Continuous Frictioned Motion Machine

[christopher kirk reves]

Ouch.


Vidar:  "Now it shoud be more easy for everyone to GOOGLE the word "FERROFLUID" and then hit this thread If you're going to sell anything, try EBAY:

Yes, I did include the first line of words for google searches.  I look up perpetual motion machines on google, and figured other people interested in this topic do too.  I figured different people use different words; like "over unity" or "free energy".  My purpose was to make this idea find_able for anyone interested in such machines that invole ferrofluids.  I'm sorry if it looked like an ad.


Vidar: "I have already tried this and other designs with ferrofluid. It will unfortunatly not work."

I realize we are not on good terms right now, but I'd be interested in the designs and results, even the failed results, you tried and found.

Vidar: "It only mess up my clothings with muck that is HARD to wash away."

Yes.  This comment lets me know you really did what you say you did.  This has been my experience as well.  (409 seems to work the best as cleaning up walls, clothes, and such.)

Vidar: "Besides, cheap ferrofluids on the internet stores dries out."

This has been my experience too.  I've built several of these machines and they all come to a stop when the ferrofluids dry up.  I tried putting some in a zip lock bag with a wet sponge, but, while they run longer, the ferrofluids still dry up over time.  I'm working now on trying to get this machine to work submerged in water.  Fortunately ferrofluids don't mix with water.

Vidar: "The more expencive ferrofluids (ferro-OIL) is the product to look for."

Thank you for the tip.

Vidar: "Good luck with your ad-words somewhere else, Christopher"

Again, I'm sorry for the miscommunication.  I was trying to make it easy for people interested in over unity, perpetual motion, free energy, and wedge magnets, capillaries, and ferrofluids to find this discussion.

While your comments sting, I do appreate you considering my idea.

Thank you.

[Low-Q]

Before I built this, I figured it would fail for one of a number of reasons:

1. Ferrofluids would not be subject to capillary action.
2. If ferrofluids are subject to capillary action, then the fluid could not be pulled out of the capillary.
3. If the ferrofluid could be pulled out of the capillary, then it would not break off and drip.
4. If the ferrofluid did break off and drip, then it would pile up in line with the lines of flux running through the magnetic fluid in the capillary and not move to the greatest part of the second magnet.

I found out that ferrofluids are subject to capillary action, they will spike out beyond the end of the capillary, they will break off and drip, and once on the face of the second magnet they will move to the greatest part of the second magnet.

A simple explanation of the details of this machine can be found at:

http://www.continuousfrictionedmotionmachine.com/

A very boring video of how to make this machine (but clear enough than anyone can replicate what I did) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH1KdEcAqMU

To see the ferrofluid move through the capillary fast forward to the end of the second video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_I2qOVFVwo&feature=related

And if you’re interested and just interested in seeing it drip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbZE35HDuYg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKPZP0bbrxY

Thank you for considering this machine.

I have added this comment on youtube:
"Nice try. You can do this under water when the paper straws are saturated with ferrofluid. Then the ferrofluid will not dry out and stop the process. What happens after the ferrofluid has complete the loop? Will it just continue, or will it saturate some how and finally stop the process?"

Maybe you can answer the question here?

Vidar

[Low-Q]

Here is my experiment wil buoyancy effect in ferro fluid. I placed a straw between two magnets with ferrofluid in between. I expected that the air inside the straw would move upwards. It doesn't...
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8407.msg214667#msg214667

[christopher kirk reves]

Whew, sounds like we’re on better terms.

Vidar:  “You can do this under water when the paper straws are saturated with ferrofluid.”

You really seem to know your stuff.  I’ve put one under water so far, and I did exactly what you suggest I do.  I let the ferrofluid saturate the rolled up paper towels and start the dripping process before putting it under water.  (This way the ferrofluid filled up the capillaries in the paper towel before the water does.)  And, under water, it continued to drip.

After being placed under water, one of the rolled paper towels stopped dripping after a couple of days, while the other one dripped for weeks.  However, it, too, eventually came to a stop.  I don’t know why.

I’m experimenting with more under water, to see if I can figure out why it came to a stop, and how to overcome this. 

