime occurrence (when the capillaries first become saturated), and the (… if this is happening …) chunkier ferrofluid that drips, when it reaches the small pool of ferrofluid at the base of the other capillary, will disperse this little bit of extra chunkiness amongst the other fluid there. So, yes, it could be slightly more dense with the solid particles on the second iteration. But, I would guess, either this is not much of a problem, or, if it is a problem, then it could be solved by starting out with a ferrofluid that has a little bit more fluid than solid in it. While I doubt this is a problem, I cannot prove that this is not a problem. This, yes, is a potential problem. Thank you. ---- I realized after my last post (… after the discussion of what I do not know …), that what I should do is build one of these and start out with ferrofluids on just one side. While I think there is a conservation of energy problem after both capillaries drip once and the fluid is then a position equivalent to their starting points, I realize that it would be move persuasive if I could show the fluid returning to its actual starting point. And, I can do this by putting the ferrofluid initially only on one side. Then, if the fluid makes its way to the strongest part of the first wedge, then though the first capillary, then drip to the second magnet, then to the strongest part of the second magnet, then through the second capillary, and then drip … we can know with certainty that this fluid has returned to its actual starting point. Again, I think this is beyond what needs to be shown. I think that once the fluid drips to an equivalent starting point, the conservation of energy issue presents itself. (Analogous to if a pendulum could swing, and encounter friction, and still reach the equivalent height on the other side. In this hypothetical pendulum, we would not need to see it return to its original position to know that there was a conservation of energy problem. We would know there was a problem when it reached the same height on the other side.) But I will try. This will be a much better demonstration. I have my doubts if it will work, however. From my experiments with these machines and ferrofluids, I've found evaporation to be a real problem. After a couple of days, the fluid starts to get chunky, and eventually brittle. It can take, sometimes, 24 hours for a capillary to become saturated and then drip. And in this next test I'm going to do, I'm filling one capillary and then the next. And it can take, sometimes, 24 hours for the capillary to become saturated and drip with a small pool of ferrofluid surrounding the base. Here, I will attempting to fill and saturate the second capillary with a tear drop sized drip once every half an hour. I'm afraid that evaporation will outpace the filling of the second capillary. (And I can't submerge this machine in water until the second capillary has saturated and drip, otherwise the water will fill the capillary first (and I know this from experimentation) and the ferrofluids can't get in.) But, I'll give it a try. And I'll post the results here. Which I assume will be, sadly, negative … at least on the first try. (This may take a couple of weeks.) Thank you.

Mr. Skeptic "And this, I think, is what explains why your machine will not work if the fluid is directly touching, since then the flow would be several drips per second, it could run a whole day's worth of dripping in about a minute. " So, I put fluid on both magnets. The fluid is drawn to the base of both capillaries. The fluid is then drawn into both capillaries. The capillaries become saturated. Then the fluid drips out from each capillary and onto the other magnet. And this happens slowly over several days. And that's it. That's why it doesn't work. It's simply dripping slowly from one magnet to the other (via the capillary) over several days. Do I understand you objection correctly? However, if that's the case: what happens to the fluid after it drips onto the second magnet? What happens is that it is pulled to the greatest part of the second magnet's field, and thus to the base of the second capillary. And, once there, it joins with the rest of the fluid, and eventually is pulled into the second capillary, and is then pulled to the end of the second capillary, and then drips back to the first magnet and its starting point. Let me be clear. Given the slow amount of dripping (before the fluid became corrupted due to evaporation, or the capillaries became corrupted with water entering them, if those were in fact the causes, as I suspect they were, of mechanical breakdown): 1. I do not know that any fluid actually made it back to its original starting point. And 2. I do not know that any fluid did not make it back to its original starting point. And while I didn't see this expressly stated in your objection, I believe you might have been getting at this (?). And, if so, above is the answer. The fluid could have, might have, probably did, make it back to the starting point before mechanical breakdown. (It's impossible to keep track of a single drop of fluid integrated with and then separated from pools of fluid.) Thank you.

