DrP

That is kinda cool.

Anyone woken by the quake last night? Woke me up... similar to the one a few years back (2008 or earlier?).. didn't last as long but seemed a little more vigorous. (Probably depends upon the individuals location). News shows some minor damage to properties. This is the second I have experienced here... It is obvious why there are so many at fault lines, but I wonder what the mechanism is for a quake in the middle of a tectonic plate. I could look it up later, but thought I'd ask if anyone knew here of the top of their heads.

Only from the weight as it flies off - and this is drag from the weight, NOTHING to do with centrifugal forces. This is just semantics and kinda confuses the scenario imo. You could just hold the ball in your hand and spin then let go - the effect would be identical - the ball would 'appear' to be PULLED out of your hand... but it is not being pulled, it is just continuing on in a straight line from your stationary position.

I don't understand your problem with that Studiot...the weight flies off at a tangent and the rope goes trailing off after it... the way it would do according to the laws of physics.. seems pretty obvious to me. The circular motion DOES require a force inward... the rope just goes off following the weight as it is dragged along. Either I am misunderstanding what you are saying or you are just wrong.

Nothing 'PULLS' the rope through your hand. If you let go, the weight carries on moving and so does the rope....so it carries on going and leaves you hand. It is not a force that is doing this, it is already in motion and carries on going in a straight line when you let go.

QUOTE(Rob):- "As soon as it falls off the merry go round or the string breaks there is no centrifugal force"... There never was a centrifugal force in the first place, as we have been telling you for over 400 posts. lol. ...and I don't care if you can 'feel' the force of it through the rope... you can't... what you feel is the force that YOU YOURSELF are applying to the object through the rope to keep it's motion circular - this is the centripetal force.

Rob: No it would NOT!!!! You have even posted a video YOURSELF (post #333) showing this to be false... it SPIRALS outward. It is moving tangentally and when the friction is overcome it slides off at a TANGENT. Because the whole system is rotating the coin then goes OUTWARD, YES, because it is following the tangent it was on just a second ago, but the circle has moved, so it APPEARS as if it is going outward.

The video is not wrong - you are just misunderstanding it. I don't know how many more times we can say that it is NOT radial. Fine - keep choosing not to believe it then, even though it is there for you to see/read/experience. I think the misconception may be that the tangential motion, once the wheel/roundabout/pendulum/whatever, turns through 90 degrees then it appears radial. It is about your frame of reference. I give up for now. Over and out.

Quote: "feel the force".. That force that they 'feel' is the centripetal force that they themselves are applying to the weight through the tension in the rope which gives the weight it's circular motion.... otherwise it would not go in a circle. Did you watch the video? Centripetal vs Centrifugal? ALL OF IT was explained very clearly and simply in that vid.

Quote:"Kinetic energy might not stick as closely to a mass as it's momentum does,..." Yes it does... both are directly proportional to the mass of the object. Quote"which part is KE and which part is momentum?"... The mass doesn't 'carry a force' as you put it... it has momentum (mv) and KE (1/2mv^2)... it imparts a force (an impulse) on another object during a collision and momentum and energy can be transferred.

QUOTE:"We did not do VERTICAL work"... no - but work was done moving the cars horizontally. The force increases on the plate 2 as you put more weight on it by increasing number of cars? Of course it does... that's not generating force from nothing - it is increasing the force by adding more weight/mass, which isn't from nothing, it is from increasing the weight/number of cars.

Momentum = m.v (mass x velocity) K.E. = 1/2 m.v^2 (half the mass x velocity squared) They are both defined by mass and velocity.... so yes, they are related by half v.

Thanks spyman... I think that explains everything quite well.. it explains why it 'appears' that there is an outward force but there isn't. It also explains centripetal force... the force needed to make the motion go circular (friction twixt bum and seat on a roundabout, tension in string on pendulum, friction on tyres etc.). The reason the lizard flies out of the tube is because there is not enough centripetal force (From friction from inside the tube) to keep it's path circular.... so it flies off at a tangent in a straight line... funneled out through the tube. PS - PLEASE rep me down if I am wrong. I wouldn't want anyone to think this is correct if it is wrong and go away with the wrong idea. x

Hey - I know we have covered all this... but this vid which was further down robertybob's link explains the lot, again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHpAifN_2Sw But I can't seem to link it - never mind.... It is the vid entitled "Centripetal vs centrifugal" 8th one down.

