Bitcoin Forum

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJv58SXx2V8&playnext=1&list=PL78263ACF873C1DBA&feature=results_video

To anyone that can build this, assemble it, use magnets I am offering 5 BTC + 1 BTC for shipping.

If your up for making quick bucks here it is  :)
Don't be afraid to offer your rates, for building it,
I will consider all offers.

It has to run almost exactly like it does in the video, and flawlessly, and almost identical in design.
Its at about 2:01 into the video. Watch the entire video to understand the process of it.


Best regards
Lightlord

Amazing! Ill throw in another 10 btc if you can make it charge a 12V battery

thats impossible

I'll just leave this here...
http://www.overunity.com/10034/new-permanent-magnet-motor-on-youtube-from-roobert33/dlattach/attach/56643/image//

So 5BTC is including compressor, which gives energy to machine, or you will buy it by yourself? ;-)

The speed dosent decrease nor change when it turns the thing.

I don't know, it might be my ignorance, but it seems like to be legit for me.

Why shouldn't that work?

It can't work because of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy. Generating energie out of nowhere is impossible. It (hypothetically)  might be possible to create something thats keeps spinning at a constant speed, in a vacuum and with no friction.

That's it period.

Fake.

The first application shown in the video, the magnetic accelerator, is a know application of magnetism and dosent violate any law.

The energy required to create the magnet is still bigger than the one the magnet will provide during its life.

Anyway, it would still be surprisly interesting to create such a device and still, I don't see why it should not be possible.

It's not free energy stuff we are taking about here.

I'm talking about the last one. That's a Perpetuum mobile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion) (or at last it tries to look as one) and violates that law.

Anyone believing that could really work has either slept at physics or can safely called stupid.

To further clarify, I'm talking about this:

Really?
Excuse my bad paint skills.
http://i45.tinypic.com/2113nra.gif

Why do people always assume that things are impossible? Nothing is.

lol

Ok, if you just being sarcastic, sorry for not understanding.

Do I really have to explain why this wouldn't work?

Simple: In order to enter the Water tank, you balloons would have to displace the water at first, thereby raising the Waterlevel. This would require the same energy the water uses later to displace the balloon upward.

At next a drawing where you lift yourself up by pulling on your legs please.

Also sorry for using the term impossible.

"With our current understanding of physics it is epistemically impossible" - better?

To the initially device in the video, its basically this:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-IY5h2aF--Mg/UD_yqYXxMrI/AAAAAAAAANY/w2vRydQGrBU/s1600/gascrisis1.jpg

For any such fixed-sized machine based solely on motion, gravity, magnetics, and electricity, and consuming no input fuel, you can assign a number to every state of the machine based on how much energy it would take to assemble the machine, charge its capacitors, place its magnets, accelerate any moving parts, and so on, starting with all the components at rest, neutrally charged, and infinitely far apart. (Or, alternatively, you can call the machine's initial state zero if you like and use the minimum energy needed to transition from the initial state to that state.) All known laws of physics only allow the machine to transition to states with an equal number, and any energy removed from the machine (including radiated and conducted heat) reduces that number. This is pretty much sufficient to show that any perpetual motion machine is provably impossible if it uses only the known properties of physics.

Wasn't being sarcastic, displace what water? The water is already displaced, the balls would all be of equal size, and the same mass would be in the water at any given time. As half of 1 ball leaves the water, half of 1 is already entering.

Please explain how it would be affected, I'm willing to learn (And that's not sarcastic I'm really willing to learn.)

Really? What about this one:
http://nothingoutofnothing.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/bigbang.jpg

The water suffers an equal force from the balloons as it places upon them (Newton's third law). This force, because the water has nowhere to go, is transferred to the entering balloon, and prevents it from coming in. The other balloons, which are trying to tug it, are halted as well because the two forces are equal. The two forces balance out and nothing moves.

Since one ball is leaving at the top and one ball is entering at the bottom, you need to convert a space at the top of the water (left by the leaving ball) to a space at the bottom of the water (needed by the entering ball). How can you do that without lifting the water up?

The energy you get from the air rising comes from the water lowering as the air rises. Since water is denser than water, it takes more energy to lift the water up to make space for the entering ball than you get from the rising of that ball.

