Why can't we make a perpetual motion machine by using a magnet to pull up a piece of metal, then letting it...

Is there a frame of reference in which I was born before I was conceived?

Filling in Area Under Curve Causes Alignment Issues

What am I? I am in theaters and computer programs

How do you say "powers of ten"?

Manipulate scientific format without the "e"

What happened to QGIS 2.x

I can't die. Who am I?

When was drinking water recognized as crucial in marathon running?

Where is the fallacy here?

Non-Italian European mafias in USA?

Get length of the longest sequence of numbers with the same sign

Can we carry rice to Japan?

Sometimes a banana is just a banana

Inverse of the covariance matrix of a multivariate normal distribution

Giving a talk in my old university, how prominently should I tell students my salary?

my breadboard simulation doesn't work properly

Using std::set container for range items

Where is the line between being obedient and getting bullied by a boss

What does 'acting greedily' mean?

How to mitigate "bandwagon attacking" from players?

What type of postprocessing gives the effect of people standing out

Traversing Africa: A Cryptic Journey

What is better: yes / no radio, or simple checkbox?

A "strange" unit radio astronomy



Why can't we make a perpetual motion machine by using a magnet to pull up a piece of metal, then letting it fall back down?


What prevents this magnetic perpetuum mobile from working?Repulsive Magnetic Hammering ExperimentHow do permanent magnets manage to focus field on one side?Why doesn't this perpetual motion machine work?Why can't it work? Perpetual motion machineExtra strong magnet which doesn't demagnetize credit cards. How does it work?Enhancing strength of magnet, practical questionContinuous Ball Fall perpetual motion machineDemagnetization and the illusion of perpetual-motion machinesForce to separate magnetsHow to debunk this perpetual motion machine?













4












$begingroup$


Obviously, a perpetuum mobile isn't possible by any law in physics, because energy can't be "created" or "destroyed", only transformed.
This said, I've had an idea for a perpetuum mobile and can't seem to find my mistake (I'm actually very close to building and trying it).



Here's the plan:



Take a piece of wood and attach its upper end to a screw so it can swing like a pendulum. Then, attach a magnetic metal at the lower end of the wood. Now, place two magnets at each side of the pendulum, so that at the maximum amplitude, the metal will barely touch the magnets and will swing back, due to its weight.
Now, in my head, if you give the pendulum a little impulse, it will swing up in one direction and get attracted by the magnet just a tiny bit. Thus, on the "way back", it will have a slightly higher amplitude. So it swings to the other side, closer to the magnet, which will pull the pendulum a bit more upwards, thus increasing the amplitude furthermore.
This could theoretically go on and the pendulum will never stop, it will actually gain more momentum at the start.



So the conditions are:




  • The Metal must be heavy enough so it doesn't stick to the magnets

  • The Metal must be magnetic enough so that we gain amplitude instead of losing it each swing


And that's basically it. I am aware that the construction couldn't work, but struggle to find where I made my mistake.
Anyways, if it does work and you guys build it before I do: I want 50% of all profits and want you to name it Perpenduluum Mobile :D










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Florian Claaßen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Not an answer but just points to think about which should clarify why this isn't working out the way you expect (not considering friction): If the pendulum is attracted by the magnet, does it have enough force to escape it (very relevant)? If yes, do the magnet generate a magnetic field for an infinite time? If the amplitude keeps rising, would it hit a magnet losing all the energy? If you move the magnet, are you putting more energy into the system with an external force?
    $endgroup$
    – Bonsay
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I don't even think it would gain any more amplitude the you've given it. If we assume the friction between the screw and wood is neglected, as long as the metal doesn't get close enough to stick, then it's not in the region of the field that makes much of a difference.
    $endgroup$
    – TechDroid
    5 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    First, get in the habit of drawing diagrams that indicate the direction of all the forces; had you done that, you'd see that the magnetic force is in the "wrong" direction exactly half the time. Second, there is lots of literature available on centuries of attempts to make perpetual motion machines, many of which involve clever placements of magnets. Read the literature if you want examples of the forces that the inventors failed to analyze correctly.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Lippert
    47 mins ago










  • $begingroup$
    Magnets wear out. Using magnets in any way in a perpetual motion machine is already a huge red flag. But of course any attempt at this is impossible, as you already (seem to) know.
    $endgroup$
    – only_pro
    6 mins ago
















4












$begingroup$


Obviously, a perpetuum mobile isn't possible by any law in physics, because energy can't be "created" or "destroyed", only transformed.
This said, I've had an idea for a perpetuum mobile and can't seem to find my mistake (I'm actually very close to building and trying it).



Here's the plan:



Take a piece of wood and attach its upper end to a screw so it can swing like a pendulum. Then, attach a magnetic metal at the lower end of the wood. Now, place two magnets at each side of the pendulum, so that at the maximum amplitude, the metal will barely touch the magnets and will swing back, due to its weight.
Now, in my head, if you give the pendulum a little impulse, it will swing up in one direction and get attracted by the magnet just a tiny bit. Thus, on the "way back", it will have a slightly higher amplitude. So it swings to the other side, closer to the magnet, which will pull the pendulum a bit more upwards, thus increasing the amplitude furthermore.
This could theoretically go on and the pendulum will never stop, it will actually gain more momentum at the start.



So the conditions are:




  • The Metal must be heavy enough so it doesn't stick to the magnets

  • The Metal must be magnetic enough so that we gain amplitude instead of losing it each swing


And that's basically it. I am aware that the construction couldn't work, but struggle to find where I made my mistake.
Anyways, if it does work and you guys build it before I do: I want 50% of all profits and want you to name it Perpenduluum Mobile :D










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Florian Claaßen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Not an answer but just points to think about which should clarify why this isn't working out the way you expect (not considering friction): If the pendulum is attracted by the magnet, does it have enough force to escape it (very relevant)? If yes, do the magnet generate a magnetic field for an infinite time? If the amplitude keeps rising, would it hit a magnet losing all the energy? If you move the magnet, are you putting more energy into the system with an external force?
    $endgroup$
    – Bonsay
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I don't even think it would gain any more amplitude the you've given it. If we assume the friction between the screw and wood is neglected, as long as the metal doesn't get close enough to stick, then it's not in the region of the field that makes much of a difference.
    $endgroup$
    – TechDroid
    5 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    First, get in the habit of drawing diagrams that indicate the direction of all the forces; had you done that, you'd see that the magnetic force is in the "wrong" direction exactly half the time. Second, there is lots of literature available on centuries of attempts to make perpetual motion machines, many of which involve clever placements of magnets. Read the literature if you want examples of the forces that the inventors failed to analyze correctly.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Lippert
    47 mins ago










  • $begingroup$
    Magnets wear out. Using magnets in any way in a perpetual motion machine is already a huge red flag. But of course any attempt at this is impossible, as you already (seem to) know.
    $endgroup$
    – only_pro
    6 mins ago














4












4








4





$begingroup$


Obviously, a perpetuum mobile isn't possible by any law in physics, because energy can't be "created" or "destroyed", only transformed.
This said, I've had an idea for a perpetuum mobile and can't seem to find my mistake (I'm actually very close to building and trying it).