Mr Skeptic "Incidentally, how many drips per minute is your device?" Once a spike starts to form, it takes about three or four minutes for it to grow big enough to drip. And it's about a half an hour between each drip. Not much motion. "See, this is what I mean about you not understanding how capillaries work." You are right. I have been wrong in analyzing capillaries. Once the capillary is filled, there never is any kind of empty space again to fill. When the fluid is pulled out at the end, I suspect what's happening is that all the fluid is drawn a little bit more towards the end of the capillary, along with more coming in at the base, due to cohesion. However, I still think that the fluid must move in and out of the capillaries in this system in a manner analogous to the movement of water into and out of trees (even though I was wrong about thinking in terms of "empty space"). And I'm going to go and learn more about trees. One of my main goals here was to see is you guys would vet my design at bit. And you have. I know you might think that I'm ignoring you, but I'm not. I've learned from your comments. John Cuthber "There's just one potential problem with your design. It won't work. You don't seem to understand that." Well, I don't. I built it and a saw it drip. Thank you.

michel123456 The ferrofluids used here came from: http://www.teachersource.com/ElectricityAndMagnetism/Ferrofluid/BulkFerrofluid.aspx I don't know anything about "magnetic saturation," but I'll look into it. Mr Skeptic "Well, both answers are that it violates the laws of physics." I was trying to suggest that in addition to saying it won't work due to the laws of physics, that if my machine does not work, then there must be a simple mechanical explanation (akin to the simple mechanical explanation I gave for why the half submerged wheel won't work). "Magnetism and capillary action are both conservative forces, so your machine can't work." And I would agree with you if this was just a design and I had not yet built it. But I did build it, and I saw it work. I saw the drip. (And I filmed it.) "This eliminates the energy loss from dripping …" Thank you for suggesting a way to improve my machine, but I think the drip is an essential part. From experimentation, I know that if a column of ferrofluid makes the connection between two magnets along their lines of flux, it stops. This is also true with a column of ferrofluid spiking out from the end of a capillary. (The size of the gap in my design has to be just right. If the gap is too small, the ferrofluid will spike across the gap, touch the other magnet, and stop. If the gap is too big, the ferrofluid with either not spike at all, or spike out but not break off and drip.) After it drips (again, I know this from experimentation) the drop of fluid moves to the strongest part of the magnetic field (and with a simple bar magnet this will be the edges). "This also as a bonus eliminates the problem of your not being able to understand how capillary action works." If in my previous discussions of how capillary action might work, or not work, I gave the impression that I do not understand how capillary action is working in this design, I apologize. I believe I do, but I'm willing to speculate about any possible ways that I might be wrong. As fluid is being pulled out from the end of the capillary, there is then more room within the capillary. And, at the same time, there is fluid in contact with the capillary but outside the capillary, at the base (pulled there because the way this is set up that is the strongest part of the magnetic field). And, just like a tree, as the fluid is pulled out, more fluid will move in. A capillary is not a one use deal. (But I was willing to speculate that it might be.) As the fluid is pulled out of the end of these capillaries more fluid will move into the capillaries due to capillary action. And it's also more than just capillary action pulling the fluid into the empty spaces of the capillaries. There are invisible lines of flux running through the capillaries. And the same tendency for ferrofluids to spike out into the air along these lines of flux, will also give them a tendency to fill the empty spaces within the capillaries. "… you don't move from the strongest part of one magnet to the weakest part of the other, not for both magnets." The capillaries do pull the fluid away from the strongest part of each magnet. And, when at the end of each capillary, the ferrofluids do spike out from the end of each capillary. And if the gap is the right size, the spikes break off, and the fluid drips. I've seen it, and I've filmed it. (If you're interested, you can see this happen at the end of the second video I put on You Tube under the title "How to build a perpetual motion machine.) I think what happens is that when the fluid reaches the end of the capillaries, the weaker part of second magnet has a stronger pull on the fluid than the strongest part of the first magnet, given that it's now so much closer to the second magnet. And that's why it drips away from the strongest part of the first magnet to the weakest part of the second magnet. Thank you for continuing to make suggestions, and to point out potential problems with my design.