Yea - you seem like a nice bloke Mike.... maybe that is why you got the positive rep you have currently. But it is important that strangers, new comers and young people don't actually believe your side of many of the arguments you put across because they are just wrong. If you state something that is complete rubbish as a fact and argue it over and over against half a dozen other people who are respected members here and know what they are talking about..... then it is important that people do not think that what you are saying is true... thus the neg rep, people can see it and know that what you are saying might not actually right. ;-) Sorry - nothing personal, but after you have been going in circles for the last 16 pages I added a -1 point to your above post. Rightly imo. Have a nice day. What level of training do have as a scientist by the way? Do you think you should have a high reputation in the field of science due to your knowledge experience and education?

Oh - don't delete it - it was funny, I laughed so hard the other night during our conversation. ;-) I had a great time. I haven't been very active here for a couple of years, but I do remember that we would quite often people pop up with ideas for a PM machine.. I am SURE that some of them were prankster seeing how long they can keep the conversation going round in circles. It could be quite good fun for a bit until it got annoying, then you could just leave the conversation and let someone else take over. I did wonder the other evening if you were joking or not when you continually defended the claims that several people easily poked holes in. My ex met a builder the other year and he was convinced he was going to make an engine out of magnets.. he explained his idea to me and I told him that it was a nice idea but it doesn't work (we've all tried it and it has been studied to death) - they both rounded on me saying that I needed to keep an open mind... I don't mind having an open mind, but some things we know for sure and they aren't going to change just because someone else tries the exact same thing. Open mind is good.... but not SO open that your brain actually falls right out. ;-)

I don't understand the German in that... but I can see it isn't a perpetual motion machine. ;-) What is it? I guess you could use wave power to reset it like those wave power devices or something, but that isn't perpetual motion, whatever that bloke is saying in the vid.

Even though I don't really drink that much anymore I had to pause and think...."MMMM... BEER!"... I even pictured a little thought bubble above my head in a cartoon world where I was all yellow with blue trousers and a beer hat with 2 straws attached to an everlasting beer tin..... The sky was blue, I was smiling and the sun was shining! 8-)

Hmm... your thread title is a question: "Why is this not a perpetual motion machine?" Several people have given an opinion as to why they think it it is not. Now though you are supporting it as an idea and defending it. I am a physicist. So are others here. It is not impossible that we are all wrong about it, but in our opinion, so far, it doesn't work and we have said why. I would be delighted if you are right and it works. Free energy for all! Awesome. Congrats. But so far it just doesn't look at all viable. Please show it to work if you really believe it. Answer how the movement depicted by the red arrows in your diagram take up no or less energy than you are getting out.

This is the bit that is wrong. The movement of the weights by the red arrows cannot possibly take place with no energy needed. You have to physically move them somehow. Yea, but it clearly doesn't work as pointed out above. There are loads of claims about such machines which 'pop up' all the time - I've not seen any that work yet. ;-)

My best answer that I can give to your question "Why is this not a perpetual motion?" would be that it is because that the system doesn't run without the need to reset it each time. You either have to move the tube or the bar to get the motion/lift - which requires more energy than you will get from the movement. That's before you even try to harness the energy from the movement to convert it to something useful. To do that you would need to attach it to something like a dynamo or whatever you want to drive - which I can't see working. That's what I reckon anyway, I could be wrong, but I don't think so. Please explain if you think otherwise or if you think I have got this wrong.

If you were to alter the surface tension of the liquid cyclically using a surfactant, you could make it go up and down, but you would eventually have to clean the system out when it got too concentrated. How is it supposed to work again? Without interacting with it I mean?

I mean, I might be missing something, please explain, but how is it perpetual motion if you have to keep moving the thing across with a pair of tweasers each time it pops up... lol. Sorry, I must be stupid as I am missing the point obviously but it does seem a bit ridiculous to me. Oh - I have a degree in Chemical Physics. It won't work. Sorry- that was terse. It won't work because you have to set the thing up each time, which requires energy. It doesn't run on it's own and you will put more energy in to get a smaller amount out. I am sorry - my German isn't good and I don't fully understand the system, but I'm still pretty sure that if I did, then it still wouldn't work.

How can this motion be harnessed to produce stored energy to a flywheel or a battery or something? I'm pretty sure you will use more energy resetting the thing each loop than you will get out of it, even if it could run something.

The carbon molecules in graphene and graphite are looped into rings and make a sort of honeycomb structure, so they aren't hexagonally close packed. Even though their C-C bond lengths are shorter than that of diamond, for instance, the carbon atoms in diamond are tetrahedrally arranged so there are more of them per unit area/volume and thus diamond is more dense as a material. Hexagonally close packed structures are where the atoms are arranged like balls in a box all tightly packed together - some metals have their atoms arranged like this and tend to be denser than metals with atomic stacking with the atoms arranged in a cubic structure. Although of course the atomic mass of the atoms in the material are probably a much larger factor, especially if the atoms are from lower down on the periodic table.