Here's the plan:



Take a piece of wood and attach its upper end to a screw so it can swing like a pendulum. Then, attach a magnetic metal at the lower end of the wood. Now, place two magnets at each side of the pendulum, so that at the maximum amplitude, the metal will barely touch the magnets and will swing back, due to its weight.
Now, in my head, if you give the pendulum a little impulse, it will swing up in one direction and get attracted by the magnet just a tiny bit. Thus, on the "way back", it will have a slightly higher amplitude. So it swings to the other side, closer to the magnet, which will pull the pendulum a bit more upwards, thus increasing the amplitude furthermore.
This could theoretically go on and the pendulum will never stop, it will actually gain more momentum at the start.



So the conditions are:




  • The Metal must be heavy enough so it doesn't stick to the magnets

  • The Metal must be magnetic enough so that we gain amplitude instead of losing it each swing


And that's basically it. I am aware that the construction couldn't work, but struggle to find where I made my mistake.
Anyways, if it does work and you guys build it before I do: I want 50% of all profits and want you to name it Perpenduluum Mobile :D










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Florian Claaßen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




Obviously, a perpetuum mobile isn't possible by any law in physics, because energy can't be "created" or "destroyed", only transformed.
This said, I've had an idea for a perpetuum mobile and can't seem to find my mistake (I'm actually very close to building and trying it).



Here's the plan:



Take a piece of wood and attach its upper end to a screw so it can swing like a pendulum. Then, attach a magnetic metal at the lower end of the wood. Now, place two magnets at each side of the pendulum, so that at the maximum amplitude, the metal will barely touch the magnets and will swing back, due to its weight.
Now, in my head, if you give the pendulum a little impulse, it will swing up in one direction and get attracted by the magnet just a tiny bit. Thus, on the "way back", it will have a slightly higher amplitude. So it swings to the other side, closer to the magnet, which will pull the pendulum a bit more upwards, thus increasing the amplitude furthermore.
This could theoretically go on and the pendulum will never stop, it will actually gain more momentum at the start.



So the conditions are:




  • The Metal must be heavy enough so it doesn't stick to the magnets

  • The Metal must be magnetic enough so that we gain amplitude instead of losing it each swing


And that's basically it. I am aware that the construction couldn't work, but struggle to find where I made my mistake.
Anyways, if it does work and you guys build it before I do: I want 50% of all profits and want you to name it Perpenduluum Mobile :D







newtonian-mechanics electromagnetism energy-conservation dissipation perpetual-motion






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Florian Claaßen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Florian Claaßen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 25 mins ago









knzhou

44.7k11122216




44.7k11122216






New contributor




Florian Claaßen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 6 hours ago









Florian ClaaßenFlorian Claaßen

261




261




New contributor




Florian Claaßen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Florian Claaßen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Florian Claaßen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • $begingroup$
    Not an answer but just points to think about which should clarify why this isn't working out the way you expect (not considering friction): If the pendulum is attracted by the magnet, does it have enough force to escape it (very relevant)? If yes, do the magnet generate a magnetic field for an infinite time? If the amplitude keeps rising, would it hit a magnet losing all the energy? If you move the magnet, are you putting more energy into the system with an external force?
    $endgroup$
    – Bonsay
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I don't even think it would gain any more amplitude the you've given it. If we assume the friction between the screw and wood is neglected, as long as the metal doesn't get close enough to stick, then it's not in the region of the field that makes much of a difference.
    $endgroup$
    – TechDroid
    5 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    First, get in the habit of drawing diagrams that indicate the direction of all the forces; had you done that, you'd see that the magnetic force is in the "wrong" direction exactly half the time. Second, there is lots of literature available on centuries of attempts to make perpetual motion machines, many of which involve clever placements of magnets. Read the literature if you want examples of the forces that the inventors failed to analyze correctly.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Lippert
    47 mins ago










  • $begingroup$
    Magnets wear out. Using magnets in any way in a perpetual motion machine is already a huge red flag. But of course any attempt at this is impossible, as you already (seem to) know.
    $endgroup$
    – only_pro
    6 mins ago


















  • $begingroup$
    Not an answer but just points to think about which should clarify why this isn't working out the way you expect (not considering friction): If the pendulum is attracted by the magnet, does it have enough force to escape it (very relevant)? If yes, do the magnet generate a magnetic field for an infinite time? If the amplitude keeps rising, would it hit a magnet losing all the energy? If you move the magnet, are you putting more energy into the system with an external force?
    $endgroup$
    – Bonsay
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I don't even think it would gain any more amplitude the you've given it. If we assume the friction between the screw and wood is neglected, as long as the metal doesn't get close enough to stick, then it's not in the region of the field that makes much of a difference.
    $endgroup$
    – TechDroid
    5 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    First, get in the habit of drawing diagrams that indicate the direction of all the forces; had you done that, you'd see that the magnetic force is in the "wrong" direction exactly half the time. Second, there is lots of literature available on centuries of attempts to make perpetual motion machines, many of which involve clever placements of magnets. Read the literature if you want examples of the forces that the inventors failed to analyze correctly.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Lippert
    47 mins ago










  • $begingroup$
    Magnets wear out. Using magnets in any way in a perpetual motion machine is already a huge red flag. But of course any attempt at this is impossible, as you already (seem to) know.
    $endgroup$
    – only_pro
    6 mins ago
















$begingroup$
Not an answer but just points to think about which should clarify why this isn't working out the way you expect (not considering friction): If the pendulum is attracted by the magnet, does it have enough force to escape it (very relevant)? If yes, do the magnet generate a magnetic field for an infinite time? If the amplitude keeps rising, would it hit a magnet losing all the energy? If you move the magnet, are you putting more energy into the system with an external force?
$endgroup$
– Bonsay
6 hours ago




$begingroup$
Not an answer but just points to think about which should clarify why this isn't working out the way you expect (not considering friction): If the pendulum is attracted by the magnet, does it have enough force to escape it (very relevant)? If yes, do the magnet generate a magnetic field for an infinite time? If the amplitude keeps rising, would it hit a magnet losing all the energy? If you move the magnet, are you putting more energy into the system with an external force?
$endgroup$
– Bonsay
6 hours ago












$begingroup$
I don't even think it would gain any more amplitude the you've given it. If we assume the friction between the screw and wood is neglected, as long as the metal doesn't get close enough to stick, then it's not in the region of the field that makes much of a difference.
$endgroup$
– TechDroid
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
I don't even think it would gain any more amplitude the you've given it. If we assume the friction between the screw and wood is neglected, as long as the metal doesn't get close enough to stick, then it's not in the region of the field that makes much of a difference.
$endgroup$
– TechDroid
5 hours ago




2




2




$begingroup$
First, get in the habit of drawing diagrams that indicate the direction of all the forces; had you done that, you'd see that the magnetic force is in the "wrong" direction exactly half the time. Second, there is lots of literature available on centuries of attempts to make perpetual motion machines, many of which involve clever placements of magnets. Read the literature if you want examples of the forces that the inventors failed to analyze correctly.
$endgroup$
– Eric Lippert
47 mins ago




$begingroup$
First, get in the habit of drawing diagrams that indicate the direction of all the forces; had you done that, you'd see that the magnetic force is in the "wrong" direction exactly half the time. Second, there is lots of literature available on centuries of attempts to make perpetual motion machines, many of which involve clever placements of magnets. Read the literature if you want examples of the forces that the inventors failed to analyze correctly.
$endgroup$
– Eric Lippert
47 mins ago












$begingroup$
Magnets wear out. Using magnets in any way in a perpetual motion machine is already a huge red flag. But of course any attempt at this is impossible, as you already (seem to) know.
$endgroup$
– only_pro
6 mins ago




$begingroup$
Magnets wear out. Using magnets in any way in a perpetual motion machine is already a huge red flag. But of course any attempt at this is impossible, as you already (seem to) know.
$endgroup$
– only_pro
6 mins ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















10












$begingroup$


Now, in my head, if you give the pendulum a little impulse, it will swing up in one direction and get attracted by the magnet just a tiny bit.