Mr Skeptic "Well that's missing the part where it drips back to the first magnet." I'm sorry I should have finished out the logic. The fluid did move: 1. From the weakest part of the first magnet to the strongest part of the first magnet 2. From the base of the first capillary to the end of the first capillary 3. From the end of the first capillary to the weakest part of the second magnet 4. From the weakest part of the second magnet to the strongest part of the second magnet 5. From the base of the second capillary to the end of the second capillary 6. From the end of the second capillary to the weakest part of the first magnet Thank you. I guess I should have posted something like this earlier. Hopefully it explains my hopes in posting my idea here. There is a classic perpetual motion design where a wheel is half submerged in water. If you were to ask me why this is a failed attempt at perpetual motion, I can give you two answers. Answer One: It fails because if it worked it would violate the accepted laws of physics. Or Answer Two: There is an overall upward pressure from the water on one half of the wheel, but not on the other. So, intuitively, it seems like the wheel should turn counter clockwise. However, the pressure from a fluid on a submerged solid has an overall direction, and that direction is perpendicular to the surface of the solid. So, in the case of a round wheel, all the pressure is directed at the central axis. There is no torque. The wheel will not turn. (Even if the system was frictionless.) Now, if I ask the question: why does my design fail? There are two answers. Answer One: It fails because if it worked it would violate the accepted laws of physics. Or Answer Two: Well … that's why I posted my idea here. I'm looking for an equivalent of Answer Two above for my design. (I'm open to any suggestions.) --------------- A note on "forever." There is no torque on the wheel from the water pressure in the design above. But, for a moment, let's assume that there was. In that hypothetical case, the wheel would turn if the amount of torque was greater than all the friction (the friction between the wheel and water, the friction between the axel and the axel holder, the friction between the wheel and the seal, and the friction between the wheel and the air). And as it turned, and encountered friction, thermal energy would increase and increase, without an offsetting decrease in another form of energy (e.g. potential, kinetic). If the seal was anything less than perfect (which is would be) then some of the water would adhere to the wheel as it moved from being submerged to not, and some of this water would come off (e.g. drip, evaporate) of the wheel before returning to the submerged side. Over time, the fluid would be drained and the wheel would come to a stop. It would come to a stop because the parts wore out. It would not come to a stop because kinetic energy decreased to offset the increase in the thermal energy. And, energy would not be conserved. And, if we assume a perfect seal, then the machine would still come to an eventual stop. The movement between the axel and the axel holder would produce wear, and over time the axel would wear out. Again, it would come to a stop because the parts wore out, not because of a decrease in kinetic energy to offset the increase in thermal. Again, energy would not be conserved. (The moment is over, there is no torque in the half submerged wheel. It will not turn.) Thank you.

