potential energy

[SPANG]

Hi All,
       It is my concidered opinion that if anyone tries to build a perpetual motion machine, and it exhibits
potential energy somewhere in its design ----- IT WON'T WORK!
How CAN a perpetual motion machine (that its designer thinks will work), exhibit potential energy --------
when it is PERPETUAL?
This implies that potential energy has to be present, ALL THE TIME!
A perpetual motion machine CANNOT have potential energy, anywhere near it ----- BECAUSE it's perpetual.
This is of course an opinion ----- and I just might be wrong ----- but I don't think so!
BILL.

[exnihiloest]

Hi All,
       It is my concidered opinion that if anyone tries to build a perpetual motion machine, and it exhibits
potential energy somewhere in its design ----- IT WON'T WORK!
...

You are right. There is a motion because a movable element "falls" from a high potential energy towards a lower potential energy (magnetic, electric or gravity). The potential difference is the cause of the movement. Therefore when the potential energy is the same at the begining and at the end, in order to repeat the cycle, there is no more reason for any movable element to move along the whole loop.

The typical case is the smot where a movable permanent magnet is "falling" in a low gradient of magnetic potential but is unable to return to its start point because it would have to "climb" again the same potential difference now located in an area named "the sticky point". The sticky point is just representing the same difference of magnetic potential as the other side of the path but on a much shorter distance.

The idea of looping a device based on a static potential difference is the most frequent error in free energy (permanent magnet motor, gravity wheels...).

Now the trick would be to change a potential at no price, or at price less than the energy that this potential difference could provide, principle named "regauging", for example by dynamically changing a parameter of the loop (like the permeability in Steorn's device). Conventional devices already exist and work on this principle (see "parametric motors"), but none is showing OU (including Steorn's device).

[Liberty]

You are right. There is a motion because a movable element "falls" from a high potential energy towards a lower potential energy (magnetic, electric or gravity). The potential difference is the cause of the movement. Therefore when the potential energy is the same at the begining and at the end, in order to repeat the cycle, there is no more reason for any movable element to move along the whole loop.

The typical case is the smot where a movable permanent magnet is "falling" in a low gradient of magnetic potential but is unable to return to its start point because it would have to "climb" again the same potential difference now located in an area named "the sticky point". The sticky point is just representing the same difference of magnetic potential as the other side of the path but on a much shorter distance.

The idea of looping a device based on a static potential difference is the most frequent error in free energy (permanent magnet motor, gravity wheels...).

Now the trick would be to change a potential at no price, or at price less than the energy that this potential difference could provide, principle named "regauging", for example by dynamically changing a parameter of the loop (like the permeability in Steorn's device). Conventional devices already exist and work on this principle (see "parametric motors"), but none is showing OU (including Steorn's device).

This appears to be possible in a permanent magnet motor with power assist using power saving methods.

[SPANG]

I agree entirely with you sir;   PERPERPETUAL MOTION = NO POTENTIAL ENERGY!
I must say, it's quite comforting to know there are some people 'out there', who actualy
THINK!  My guess is, there are many 'like minded' folk 'out there', who won't make a 'post',
'just in case they're wrong' ----- how stupid can you get? If you're wrong ----- you're
wrong. So what?
Speak up, and be counted!
BILL.

[Alexioco]

That sounds quite interesting, so say that a weight swings down from the top of a wheel, its potential energy decreases as it gets lower because the closer to the bottom the weight gets, the less distance it has to drop. In other words, the shorter the drop, the lesser potential energy. I suppose its the same with that a light weight can lift a heavy weight when the light weight can drop faster, like that of leonardo da vincis pulley arangement or the off balance seesaw. Its not the position of the weights that cause the lift, its the speed difference between the two weights. Just like a weight swinging down a wheel, its starting position is not so important because as it drops, it covers all possible starting positions anyway so perpetual motion would not be gained from a dropping weight, but from a downward acceleration greater than gravity so as the weight flies back up, its slightly slower than when it dropped therefore completing the loop? Just like the difference of speed between the heavy and light weight.

In other words, a weight needs to drop down a wheel faster than gravity pulls, then it can lift back up to the top as normal and make it over.

If this is wrong, please correct me.

Alex