You've neglected to account for the magnetic attraction as the pendulum bob goes back to its central position.



On the outwards leg, you are correct that the magnet's attraction will pull on the bob and give it more energy than it would have in the absence of the magnet. However, in the return leg, the pendulum bob is trying to get away from the magnet's attractive force, and this will claim back all of the additional energy.



(... if the system is perfect, that is. Real-world magnetic materials will show some amount of hysteresis, so the bob will lose slightly more energy on the way back than it gained on the way out.)



This type of mistake is quite common when you have a core dynamics which is known to be conservative, and still seems to be producing energy - you're just conveniently neglecting to take into account the parts of the cycle where that force performs work against your system. For a similar example in action, see What prevents this magnetic perpetuum mobile from working?.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thanks, I didn't think of that. Your absolutely right, but let me propose a solution to the problem: What if I replace the magnets with electromagnets which get powered by the dynamo that gets charged by the pendulum swinging. Now, what if the electromagnet gets powered when the pendulum is swinging towards it, but not powered once the pendulum swings away?
    $endgroup$
    – Florian Claaßen
    3 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Then you will need to supply power to the electromagnet when you turn it on, and you will not be able to harvest equal amounts of power from the electromagnet when you turn it off. Let's get this straight: electromagnetism conserves energy. That's a theorem within the theory, and the only way you can get around it is by stepping away from electromagnetism. The fact that perpetual-motion machines don't work is not a "problem" in need of a "solution", and if that's what you're looking for, then this site is not the venue for it.
    $endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Right, right, thanks for the quick response. I was not looking for an actual perpetuum mobile but rather the mistake I made while thinking up the model. You have been of great help, thanks :)
    $endgroup$
    – Florian Claaßen
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    No worries. When asking about perpetual-motion machines, you should keep firmly in mind the type of population that asks the majority of those questions. If your text reads the same way as the comments by that population (which your first comment here definitely satisfies), then you should be prepared for others' view of those questions to come through such a lens. For an example of how to step away from that tone, see the question I linked to.
    $endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    3 hours ago



















3












$begingroup$

Perpetual motion is impossible due to dissipation, or if you prefer second principle of thermodynamics and not to energy conservation.



If your analysis of the suggested setup was correct, you could create mechanical energy for free !



In first analysis, neglecting the (unavoidable) losses in the ferromagnetic medium, your system is conservative : what you have is a modified pendulum, where the confinement potential contains not only the gravitational part but also a magnetic component. Actually the magnetic force slightly decrease the recall torque that you would have with gravity alone, and the amplitude of motion will indeed be larger. But you nevertheless will have a turning point where the kinetic energy vanishes, and when going back, you will reach exactly the same angle for the turning point on the other side.
This correspond to an oscillator with constant amplitude, because losses have been neglected.
The sources of losses are at least : friction in air, friction on axe, ferromagnetic hysteresis, Foucault currents. So the amplitude will decrease and the perpetual motion be reduced to perpetual immobility...






share|cite|improve this answer










New contributor




Jhor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    The key thing is that the forces are conservative, as you say. If the forces are conservative there is a well-defined potential energy at any angle $theta$ and that's basically all you need.
    $endgroup$
    – tfb
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @TV I agree of course but it is worth to discuss in more detail the misconceptions involved in the OP. And magnets remains so mysterious, if not magical, for many people...
    $endgroup$
    – Jhor
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Oh yes, sorry, I only really added the comment as I was half-way through an answer which said that (now abandoned as yours is better).
    $endgroup$
    – tfb
    4 hours ago



















0












$begingroup$

If you would use static magnets for that, than while swinging back, the metal is closer to the magnet attracting it in opposite direction relative to its movement and thus takes more momentum away as it gains from the other magnet. Thus the next amplitude is lower. The result is, that your amplitude overall would even be damped relative to the free pendulum.



The accelerating force by the magnet on the far side if proportional to 1/(d+sin$phi$l)² and the deccelerating force by the magnet on the close side is proportional to



1/(d-sin$phi$l)².



Where d is the distance between pendulum mass and either magnet in rest state, $phi$ is the deflection angle and l is the pendulum length. Since the Magnets are identical, they carry the same prefactor. Thus resulting force adding to the positively accelerating gravitational force is proportional to



(1/(d+sin$phi$l)² - 1/(d-sin$phi$l)²) = ((d-sin$phi$l)² - (d+sin$phi$l)²)/((d-sin$phi$l)²(d+sin$phi$l)²)



As the denominator is now again the same for both contributing forces we can neglect it for the ongoing computation and result in the total magnetic force proportional to:



(d-sin$phi$l)² - (d+sin$phi$l)² = d²-2dsin$phi$l+sin²$phi$l²-d²-2dsin$phi$l-sin²$phi$l² = -4dsin$phi$l



thus the oscillation given by the gravitational force is damped by the magnetic forces.



Edit: My original train of thoughts was wrong on this one. At least the calculations show that the oscillator is driven by a smaller force compared to the free oscillator (just gravity). Thus without any energy loss the 'magnetic oscillator' would just oscillate slower without any change in amplitude.






share|cite|improve this answer










New contributor




Patrik Puchert is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I firmly disagree with your answer. The amplitude must neitger decrease nor increase when friction and other losses are neglected. See my answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Jhor
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I don't think so. I don't know the exact term for the lets call it magneto attractive force, but it should scale as 1/r². with that in mind and for simplicity using small angle approximation we result in the magnetic force ~(1/(d+sin $phi$ l)²-1/(d-sin $phi$ l)²) again ~ (d-sin $phi$ l)²-(d+sin $phi$ l)² resulting in a net magnetic force proportional to -4dsin $phi$ l. Where d is the distance to either magnet for the undeflected pendulum, $phi$ is the defelction angle and l is the length of the pendulum. Thus the net force accelerating the pendulum is reduced by the magnets.
    $endgroup$
    – Patrik Puchert
    3 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    No problem with that. Except that this expression goes not has the dimension of a force.Any wayyou ould have to add to the gravitational potential - mglcosphi a magnetic term in dlcosphi and you have a conservative potential giving rise to a periodic oscillation of constant amplitude. To understand your mistake in evaluating the work of this magnetic force, have a look to @EmilioPisanty's answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Jhor
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I only said that the force contributed by the magnets if proportional to what I wrote. Of course gravity is there, but gravity is also there without magnets, so its not interesting when determining the difference. Of course there is some prefactor, which is the same for both magnets (given that they are identical) and thus again not of interest when determining the (scaling of) difference.
    $endgroup$
    – Patrik Puchert
    2 hours ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I suggest using Mathjax to format your equations, it is very hard to read the math here. Also, I don't really understand how adding another conservative force would change the amplitude for an ideal pendulum. The amplitude for such a pendulum depends completely on the starting conditions. If you started the magnetic pendulum at the same angle as a only-gravity one, they should both still end up in the same place on each period when you assume no energy losses. I don't see how you would expect a change in amplitude given that both are conservative systems.
    $endgroup$
    – JMac
    1 hour ago











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});






Florian Claaßen is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f464559%2fwhy-cant-we-make-a-perpetual-motion-machine-by-using-a-magnet-to-pull-up-a-piec%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









10












$begingroup$


Now, in my head, if you give the pendulum a little impulse, it will swing up in one direction and get attracted by the magnet just a tiny bit.