(Thank you for continuing to analyze my machine. I'm sure your patience will run out soon and you guys will go silent. But, before that happens, I'm hoping to learn as much as I can.) I understand that given established principles of physics (e.g. the first law of thermodynamics and others) that this device won't work. I could not have built what I say built. But what I was hoping for in posting the idea here was to either establish that I did build it, or, two, find out the mechanical reason why my analysis is wrong (e.g. the ferrofluid won't drip, or when you remove fluid from a capillary it cannot be filled with fluid again). When I first came up with this idea, I was hopeful that it would work, but also suspected ( … reasonably so … ) that it would not. Before building it, I figured it would probably not work for one of three reasons: 1. The ferrofluid would act differently than other fluids and not be drawn to the end of the capillary due to capillary action. (However, it was drawn to the end of the capillary.) 2. (If it reached the end of the capillary, then) it would not spike out beyond the end of the capillary. (However, it did spike.) 3. (If it reached the end of the capillary and spiked, then) it would not break off and drip. (However, it did drip.) (It was obvious that if it did drip, then it would be drawn to the greatest part of the other magnet's field and to the base of the other capillary.) I have built 12 of these machines; one of which was submerged in water. They all dripped, and they all came to a stop. Of the 11 not submerged in water, the longest dripped for 6 days. I believe evaporation was the problem. Over time the ferrofluids became more like a collection of solids than a liquid. The one submerged in water (ferrofluids don't mix with ordinary water) dripped for 10 days and then stopped. Obviously, the problem here was not evaporation. I'm guessing that the capillary became corrupted somehow. Perhaps the water entered it. (Part of my motivation of posting here was to perhaps get ideas on how to keep them moving longer.) But, I don't know the mechanical reason why the submerged one stopped. (Of course, one could always say: given the first law of thermodynamics, a perpetual motion machine will not work, and that's why it stopped.) However, these machines did not come to a stop: 1. due to friction Or 2. due to the exhaustion of potential energy They came to a stop because the parts wore out. The "quest for a perpetual motion machine," in my opinion, is not a quest for a "perpetual machine" but a quest for "perpetual motion." The parts of the machine may wear out, but the motion does not wear down. And in these machines, the motion did not wear down. Even though these machines came to a stop, in my analysis, after the first drip from each capillary, these machines were beyond conservation of energy. After the first drip form each capillary, when the fluid was returned to its original starting points (or, rather, to a position equivalent to its original starting points), the amount of potential energy was the same as at the start, but given that the fluid had moved and encountered friction, thermal energy was increased without a decrease in another form of energy (e.g. kinetic, potential) to offset it. And, with each iteration, over the several days, thermal energy continued to increase and increase, while the potential energy remained constant (when the fluid returned to the smallest (weakest) part of the wedge magnet again and again). And that's the idea. That's it. Mr. Skeptic "Ah, capillary action. It still won't work. You just add that force to the magnetic force when considering the potential energy of your fluid. Your fluid will move to the point of least potential and then stay there." The fluid did move: 1. From the weakest part of the magnet to the strongest 2. From the base of the capillary to the end of the capillary 3. From the end of the capillary to the weakest part of the magnet Sisyphus "… because the universe doesn't look like this … If A>B and B>C, then C>A can't be true." I'm claiming that if you look at the details of the machine, and if my analysis is right, that in these machines the universe does look like this. Swansnot "It's more than that, really. Any continuous symmetry corresponds to a conservation law (Noether's theorem). Conservation of energy is due to time symmetry the laws of physics are not changing in time. The two statements are linked, so if one is true the other is as well. If you have created (or lost) energy, you must have changed a law of physics. You can't make this disappear with a wave of your hands and a "think outside the box" cliché." I understand that given the established laws of physics, either I did not build what I say I built, or my analysis of its implications for the law of conservation of energy is wrong. And I hope I've presented my ideas clearly and it doesn't look like I'm just full of smoke and mirrors. John Cuthber "How long was the film? The US patent office requires it to run for a year before they even look at it. I think they are being absurdly generous." I think a reasonable person first looking at my machine would think that all I've done is built a machine that starts out with a certain amount of potential energy, and that I've simply managed to string out turning this potential energy into kinetic energy over a period of days. And that these machines all came to a stop after that potential energy was used up. But, after a detailed inspection of my design, I can't see how that's what I'm doing here. After the first drips from each capillary I think there is a conservation of energy problem. It appears to me that these machines all came to a stop when the parts wore out, and that the motion never wore down. Md65536 “In the case of trees, energy (input) from the sun can be used to pull water out, allowing more water to be drawn up.” The only way, so far, I can see from a mechanical point of view (and that is also consistent with what I observed) where this machine could fail is this: I fill the capillaries up with ferrofluids, and then I pull the ferrofluids out, but more ferrofluids do not come in. But I don’t think that’s what’s going on. I suspect (just as with a tree) when the fluid drips out of the capillary at the end, and thus opens up more room in the capillary, that more fluid is drawn into the capillary at the base. But I’ll keep thinking about this. Again, thank you all for reading this and responding.