Imagine a tube with a fixed amount of water in it. Now imagine that same tube with the same amount of water but an air bubble in the bottom. The water level must be higher in the second tube. Thus it takes energy to place an air bubble in the bottom of a tube of water without removing water from it, since the existing water must be raised. This applies regardless of what's going on at the top of the tube.

5 BTC? I swear, people are fucking cheap...even if it's just trolling.

Just as much water is lifted up as water that falls down to replace it, meaning no net change. And regardless, the buoyant force is more than strong enough to lift the water as well; this is why a single balloon can pass from bottom of tank to top of tank. The more precise explanation is the water is actually pushing down on the balloon just as much as it is pushing up on the balloons, as I posted here:


In a way, this means that the balloons being lifted by water means the water is being suppressed by the balloons, so it takes all the force gained to keep the water up.

Is this taking into count that a thing like this would potentially be a few hundred pounds of rubber balls on the outside pulling down, as the balls in the water is lifting up?

It's a better deal than Tesla got.

There are conflicting theories, but so far as I know, none of them seriously suggests a violation of this principle. Some of the more "out there" theories claim the big bang drew energy from existing source that is limitless for practical purposes and then claim that they can build machines that can tap into this source. Machines that claim to tap into the energy stored in permanent magnets and try to find a technical escape clause by arguing their machines will last for decades or centuries, rather than forever, try this. Others claim their machines tap into a nuclear source.

My sole point here is that you can't do this with the known laws of motion, gravity, magnetics, and electricity.

Yeah, the picture was rather irrelevant. Sorry for the confusion.

It makes no difference what else is going on. All that matters is that the energy that comes out is from the water pushing up on the air and the energy that needs to go in for the ball to enter the water is an amount sufficient to raise any equal volume of water an equal distance. Since water is much denser than air, the energy that comes out of the machine must always be much less than the energy that goes into it unless the machine is slowing down, in which case it will soon stop.

Don't sell yourself short, I thought it was a brilliant retort. ;)

Cool, thanks for crushing my dreams, and saving me tons of money, to produce this, because I was actually going to try.

That is quite false conclusion, and coming from you I don't know what to think because I started to respect the things you say on the forum lately. The answer is that perpetual moving machines are simple oscillators that get their impulse energy at resonance. The part you didn't get right is a known property of physics called inertia which is responsible for making them work. They are very real and simple to build, but tricky and require the builder attention at all details.

Yeah. Seems like perpetual motion would be worth more than 5 BTC...

You could make a dry pile, that's the closest you can get to "free" energy by using the humidity in the air to power a battery. A big enough one could power 12V devices or even your home if you could make it big enough and keep the efficiency up. They have working dry piles keep voltage for over 100 years.

The argument I made explains precisely why these machines can't work. Whatever state they're in, whether resonant or not, can be assigned a number based on the minimum energy required to assemble the machine into that state. And no known law of motion, energy, inertia, or resonance allows a transition to a higher-numbered state or to a state with an equal number while withdrawing energy. It really is that simple.

More nonsense or do you want to prove that?

As stated before in an environment that causes no frictions (Vacuum, no gravity, perfect mechanics - which don't exist) it should theoretically be possible to construct such a machine that once set in motion keeps spinning at a constant rate for eternity. But as soon as you start to remove energy from the system (generator) it would start to slow down and eventually stop.

The problem is that friction isn't the only cause of energy loss. Radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation) occurs in anything with heat, and anything without heat is by definition devoid of energy.

By "perpetual motion machine", we mean an object of fixed size that can output more energy across its boundary that comes in across that boundary, and can continue to do so indefinitely. If you draw a box around the present location of everything that was present at the big bang, nothing would be leaving that box, and the box would eventually grow beyond all bounds. If the big bang is a perpetual motion, then everything is, even a single photon.

Correct. While we know of no practical way to build such a device, it doesn't really violate any known laws.

We permit the machine to operate at a fixed temperature, exchanging equal amounts of radiation (or any other kind of energy for that matter) with the environment provided it doesn't require or exploit any special organization of that energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer
That's cheating.