You've neglected to account for the magnetic attraction as the pendulum bob goes back to its central position.



On the outwards leg, you are correct that the magnet's attraction will pull on the bob and give it more energy than it would have in the absence of the magnet. However, in the return leg, the pendulum bob is trying to get away from the magnet's attractive force, and this will claim back all of the additional energy.



(... if the system is perfect, that is. Real-world magnetic materials will show some amount of hysteresis, so the bob will lose slightly more energy on the way back than it gained on the way out.)



This type of mistake is quite common when you have a core dynamics which is known to be conservative, and still seems to be producing energy - you're just conveniently neglecting to take into account the parts of the cycle where that force performs work against your system. For a similar example in action, see What prevents this magnetic perpetuum mobile from working?.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thanks, I didn't think of that. Your absolutely right, but let me propose a solution to the problem: What if I replace the magnets with electromagnets which get powered by the dynamo that gets charged by the pendulum swinging. Now, what if the electromagnet gets powered when the pendulum is swinging towards it, but not powered once the pendulum swings away?
    $endgroup$
    – Florian Claaßen
    3 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Then you will need to supply power to the electromagnet when you turn it on, and you will not be able to harvest equal amounts of power from the electromagnet when you turn it off. Let's get this straight: electromagnetism conserves energy. That's a theorem within the theory, and the only way you can get around it is by stepping away from electromagnetism. The fact that perpetual-motion machines don't work is not a "problem" in need of a "solution", and if that's what you're looking for, then this site is not the venue for it.
    $endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Right, right, thanks for the quick response. I was not looking for an actual perpetuum mobile but rather the mistake I made while thinking up the model. You have been of great help, thanks :)
    $endgroup$
    – Florian Claaßen
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    No worries. When asking about perpetual-motion machines, you should keep firmly in mind the type of population that asks the majority of those questions. If your text reads the same way as the comments by that population (which your first comment here definitely satisfies), then you should be prepared for others' view of those questions to come through such a lens. For an example of how to step away from that tone, see the question I linked to.
    $endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    3 hours ago
















10












$begingroup$


Now, in my head, if you give the pendulum a little impulse, it will swing up in one direction and get attracted by the magnet just a tiny bit.




You've neglected to account for the magnetic attraction as the pendulum bob goes back to its central position.



On the outwards leg, you are correct that the magnet's attraction will pull on the bob and give it more energy than it would have in the absence of the magnet. However, in the return leg, the pendulum bob is trying to get away from the magnet's attractive force, and this will claim back all of the additional energy.



(... if the system is perfect, that is. Real-world magnetic materials will show some amount of hysteresis, so the bob will lose slightly more energy on the way back than it gained on the way out.)



This type of mistake is quite common when you have a core dynamics which is known to be conservative, and still seems to be producing energy - you're just conveniently neglecting to take into account the parts of the cycle where that force performs work against your system. For a similar example in action, see What prevents this magnetic perpetuum mobile from working?.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thanks, I didn't think of that. Your absolutely right, but let me propose a solution to the problem: What if I replace the magnets with electromagnets which get powered by the dynamo that gets charged by the pendulum swinging. Now, what if the electromagnet gets powered when the pendulum is swinging towards it, but not powered once the pendulum swings away?
    $endgroup$
    – Florian Claaßen
    3 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Then you will need to supply power to the electromagnet when you turn it on, and you will not be able to harvest equal amounts of power from the electromagnet when you turn it off. Let's get this straight: electromagnetism conserves energy. That's a theorem within the theory, and the only way you can get around it is by stepping away from electromagnetism. The fact that perpetual-motion machines don't work is not a "problem" in need of a "solution", and if that's what you're looking for, then this site is not the venue for it.
    $endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Right, right, thanks for the quick response. I was not looking for an actual perpetuum mobile but rather the mistake I made while thinking up the model. You have been of great help, thanks :)
    $endgroup$
    – Florian Claaßen
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    No worries. When asking about perpetual-motion machines, you should keep firmly in mind the type of population that asks the majority of those questions. If your text reads the same way as the comments by that population (which your first comment here definitely satisfies), then you should be prepared for others' view of those questions to come through such a lens. For an example of how to step away from that tone, see the question I linked to.
    $endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    3 hours ago














10












10








10





$begingroup$


Now, in my head, if you give the pendulum a little impulse, it will swing up in one direction and get attracted by the magnet just a tiny bit.




You've neglected to account for the magnetic attraction as the pendulum bob goes back to its central position.



On the outwards leg, you are correct that the magnet's attraction will pull on the bob and give it more energy than it would have in the absence of the magnet. However, in the return leg, the pendulum bob is trying to get away from the magnet's attractive force, and this will claim back all of the additional energy.



(... if the system is perfect, that is. Real-world magnetic materials will show some amount of hysteresis, so the bob will lose slightly more energy on the way back than it gained on the way out.)



This type of mistake is quite common when you have a core dynamics which is known to be conservative, and still seems to be producing energy - you're just conveniently neglecting to take into account the parts of the cycle where that force performs work against your system. For a similar example in action, see What prevents this magnetic perpetuum mobile from working?.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$




Now, in my head, if you give the pendulum a little impulse, it will swing up in one direction and get attracted by the magnet just a tiny bit.




You've neglected to account for the magnetic attraction as the pendulum bob goes back to its central position.



On the outwards leg, you are correct that the magnet's attraction will pull on the bob and give it more energy than it would have in the absence of the magnet. However, in the return leg, the pendulum bob is trying to get away from the magnet's attractive force, and this will claim back all of the additional energy.



(... if the system is perfect, that is. Real-world magnetic materials will show some amount of hysteresis, so the bob will lose slightly more energy on the way back than it gained on the way out.)



This type of mistake is quite common when you have a core dynamics which is known to be conservative, and still seems to be producing energy - you're just conveniently neglecting to take into account the parts of the cycle where that force performs work against your system. For a similar example in action, see What prevents this magnetic perpetuum mobile from working?.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered 4 hours ago









Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty

84k22207423




84k22207423








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thanks, I didn't think of that. Your absolutely right, but let me propose a solution to the problem: What if I replace the magnets with electromagnets which get powered by the dynamo that gets charged by the pendulum swinging. Now, what if the electromagnet gets powered when the pendulum is swinging towards it, but not powered once the pendulum swings away?
    $endgroup$
    – Florian Claaßen
    3 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Then you will need to supply power to the electromagnet when you turn it on, and you will not be able to harvest equal amounts of power from the electromagnet when you turn it off. Let's get this straight: electromagnetism conserves energy. That's a theorem within the theory, and the only way you can get around it is by stepping away from electromagnetism. The fact that perpetual-motion machines don't work is not a "problem" in need of a "solution", and if that's what you're looking for, then this site is not the venue for it.
    $endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Right, right, thanks for the quick response. I was not looking for an actual perpetuum mobile but rather the mistake I made while thinking up the model. You have been of great help, thanks :)
    $endgroup$
    – Florian Claaßen
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    No worries. When asking about perpetual-motion machines, you should keep firmly in mind the type of population that asks the majority of those questions. If your text reads the same way as the comments by that population (which your first comment here definitely satisfies), then you should be prepared for others' view of those questions to come through such a lens. For an example of how to step away from that tone, see the question I linked to.
    $endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    3 hours ago