md65536 Yes, this is a perpetual motion machine. And, yes, I'm proposing the impossible. If " … The "room for more water" left by the drip won't be replaced by more water due to capillary action ..." is true, then you may have found actual reason why my machine won't work. But is it? When the sun heats up the water in the leaves of trees, and that water evaporates, doesn't the water in the capillaries of the trees move upward due to capillary action, and thus leaving more room for water at the roots, which is then filled in with more water from the surrounding soil due to capillary action in the roots? Or have you found my idea's fatal flaw? I have never seen a cloth (or any kind of a capillary) (presumably in an upside down u shape with one leg longer than the other, and the longer leg touching the water while the shorter one not) pull up a fluid into it, become saturated, and then drip back down above the water level. I believe you would need some other force than gravity to get the water back out of the capillary. In this situation, capillary action is stronger than gravity and pulls the water up against the force of gravity. It would then be impossible for gravity to be stronger than capillary action and pull the fluid back out. But I'd be happy to be corrected. Thank you for analyzing my machine. Sisyphus "In order for the ferrofluid to be accelerated against friction, it has to be moving from a position of higher potential energy to lower potential energy, "downhill." At some point in that loop, necessarily, is the point of lowest potential energy. It is there that it will come to rest." That is the point of the design. When the ferrofluid is at the base of the capillary there is the potential to be pulled to the top of the capillary (due to capillary action). When the ferrofluid is at the end of the capillary there is the potential to be pulled out (spike) from the end and break off (due to the lines of magnetic flux and the ferrofluids tendency to spike out along these lines). And when the ferrofluid is at the weakest (thinnest) part of the magnet there is the potential to move to the strongest (thickest) part of the magnet. And, once at the thickest part of the magnet, it is back at the base of the capillary, and there is the potential to be pulled into and to the end of the capillary, again, due to capillary action. Thank you also for analyzing my machine. Mr Skeptic "Are you suggesting that in your device, the ferrofluid will move to where the field is strongest, and then away from it, and all of this in a specific direction?" Yes. I am suggesting that the ferrofluid, when first place in the system along the length of the wedge magnets, will move from the weaker part of the magnets to the stronger. Then, with the base of the capillaries placed and touching the magnets at their strongest part (or rather touching the plastic covering the magnets), I am suggesting that the ferrofluid will move away from the strongest part of the magnet and into and along the length of the capillaries. Then, when the fluid reaches the end of each capillary, I am suggesting that the fluid will spike out from the ends of the capillaries and (if the gap is the right size) break off and drip onto the weakest part of the other magnet. And from there move from the weakest part of the magnet to the strongest. Yes. I am suggesting it will all move in a specific direction. (In the diagram that means everything moves counter clockwise.) Again, thank you all for taking the time to analyze my machine. I could have done a better job distinguishing this machine from the 17th century one. The 17th century machine (cited above) is analogous to a pendulum. If it were possible to build a frictionless pendulum, then it would run forever. However, if there is the slightest bit of friction (anything greater than zero) then on each iteration the pendulum will reach a lower and lower lever and eventually stop. Same thing with the 17th century machine. It uses a magnetic to pull a metal ball up against the force of gravity. Once up the ramp, it then tries to use the force of gravity to pull the metal ball back down and away from the magnet. If there was no friction, then this would work. However, if there is the slightest amount of friction (anything greater than zero), then the ball will never reach its original starting point, and the motion will not continue. The design here is different. It works in the presence of friction. 1. The ferrofluid is drawn into and along the length of the capillary in the presence of friction. 2. The ferrofluid drips across the gap, through the air, in the presence of friction. 3. The ferrofluid moves along the length of the magnet in the presence of friction. This design does not need to frictionless in order to work, while the 17th century one does. Thanks.