You build you argument quite well but fail based on preconceived assumptions. I don't get very well your number and state terms but I can tell you the energy required to keep a resonant machine going is a few orders of magnitude smaller than the one present in the system and available for conversion at any time. Note the energy produced is not available for work right away, but to be transformed or converted to another state. I would love to involve in a debate on this issue but from my experience is only a loss of time and resources for something that will finally come out like a second nature for any individual, and then be accepted by the mainstream "science" people.

Let me try to explain it one more time. Imagine the machine is in some particular state. Its components are in particular places, some are moving, and so on. Now imagine the machine with all its parts not moving and in a pile at the bottom. For each state of the machine, there's some minimum amount of energy it would take to assemble the machine from the pile of parts to that state -- you have to move the parts, accelerate moving parts, and so on. So you can assign every possible physical condition of the machine a number. No known laws of physics allow the machine to move from a state with a lower number to a state with a higher number unless energy is fed in from the outside. And outputting energy from the machine always lowers the state number.

Absolutely. The same is true of a book on a shelf. Almost no energy is required to keep the book on the shelf. But if you knock it off the shelf, you can extract that energy at any time. However, this lowers the book, changing the machine to a state with a lower energy.

Nobody said machines can't store a fixed amount of energy that you can then withdraw.

I'm not saying it's perpetual motion. I'm also not saying it's 100% efficient. I'm saying that if you say it's 100% efficient, that's a bold statement and I would love to know how you came to that conclusion. My point being, words are cheap. Saying it doesn't make it a fact.

Interesting way of seeing it, think I will stick around and listen without trolling too much.

I think there's a train that works this way. In Switzerland.

There are active Maglev train test tracks all over the world and maglev trains servicing customers in Japan, China and South Korea already.

This has nothing to do with perpetual energy however.

This thread was a very interesting read.
I was hunting around the marketplace... looking at whats available... and I stumbled upon a philosophical hodge-podge of ideas.

Lots of interesting claims that lead to very intriguing thoughts.
"the big bang is 100% efficient" Very interesting indeed. The concept of this idea could mean i suppose that the universe would then expand on out forever... (whatever forever is)
and I suppose this would make relativistic sense ... being that m=e/c^2.....

"the universe is infinite" thats another interesting claim.... I suppose if you give it some thought these 2 ideas could go together.

But what i find most interesting.... is that neither of these points could adequitly be proven... asking for proof even is almost tantamount nonsense... as to say that the big bang is not 100% efficient.... and that the universe is finite... are equally unprovable...

as a final note...
really?!??! only 5btc for perpetual motion ??? + 1 btc shipping?

I just had a tought about the machine on the video.
What if the energy required to move up the magnet was the same that is freed when the things rotate?

(I explained myself badly but maybe you got it)

$13.45X6=$80.7
magnets should cost about $30.
That's about $50.7 In total.

Its a little machine, its not something fancy.
Though I seen the pictures, it seems it only works on air compressor.
And it was just a trick shot.

until they discovered dark matter, and some believe that the universe is actually expanding faster, and faster...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe

Take a look:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlVDTA3-qUs

Amazing =)
I thought about a magnetic engine in the past but never tried to make an machine like this.

I can build you this for 5btc, motor not included

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoCBORXzOqU

I MADE 22 OF THESE AND HOOKED THEM TOGETHER AND NOW IM STARTING MY OWN POWER COMPANY."I'M RICH BITCH" THANKS MAN.I CAN FINALY SEND MY KID TO A COLLEGE O HE CAN LEARN TO SPELL GOOD LIKE ME CAN DO..

Thanks for introducing me to this concept OP, I will make more soon.

About the Universe part of this thread:

The universe is expanding at an increasing rate, which you can measure, hence the speculation on dark energy. To compare the universe with a thermal closed system is nonsense as faster than light expansion makes any kind of energy equilibrium impossible even if you include relativity and time.

Roger Penrose have tried this and proved that for such a system to be completely enclosed not a single particle from the old universe, can survive if the entropy has to be reset to a new low state which would be needed if the universe is a perpetual machine. You might get local resets in totally empty parts of an old universe (several thousand times older than ours), but the energy to start out with will be less than the previous and so not perpetual.

so you want us to build a working perpetual motion machine for $65?

Nah.  Just a motor with a small battery in it.