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thanks, I didn't think of that. Your absolutely right, but let me propose a solution to the problem: What if I replace the magnets with electromagnets which get powered by the dynamo that gets charged by the pendulum swinging. Now, what if the electromagnet gets powered when the pendulum is swinging towards it, but not powered once the pendulum swings away?
    $endgroup$
    – Florian Claaßen
    3 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Then you will need to supply power to the electromagnet when you turn it on, and you will not be able to harvest equal amounts of power from the electromagnet when you turn it off. Let's get this straight: electromagnetism conserves energy. That's a theorem within the theory, and the only way you can get around it is by stepping away from electromagnetism. The fact that perpetual-motion machines don't work is not a "problem" in need of a "solution", and if that's what you're looking for, then this site is not the venue for it.
    $endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Right, right, thanks for the quick response. I was not looking for an actual perpetuum mobile but rather the mistake I made while thinking up the model. You have been of great help, thanks :)
    $endgroup$
    – Florian Claaßen
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    No worries. When asking about perpetual-motion machines, you should keep firmly in mind the type of population that asks the majority of those questions. If your text reads the same way as the comments by that population (which your first comment here definitely satisfies), then you should be prepared for others' view of those questions to come through such a lens. For an example of how to step away from that tone, see the question I linked to.
    $endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    3 hours ago








1




1




$begingroup$
Thanks, I didn't think of that. Your absolutely right, but let me propose a solution to the problem: What if I replace the magnets with electromagnets which get powered by the dynamo that gets charged by the pendulum swinging. Now, what if the electromagnet gets powered when the pendulum is swinging towards it, but not powered once the pendulum swings away?
$endgroup$
– Florian Claaßen
3 hours ago






$begingroup$
Thanks, I didn't think of that. Your absolutely right, but let me propose a solution to the problem: What if I replace the magnets with electromagnets which get powered by the dynamo that gets charged by the pendulum swinging. Now, what if the electromagnet gets powered when the pendulum is swinging towards it, but not powered once the pendulum swings away?
$endgroup$
– Florian Claaßen
3 hours ago






2




2




$begingroup$
Then you will need to supply power to the electromagnet when you turn it on, and you will not be able to harvest equal amounts of power from the electromagnet when you turn it off. Let's get this straight: electromagnetism conserves energy. That's a theorem within the theory, and the only way you can get around it is by stepping away from electromagnetism. The fact that perpetual-motion machines don't work is not a "problem" in need of a "solution", and if that's what you're looking for, then this site is not the venue for it.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
Then you will need to supply power to the electromagnet when you turn it on, and you will not be able to harvest equal amounts of power from the electromagnet when you turn it off. Let's get this straight: electromagnetism conserves energy. That's a theorem within the theory, and the only way you can get around it is by stepping away from electromagnetism. The fact that perpetual-motion machines don't work is not a "problem" in need of a "solution", and if that's what you're looking for, then this site is not the venue for it.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
3 hours ago












$begingroup$
Right, right, thanks for the quick response. I was not looking for an actual perpetuum mobile but rather the mistake I made while thinking up the model. You have been of great help, thanks :)
$endgroup$
– Florian Claaßen
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
Right, right, thanks for the quick response. I was not looking for an actual perpetuum mobile but rather the mistake I made while thinking up the model. You have been of great help, thanks :)
$endgroup$
– Florian Claaßen
3 hours ago












$begingroup$
No worries. When asking about perpetual-motion machines, you should keep firmly in mind the type of population that asks the majority of those questions. If your text reads the same way as the comments by that population (which your first comment here definitely satisfies), then you should be prepared for others' view of those questions to come through such a lens. For an example of how to step away from that tone, see the question I linked to.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
No worries. When asking about perpetual-motion machines, you should keep firmly in mind the type of population that asks the majority of those questions. If your text reads the same way as the comments by that population (which your first comment here definitely satisfies), then you should be prepared for others' view of those questions to come through such a lens. For an example of how to step away from that tone, see the question I linked to.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
3 hours ago











3












$begingroup$

Perpetual motion is impossible due to dissipation, or if you prefer second principle of thermodynamics and not to energy conservation.



If your analysis of the suggested setup was correct, you could create mechanical energy for free !



In first analysis, neglecting the (unavoidable) losses in the ferromagnetic medium, your system is conservative : what you have is a modified pendulum, where the confinement potential contains not only the gravitational part but also a magnetic component. Actually the magnetic force slightly decrease the recall torque that you would have with gravity alone, and the amplitude of motion will indeed be larger. But you nevertheless will have a turning point where the kinetic energy vanishes, and when going back, you will reach exactly the same angle for the turning point on the other side.
This correspond to an oscillator with constant amplitude, because losses have been neglected.
The sources of losses are at least : friction in air, friction on axe, ferromagnetic hysteresis, Foucault currents. So the amplitude will decrease and the perpetual motion be reduced to perpetual immobility...






share|cite|improve this answer










New contributor




Jhor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    The key thing is that the forces are conservative, as you say. If the forces are conservative there is a well-defined potential energy at any angle $theta$ and that's basically all you need.
    $endgroup$
    – tfb
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @TV I agree of course but it is worth to discuss in more detail the misconceptions involved in the OP. And magnets remains so mysterious, if not magical, for many people...
    $endgroup$
    – Jhor
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Oh yes, sorry, I only really added the comment as I was half-way through an answer which said that (now abandoned as yours is better).
    $endgroup$
    – tfb
    4 hours ago
















3












$begingroup$

Perpetual motion is impossible due to dissipation, or if you prefer second principle of thermodynamics and not to energy conservation.



If your analysis of the suggested setup was correct, you could create mechanical energy for free !



In first analysis, neglecting the (unavoidable) losses in the ferromagnetic medium, your system is conservative : what you have is a modified pendulum, where the confinement potential contains not only the gravitational part but also a magnetic component. Actually the magnetic force slightly decrease the recall torque that you would have with gravity alone, and the amplitude of motion will indeed be larger. But you nevertheless will have a turning point where the kinetic energy vanishes, and when going back, you will reach exactly the same angle for the turning point on the other side.
This correspond to an oscillator with constant amplitude, because losses have been neglected.
The sources of losses are at least : friction in air, friction on axe, ferromagnetic hysteresis, Foucault currents. So the amplitude will decrease and the perpetual motion be reduced to perpetual immobility...






share|cite|improve this answer










New contributor




Jhor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    The key thing is that the forces are conservative, as you say. If the forces are conservative there is a well-defined potential energy at any angle $theta$ and that's basically all you need.
    $endgroup$
    – tfb
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @TV I agree of course but it is worth to discuss in more detail the misconceptions involved in the OP. And magnets remains so mysterious, if not magical, for many people...
    $endgroup$
    – Jhor
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Oh yes, sorry, I only really added the comment as I was half-way through an answer which said that (now abandoned as yours is better).
    $endgroup$
    – tfb
    4 hours ago














3












3








3





$begingroup$

Perpetual motion is impossible due to dissipation, or if you prefer second principle of thermodynamics and not to energy conservation.



If your analysis of the suggested setup was correct, you could create mechanical energy for free !



In first analysis, neglecting the (unavoidable) losses in the ferromagnetic medium, your system is conservative : what you have is a modified pendulum, where the confinement potential contains not only the gravitational part but also a magnetic component. Actually the magnetic force slightly decrease the recall torque that you would have with gravity alone, and the amplitude of motion will indeed be larger. But you nevertheless will have a turning point where the kinetic energy vanishes, and when going back, you will reach exactly the same angle for the turning point on the other side.
This correspond to an oscillator with constant amplitude, because losses have been neglected.
The sources of losses are at least : friction in air, friction on axe, ferromagnetic hysteresis, Foucault currents. So the amplitude will decrease and the perpetual motion be reduced to perpetual immobility...






share|cite|improve this answer










New contributor




Jhor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$



Perpetual motion is impossible due to dissipation, or if you prefer second principle of thermodynamics and not to energy conservation.