Thank you for your reasoned response. “If the magnet at the top left is strong enough to pull the moving thing ( ferrofluid … ) across from the top right of the diagram to the top left …, then it will be too strong to let that moving thing go somewhere else- like the bottom of the diagram, ….” On the left side of the diagram (again, this is a top down view) the magnet is thinner (and weaker) at the top, and thicker (and stronger) at the bottom. After being pulled from the capillary and to the magnet, it will move towards the stronger magnetic field (which means moving to the bottom of the left hand side of the diagram). This can be seen on You Tube if you type in “Perpetual Motion Machine Another Simple Drip.” “Feel free to come back and show us when you have proved thermodynamics to be false.” You are right, any fool can claim to have disproved a fundamental law of physics. And, only a fool would not be skeptical. I was simply hoping to have a discussion about my machine, and its theoretical implications. (Which, I believe, do violate the law of conservation of energy.) “It's different in detail; but the reason it won't work is exactly the same …” Here you and I will have to disagree. The two machines, to my mind, work very differently. And while that one failed, I saw (and filmed) mine not fail. Thank you for your response.

I'm not sure which part you are suggesting won't move. 1. Ferrofluids will move, "flow," into and along the length of a capillary. (This can be seen at the end of my second video on You Tube.) 2. Any magnet, or magnatize_able material, will move to the strongest part of a magnetic field. (Assuming it's round and can roll. Ferrofluids don't "roll," but rather "flow" to the strongest part of a magnetic field.) If I've misunderstood your objection, please let me know. There are lots of failed attempts. And there are lots of failed attempts that involve magnets (and ferrofluids). The distinction is in the details. In the classic failed design in the link you mentioned, there is an attempt to use a magnet to lift a metal ball up against the force of gravity, and then to use to force of gravity to pull the metal ball back down from, and away from, the magnet. It doesn't work. You can lift the ball up the ramp, and you can get the ball to fall back down through the hole in the ramp. But, the ball won't roll away from the magnet back to the base of the ramp. There is not enough motion (kinetic energy) from the fall to overcome the pull from the magnetic. What makes the design here different (besides the use of a capillary) is that the fluid goes from one magnet to another. Yes. If you start out with a theoretical structure as a given, any theoretical structure, then by definition anything that acts differently than what that theoretical structure allows for is false. Yep. If the First Law of Thermodynamics is beyond question, then anything that acts differently than what this theory allows for is necessarily false. Yep. And that's one way to proceed in science. And that's fine. A different way ... a way a prefer ... is to question our basic assumptions. In the esoteric world of the philosophy of science you can never actually prove a theory true. You can only show that it's more and more likely to be true. (You can, however, show a theory to be false.) There are lots and lots of examples where we can show that energy is conserved. So, we have seen enough to say with great confidence that the First Law of Thermodynamics is true. But now I'm proposing this. Thank you all for reading and responding.

That’s one of my favorite Simpsons quotes. To answer the first reply: No, I am not able to measure the incredibly small increase in thermal energy. Rather: I did not build a frictionless machine. Where there is friction, thermal energy increases. So, as the parts of this machine move against one another, and encounter friction, thermal energy is increased. And as to where I should put my creativity … well … I guess we have to disagree. Thank you.

Continuous Frictioned Motion Machine Free Energy Device Perpetual Motion Machine Over Utility Device This includes: 1. Ferrofluids 2. Capillaries 3. Wedge Magnets (This is a top down view. No gravity involved.) This idea, I think, is pretty self explanatory from the drawing. But for a longer (thought still simple) theoretical discussion please see www.continuousfrictionedmotionmachine.com Also, on You Tube, I've posted the building and working of this machine under "How to build a perpetual motion machine." The biggest question I think most people will have is "Will the ferrofluid drip?" You can actually see it drip on You Tube if you type in "Perpetual Motion Machine Simple Drip." Thank you.