Vidar:  “Then the ferrofluid will not dry out and stop the process.”

Yep.  They came to a stop for some other reason.  The ferrofluid never dried out.

Vidar:  “What happens after the ferrofluid has complete the loop?”

It joins the puddle of ferrofluid on the other side from where it started, at the base of the other capillary, where it can then loop and loop again.

Vidar:  “Will it just continue, or will it saturate some how and finally stop the process?”

After the ferrofluid drips across the gap, it is in an equivalent position to where it started.  It should be able to continue the process over and over again.

My machines have problems, but I think they are problems with the materials and the setup, not problems with the overall design. 

BTW:

The amount of movement in these machines is very small.  The drips are about half the size of a tear drop.  They drip across a quarter inch gap.  And they occur about once every half hour.

BTW2:

I’ve tried different ways to make the capillaries:

1. Drinking straw within a drinking straw.
2. Two glass plates pressed together.
3. A sponge cut down to the size of a drinking straw.
4. A rolled up paper towel the size of a drinking straw.

In all four, the ferrofluid was subject to capillary action, and moved to the end of the capillaries.  But in the first two it did not spike out beyond.  While in the second two it did spike out and drip.

My suspicion is that in order to get the fluid to spike there needs to be a greater amount of magnetic flux channeled through the capillaries.  In the second two there is more ferrofluid in the capillaries, and so more magnetic flux channeled through this area.

Vidar:  “Here is my experiment wil buoyancy effect in ferro fluid.”

Cool design.

My guess is that this will end up with the same problem as in the classic perpetual motion design where a string of balls is looped together and one half of the loop is placed in a column of water. 

Buoyancy comes from there being a difference in pressure from the fluid on top and on the bottom of the submerged object.  This difference gives a certain amount of upward push.  This also means, however, if you try to push an object from outside the column of fluid into the bottom of that column you have pressure pushing down on the object without any pressure pushing up.  And if you do the calculations the maximum amount of upward pressure you can get on the string of balls in the fluid, is exactly equal to the pressure you need to overcome at the bottom of the column of fluid to get the next stringed ball in.

(For there to be buoyancy, pressure must increase with depth, and so the pressure at the bottom of the column of fluid is greater than anywhere else in the column.)

I’ve never thought about your design before, but this is my guess. 

If the magnets hold the ferrofluid in place (and so the fluid is not resting on the fluid below it) then you could eliminate the problem of too much pressure at the bottom of the column, but you’d also have no buoyancy (no greater pressure on the bottom than on the top) on the submerged objects, and so no upward push.

Or,

If the magnets only partially support the ferrofluid (if the fluid is resting, somewhat, on the fluid below it), then this would simply reduce the increase in pressure with depth, and while you’d have less pressure to overcome at the bottom of the column of fluid, you’d also have less pressure difference on the submerged objects and so less upward push.  It’d be like putting the string of balls in a less dense fluid.  And we’d end up with the same problem as in the classic design: the maximum amount of upward push on the submerged objects would be exactly the same as the pressure to be overcome at the bottom of the fluid.

I’m guessing that what happens is the second of these two situations.  If you were to only put a drop of ferrofluid along the magnets, it’d stay with the magnets, but drop down to the bottom.  And the only way to get a column of ferrofluid is to add more and more fluid, which rests (in part) on the fluid below.

Now, if this is true, then it is a mystery to me why in your experiment you found no buoyancy effect on the submerged straw. 

Is it possible that there was some buoyant force on the submerged straw, but given that the fluid was partially supported by the magnets, that this force was very small and just not detectable?

Thanks for the link.  It’s a cool design.

[christopher kirk reves]

Vidar:  “Will it just continue, or will it saturate some how and finally stop the process?”

Oh yeah, one other thing you might be getting at.

It’s my understanding that a magnetorheological fluid is subject to particle sedimentation while a ferrofluid is not. These two “smart fluids” are essentially the same thing with their difference being in the size of the particles. The size difference is important however, in that in a ferrofluid the particles are nanoparticles and therefore subject to Brownian motion and so do not settle under normal conditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrofluid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetorheological_fluid