If your analysis of the suggested setup was correct, you could create mechanical energy for free !



In first analysis, neglecting the (unavoidable) losses in the ferromagnetic medium, your system is conservative : what you have is a modified pendulum, where the confinement potential contains not only the gravitational part but also a magnetic component. Actually the magnetic force slightly decrease the recall torque that you would have with gravity alone, and the amplitude of motion will indeed be larger. But you nevertheless will have a turning point where the kinetic energy vanishes, and when going back, you will reach exactly the same angle for the turning point on the other side.
This correspond to an oscillator with constant amplitude, because losses have been neglected.
The sources of losses are at least : friction in air, friction on axe, ferromagnetic hysteresis, Foucault currents. So the amplitude will decrease and the perpetual motion be reduced to perpetual immobility...







share|cite|improve this answer










New contributor




Jhor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 5 hours ago





















New contributor




Jhor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered 5 hours ago









JhorJhor

2045




2045




New contributor




Jhor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Jhor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Jhor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • $begingroup$
    The key thing is that the forces are conservative, as you say. If the forces are conservative there is a well-defined potential energy at any angle $theta$ and that's basically all you need.
    $endgroup$
    – tfb
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @TV I agree of course but it is worth to discuss in more detail the misconceptions involved in the OP. And magnets remains so mysterious, if not magical, for many people...
    $endgroup$
    – Jhor
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Oh yes, sorry, I only really added the comment as I was half-way through an answer which said that (now abandoned as yours is better).
    $endgroup$
    – tfb
    4 hours ago


















  • $begingroup$
    The key thing is that the forces are conservative, as you say. If the forces are conservative there is a well-defined potential energy at any angle $theta$ and that's basically all you need.
    $endgroup$
    – tfb
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @TV I agree of course but it is worth to discuss in more detail the misconceptions involved in the OP. And magnets remains so mysterious, if not magical, for many people...
    $endgroup$
    – Jhor
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Oh yes, sorry, I only really added the comment as I was half-way through an answer which said that (now abandoned as yours is better).
    $endgroup$
    – tfb
    4 hours ago
















$begingroup$
The key thing is that the forces are conservative, as you say. If the forces are conservative there is a well-defined potential energy at any angle $theta$ and that's basically all you need.
$endgroup$
– tfb
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
The key thing is that the forces are conservative, as you say. If the forces are conservative there is a well-defined potential energy at any angle $theta$ and that's basically all you need.
$endgroup$
– tfb
5 hours ago












$begingroup$
@TV I agree of course but it is worth to discuss in more detail the misconceptions involved in the OP. And magnets remains so mysterious, if not magical, for many people...
$endgroup$
– Jhor
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
@TV I agree of course but it is worth to discuss in more detail the misconceptions involved in the OP. And magnets remains so mysterious, if not magical, for many people...
$endgroup$
– Jhor
5 hours ago












$begingroup$
Oh yes, sorry, I only really added the comment as I was half-way through an answer which said that (now abandoned as yours is better).
$endgroup$
– tfb
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
Oh yes, sorry, I only really added the comment as I was half-way through an answer which said that (now abandoned as yours is better).
$endgroup$
– tfb
4 hours ago











0












$begingroup$

If you would use static magnets for that, than while swinging back, the metal is closer to the magnet attracting it in opposite direction relative to its movement and thus takes more momentum away as it gains from the other magnet. Thus the next amplitude is lower. The result is, that your amplitude overall would even be damped relative to the free pendulum.



The accelerating force by the magnet on the far side if proportional to 1/(d+sin$phi$l)² and the deccelerating force by the magnet on the close side is proportional to



1/(d-sin$phi$l)².



Where d is the distance between pendulum mass and either magnet in rest state, $phi$ is the deflection angle and l is the pendulum length. Since the Magnets are identical, they carry the same prefactor. Thus resulting force adding to the positively accelerating gravitational force is proportional to



(1/(d+sin$phi$l)² - 1/(d-sin$phi$l)²) = ((d-sin$phi$l)² - (d+sin$phi$l)²)/((d-sin$phi$l)²(d+sin$phi$l)²)



As the denominator is now again the same for both contributing forces we can neglect it for the ongoing computation and result in the total magnetic force proportional to:



(d-sin$phi$l)² - (d+sin$phi$l)² = d²-2dsin$phi$l+sin²$phi$l²-d²-2dsin$phi$l-sin²$phi$l² = -4dsin$phi$l



thus the oscillation given by the gravitational force is damped by the magnetic forces.



Edit: My original train of thoughts was wrong on this one. At least the calculations show that the oscillator is driven by a smaller force compared to the free oscillator (just gravity). Thus without any energy loss the 'magnetic oscillator' would just oscillate slower without any change in amplitude.






share|cite|improve this answer










New contributor




Patrik Puchert is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I firmly disagree with your answer. The amplitude must neitger decrease nor increase when friction and other losses are neglected. See my answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Jhor
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I don't think so. I don't know the exact term for the lets call it magneto attractive force, but it should scale as 1/r². with that in mind and for simplicity using small angle approximation we result in the magnetic force ~(1/(d+sin $phi$ l)²-1/(d-sin $phi$ l)²) again ~ (d-sin $phi$ l)²-(d+sin $phi$ l)² resulting in a net magnetic force proportional to -4dsin $phi$ l. Where d is the distance to either magnet for the undeflected pendulum, $phi$ is the defelction angle and l is the length of the pendulum. Thus the net force accelerating the pendulum is reduced by the magnets.
    $endgroup$
    – Patrik Puchert
    3 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    No problem with that. Except that this expression goes not has the dimension of a force.Any wayyou ould have to add to the gravitational potential - mglcosphi a magnetic term in dlcosphi and you have a conservative potential giving rise to a periodic oscillation of constant amplitude. To understand your mistake in evaluating the work of this magnetic force, have a look to @EmilioPisanty's answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Jhor
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I only said that the force contributed by the magnets if proportional to what I wrote. Of course gravity is there, but gravity is also there without magnets, so its not interesting when determining the difference. Of course there is some prefactor, which is the same for both magnets (given that they are identical) and thus again not of interest when determining the (scaling of) difference.
    $endgroup$
    – Patrik Puchert
    2 hours ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I suggest using Mathjax to format your equations, it is very hard to read the math here. Also, I don't really understand how adding another conservative force would change the amplitude for an ideal pendulum. The amplitude for such a pendulum depends completely on the starting conditions. If you started the magnetic pendulum at the same angle as a only-gravity one, they should both still end up in the same place on each period when you assume no energy losses. I don't see how you would expect a change in amplitude given that both are conservative systems.
    $endgroup$
    – JMac
    1 hour ago
















0












$begingroup$

If you would use static magnets for that, than while swinging back, the metal is closer to the magnet attracting it in opposite direction relative to its movement and thus takes more momentum away as it gains from the other magnet. Thus the next amplitude is lower. The result is, that your amplitude overall would even be damped relative to the free pendulum.



The accelerating force by the magnet on the far side if proportional to 1/(d+sin$phi$l)² and the deccelerating force by the magnet on the close side is proportional to



1/(d-sin$phi$l)².



Where d is the distance between pendulum mass and either magnet in rest state, $phi$ is the deflection angle and l is the pendulum length. Since the Magnets are identical, they carry the same prefactor. Thus resulting force adding to the positively accelerating gravitational force is proportional to



(1/(d+sin$phi$l)² - 1/(d-sin$phi$l)²) = ((d-sin$phi$l)² - (d+sin$phi$l)²)/((d-sin$phi$l)²(d+sin$phi$l)²)



As the denominator is now again the same for both contributing forces we can neglect it for the ongoing computation and result in the total magnetic force proportional to:



(d-sin$phi$l)² - (d+sin$phi$l)² = d²-2dsin$phi$l+sin²$phi$l²-d²-2dsin$phi$l-sin²$phi$l² = -4dsin$phi$l



thus the oscillation given by the gravitational force is damped by the magnetic forces.



Edit: My original train of thoughts was wrong on this one. At least the calculations show that the oscillator is driven by a smaller force compared to the free oscillator (just gravity). Thus without any energy loss the 'magnetic oscillator' would just oscillate slower without any change in amplitude.






share|cite|improve this answer










New contributor




Patrik Puchert is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I firmly disagree with your answer. The amplitude must neitger decrease nor increase when friction and other losses are neglected. See my answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Jhor
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I don't think so. I don't know the exact term for the lets call it magneto attractive force, but it should scale as 1/r². with that in mind and for simplicity using small angle approximation we result in the magnetic force ~(1/(d+sin $phi$ l)²-1/(d-sin $phi$ l)²) again ~ (d-sin $phi$ l)²-(d+sin $phi$ l)² resulting in a net magnetic force proportional to -4dsin $phi$ l. Where d is the distance to either magnet for the undeflected pendulum, $phi$ is the defelction angle and l is the length of the pendulum. Thus the net force accelerating the pendulum is reduced by the magnets.
    $endgroup$
    – Patrik Puchert
    3 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    No problem with that. Except that this expression goes not has the dimension of a force.Any wayyou ould have to add to the gravitational potential - mglcosphi a magnetic term in dlcosphi and you have a conservative potential giving rise to a periodic oscillation of constant amplitude. To understand your mistake in evaluating the work of this magnetic force, have a look to @EmilioPisanty's answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Jhor
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I only said that the force contributed by the magnets if proportional to what I wrote. Of course gravity is there, but gravity is also there without magnets, so its not interesting when determining the difference. Of course there is some prefactor, which is the same for both magnets (given that they are identical) and thus again not of interest when determining the (scaling of) difference.
    $endgroup$
    – Patrik Puchert
    2 hours ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I suggest using Mathjax to format your equations, it is very hard to read the math here. Also, I don't really understand how adding another conservative force would change the amplitude for an ideal pendulum. The amplitude for such a pendulum depends completely on the starting conditions. If you started the magnetic pendulum at the same angle as a only-gravity one, they should both still end up in the same place on each period when you assume no energy losses. I don't see how you would expect a change in amplitude given that both are conservative systems.
    $endgroup$
    – JMac
    1 hour ago














0












0








0





$begingroup$

If you would use static magnets for that, than while swinging back, the metal is closer to the magnet attracting it in opposite direction relative to its movement and thus takes more momentum away as it gains from the other magnet. Thus the next amplitude is lower. The result is, that your amplitude overall would even be damped relative to the free pendulum.



The accelerating force by the magnet on the far side if proportional to 1/(d+sin$phi$l)² and the deccelerating force by the magnet on the close side is proportional to



1/(d-sin$phi$l)².



Where d is the distance between pendulum mass and either magnet in rest state, $phi$ is the deflection angle and l is the pendulum length. Since the Magnets are identical, they carry the same prefactor. Thus resulting force adding to the positively accelerating gravitational force is proportional to



(1/(d+sin$phi$l)² - 1/(d-sin$phi$l)²) = ((d-sin$phi$l)² - (d+sin$phi$l)²)/((d-sin$phi$l)²(d+sin$phi$l)²)



As the denominator is now again the same for both contributing forces we can neglect it for the ongoing computation and result in the total magnetic force proportional to:



(d-sin$phi$l)² - (d+sin$phi$l)² = d²-2dsin$phi$l+sin²$phi$l²-d²-2dsin$phi$l-sin²$phi$l² = -4dsin$phi$l



thus the oscillation given by the gravitational force is damped by the magnetic forces.



Edit: My original train of thoughts was wrong on this one. At least the calculations show that the oscillator is driven by a smaller force compared to the free oscillator (just gravity). Thus without any energy loss the 'magnetic oscillator' would just oscillate slower without any change in amplitude.






share|cite|improve this answer










New contributor




Patrik Puchert is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$



If you would use static magnets for that, than while swinging back, the metal is closer to the magnet attracting it in opposite direction relative to its movement and thus takes more momentum away as it gains from the other magnet. Thus the next amplitude is lower. The result is, that your amplitude overall would even be damped relative to the free pendulum.



The accelerating force by the magnet on the far side if proportional to 1/(d+sin$phi$l)² and the deccelerating force by the magnet on the close side is proportional to



1/(d-sin$phi$l)².



Where d is the distance between pendulum mass and either magnet in rest state, $phi$ is the deflection angle and l is the pendulum length. Since the Magnets are identical, they carry the same prefactor. Thus resulting force adding to the positively accelerating gravitational force is proportional to



(1/(d+sin$phi$l)² - 1/(d-sin$phi$l)²) = ((d-sin$phi$l)² - (d+sin$phi$l)²)/((d-sin$phi$l)²(d+sin$phi$l)²)



As the denominator is now again the same for both contributing forces we can neglect it for the ongoing computation and result in the total magnetic force proportional to:



(d-sin$phi$l)² - (d+sin$phi$l)² = d²-2dsin$phi$l+sin²$phi$l²-d²-2dsin$phi$l-sin²$phi$l² = -4dsin$phi$l



thus the oscillation given by the gravitational force is damped by the magnetic forces.



Edit: My original train of thoughts was wrong on this one. At least the calculations show that the oscillator is driven by a smaller force compared to the free oscillator (just gravity). Thus without any energy loss the 'magnetic oscillator' would just oscillate slower without any change in amplitude.







share|cite|improve this answer










New contributor




Patrik Puchert is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 1 hour ago





















New contributor




Patrik Puchert is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered 6 hours ago









Patrik PuchertPatrik Puchert

663




663




New contributor




Patrik Puchert is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Patrik Puchert is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Patrik Puchert is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • $begingroup$
    I firmly disagree with your answer. The amplitude must neitger decrease nor increase when friction and other losses are neglected. See my answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Jhor
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I don't think so. I don't know the exact term for the lets call it magneto attractive force, but it should scale as 1/r². with that in mind and for simplicity using small angle approximation we result in the magnetic force ~(1/(d+sin $phi$ l)²-1/(d-sin $phi$ l)²) again ~ (d-sin $phi$ l)²-(d+sin $phi$ l)² resulting in a net magnetic force proportional to -4dsin $phi$ l. Where d is the distance to either magnet for the undeflected pendulum, $phi$ is the defelction angle and l is the length of the pendulum. Thus the net force accelerating the pendulum is reduced by the magnets.
    $endgroup$
    – Patrik Puchert
    3 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    No problem with that. Except that this expression goes not has the dimension of a force.Any wayyou ould have to add to the gravitational potential - mglcosphi a magnetic term in dlcosphi and you have a conservative potential giving rise to a periodic oscillation of constant amplitude. To understand your mistake in evaluating the work of this magnetic force, have a look to @EmilioPisanty's answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Jhor
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I only said that the force contributed by the magnets if proportional to what I wrote. Of course gravity is there, but gravity is also there without magnets, so its not interesting when determining the difference. Of course there is some prefactor, which is the same for both magnets (given that they are identical) and thus again not of interest when determining the (scaling of) difference.
    $endgroup$
    – Patrik Puchert
    2 hours ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I suggest using Mathjax to format your equations, it is very hard to read the math here. Also, I don't really understand how adding another conservative force would change the amplitude for an ideal pendulum. The amplitude for such a pendulum depends completely on the starting conditions. If you started the magnetic pendulum at the same angle as a only-gravity one, they should both still end up in the same place on each period when you assume no energy losses. I don't see how you would expect a change in amplitude given that both are conservative systems.
    $endgroup$
    – JMac
    1 hour ago


















  • $begingroup$
    I firmly disagree with your answer. The amplitude must neitger decrease nor increase when friction and other losses are neglected. See my answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Jhor
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I don't think so. I don't know the exact term for the lets call it magneto attractive force, but it should scale as 1/r². with that in mind and for simplicity using small angle approximation we result in the magnetic force ~(1/(d+sin $phi$ l)²-1/(d-sin $phi$ l)²) again ~ (d-sin $phi$ l)²-(d+sin $phi$ l)² resulting in a net magnetic force proportional to -4dsin $phi$ l. Where d is the distance to either magnet for the undeflected pendulum, $phi$ is the defelction angle and l is the length of the pendulum. Thus the net force accelerating the pendulum is reduced by the magnets.
    $endgroup$
    – Patrik Puchert
    3 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    No problem with that. Except that this expression goes not has the dimension of a force.Any wayyou ould have to add to the gravitational potential - mglcosphi a magnetic term in dlcosphi and you have a conservative potential giving rise to a periodic oscillation of constant amplitude. To understand your mistake in evaluating the work of this magnetic force, have a look to @EmilioPisanty's answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Jhor
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I only said that the force contributed by the magnets if proportional to what I wrote. Of course gravity is there, but gravity is also there without magnets, so its not interesting when determining the difference. Of course there is some prefactor, which is the same for both magnets (given that they are identical) and thus again not of interest when determining the (scaling of) difference.
    $endgroup$
    – Patrik Puchert
    2 hours ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I suggest using Mathjax to format your equations, it is very hard to read the math here. Also, I don't really understand how adding another conservative force would change the amplitude for an ideal pendulum. The amplitude for such a pendulum depends completely on the starting conditions. If you started the magnetic pendulum at the same angle as a only-gravity one, they should both still end up in the same place on each period when you assume no energy losses. I don't see how you would expect a change in amplitude given that both are conservative systems.
    $endgroup$
    – JMac
    1 hour ago
















$begingroup$
I firmly disagree with your answer. The amplitude must neitger decrease nor increase when friction and other losses are neglected. See my answer.
$endgroup$
– Jhor
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
I firmly disagree with your answer. The amplitude must neitger decrease nor increase when friction and other losses are neglected. See my answer.
$endgroup$
– Jhor
5 hours ago












$begingroup$
I don't think so. I don't know the exact term for the lets call it magneto attractive force, but it should scale as 1/r². with that in mind and for simplicity using small angle approximation we result in the magnetic force ~(1/(d+sin $phi$ l)²-1/(d-sin $phi$ l)²) again ~ (d-sin $phi$ l)²-(d+sin $phi$ l)² resulting in a net magnetic force proportional to -4dsin $phi$ l. Where d is the distance to either magnet for the undeflected pendulum, $phi$ is the defelction angle and l is the length of the pendulum. Thus the net force accelerating the pendulum is reduced by the magnets.
$endgroup$
– Patrik Puchert
3 hours ago






$begingroup$
I don't think so. I don't know the exact term for the lets call it magneto attractive force, but it should scale as 1/r². with that in mind and for simplicity using small angle approximation we result in the magnetic force ~(1/(d+sin $phi$ l)²-1/(d-sin $phi$ l)²) again ~ (d-sin $phi$ l)²-(d+sin $phi$ l)² resulting in a net magnetic force proportional to -4dsin $phi$ l. Where d is the distance to either magnet for the undeflected pendulum, $phi$ is the defelction angle and l is the length of the pendulum. Thus the net force accelerating the pendulum is reduced by the magnets.
$endgroup$
– Patrik Puchert
3 hours ago














$begingroup$
No problem with that. Except that this expression goes not has the dimension of a force.Any wayyou ould have to add to the gravitational potential - mglcosphi a magnetic term in dlcosphi and you have a conservative potential giving rise to a periodic oscillation of constant amplitude. To understand your mistake in evaluating the work of this magnetic force, have a look to @EmilioPisanty's answer.
$endgroup$
– Jhor
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
No problem with that. Except that this expression goes not has the dimension of a force.Any wayyou ould have to add to the gravitational potential - mglcosphi a magnetic term in dlcosphi and you have a conservative potential giving rise to a periodic oscillation of constant amplitude. To understand your mistake in evaluating the work of this magnetic force, have a look to @EmilioPisanty's answer.
$endgroup$
– Jhor
2 hours ago












$begingroup$
I only said that the force contributed by the magnets if proportional to what I wrote. Of course gravity is there, but gravity is also there without magnets, so its not interesting when determining the difference. Of course there is some prefactor, which is the same for both magnets (given that they are identical) and thus again not of interest when determining the (scaling of) difference.
$endgroup$
– Patrik Puchert
2 hours ago






$begingroup$
I only said that the force contributed by the magnets if proportional to what I wrote. Of course gravity is there, but gravity is also there without magnets, so its not interesting when determining the difference. Of course there is some prefactor, which is the same for both magnets (given that they are identical) and thus again not of interest when determining the (scaling of) difference.
$endgroup$
– Patrik Puchert
2 hours ago






1




1




$begingroup$
I suggest using Mathjax to format your equations, it is very hard to read the math here. Also, I don't really understand how adding another conservative force would change the amplitude for an ideal pendulum. The amplitude for such a pendulum depends completely on the starting conditions. If you started the magnetic pendulum at the same angle as a only-gravity one, they should both still end up in the same place on each period when you assume no energy losses. I don't see how you would expect a change in amplitude given that both are conservative systems.
$endgroup$
– JMac
1 hour ago




$begingroup$
I suggest using Mathjax to format your equations, it is very hard to read the math here. Also, I don't really understand how adding another conservative force would change the amplitude for an ideal pendulum. The amplitude for such a pendulum depends completely on the starting conditions. If you started the magnetic pendulum at the same angle as a only-gravity one, they should both still end up in the same place on each period when you assume no energy losses. I don't see how you would expect a change in amplitude given that both are conservative systems.
$endgroup$
– JMac
1 hour ago










Florian Claaßen is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















Florian Claaßen is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













Florian Claaßen is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












Florian Claaßen is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f464559%2fwhy-cant-we-make-a-perpetual-motion-machine-by-using-a-magnet-to-pull-up-a-piec%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

117736 Шеррод Примітки | Див. також | Посилання | Навігаційне...

As a Security Precaution, the user account has been locked The Next CEO of Stack OverflowMS...

Маріан Котлеба Зміст Життєпис | Політичні погляди |...