[Oisín]

Well, what was proven to be impossible in 1882 isn’t even a square circle; it’s just creating a square that has the same area as any given circle—totally different thing, apart from the relatively similar name.

[loki74]

wait how does that work?

If a circles area is pi*r^2, how is it impossible to make a square that happens to have its length be the square root of that number? Wouldnt there have to be some restiction as far as the circles radius's relation to the square's length?

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Oisín

One people?

Huh? "One" is not referring to the "people" in the previous sentence.

[Spliffdaddy]

I won't be taking my magnetic perpetual motion machine to the grave.

Here ya go...




As pendulum swings right, magnet ring rotates to provide an attraction force for pendulum - and opposite side of ring provides repulsion to push pendulum away. Magnet ring rotation is constant, using gears to provide timing that coincides with pendulum swing.

It's like an electric motor - constantly swapping magetic forces to provide movement.

If magnets are *forever*, this could be a perpetual motion machine.

I have never found any evidence that magnets are forever.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Huh? "One" is not referring to the "people" in the previous sentence.

I know—I was just -ing you a bit, ’cause it didn’t seem to be referring to anything

[memento]

spliff - neat idea, but your gears have friction losses.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

The reason the definition of "circle" precludes being square is because we believe it is impossible to be concurrently circular and rectangular. Perhaps there is more to learn about possible shapes. I mean, I claim to have one in my garage, which apparently makes me an expert on the subject. I have recruited some anonymous geometrists to study my square circle, too, and they all say it is authentic.

They beat you to it. It's already being mass produced.



The big evil company Apple is keeping them down however, by sheer brute force.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by memento

spliff - neat idea, but your gears have friction losses.

The magnets compensate for the friction losses. That's why they're there.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Oisín

I know—I was just -ing you a bit, ’cause it didn’t seem to be referring to anything

It does.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I won't be taking my magnetic perpetual motion machine to the grave.

Here ya go...


As pendulum swings right, magnet ring rotates to provide an attraction force for pendulum - and opposite side of ring provides repulsion to push pendulum away. Magnet ring rotation is constant, using gears to provide timing that coincides with pendulum swing.

It's like an electric motor - constantly swapping magetic forces to provide movement.

If magnets are *forever*, this could be a perpetual motion machine.

I have never found any evidence that magnets are forever.

This is my understanding, could be wrong:

Magnets are magnetic because their individual molecules have polarity, and many of the molecules are pointing in the same direction) this is why you can slightly "magnetize" certain objects--enough exposure to the polarity of one magnet will cause the molecules to rotate into alignment. Therefore, is it not reasonable to assume that an equal and opposite reaction will occur in the polarizing magnet, causing the molecules to dis-align? But then again, given enough rest time, perhaps the molecules will return to proper alignment under their own force?

I dunno... *shrug*

[Spliffdaddy]

I spent a lot of time trying to find out if magnets are forever. Without any evidence to suggest they are - I decided they are not.

Furthermore, I found no proof that magnets are - or are not - energy sources.

I decided they were, indeed, a form of energy storage. Based on the premise that it takes energy to create the magnetic force.

Does the concept I drew in the above sketch really work? I dunno. It would be quite simple to build. I'm guessing it wouldn't work - mostly because it would take energy to start the 'perpetual' motion. My logical mind tells me that a perpetual motion machine should not require an external source of energy to set it into motion. If I add energy to the process (by pushing a pendulum with my finger to start it) then it really isn't a perpetual motion machine.

Nevertheless, it would be a neat project to build.

[tutelary]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I spent a lot of time trying to find out if magnets are forever. Without any evidence to suggest they are - I decided they are not.

Furthermore, I found no proof that magnets are - or are not - energy sources.

I decided they were, indeed, a form of energy storage. Based on the premise that it takes energy to create the magnetic force.

Does the concept I drew in the above sketch really work? I dunno. It would be quite simple to build. I'm guessing it wouldn't work - mostly because it would take energy to start the 'perpetual' motion. My logical mind tells me that a perpetual motion machine should not require an external source of energy to set it into motion. If I add energy to the process (by pushing a pendulum with my finger to start it) then it really isn't a perpetual motion machine.

Nevertheless, it would be a neat project to build.

friction at the connection points kills your idea.

[Dino-Rider]

Depends on the type of connection. You guys are assuming he's usingy fairly tiny pussy magnets. I've played with magnets that could crush things before.

[- - e r i k - -]

Can we end this please?
Perpetual motion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just how impossible is impossible?

Scientists and engineers accept the possibility that the current understanding of the laws of physics may be incomplete or incorrect; a perpetual motion device may not be impossible, but overwhelming evidence would be required to justify rewriting the laws of physics. Any proposed perpetual motion design offers a potentially instructive challenge to physicists: we know it can't work (because of the laws of thermodynamics), so explain how it fails to work. The difficulty (and the value) of such an exercise depends on the subtlety of the proposal; the best ones tend to arise from physicists' own thought experiments. Because the principles of thermodynamics are so well established, serious proposals for perpetual motion machines are often met with disbelief on the part of physicists.

Or as Homer put it: "Lisa get in here,...in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!".

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Oisín

Well, what was proven to be impossible in 1882 isn’t even a square circle; it’s just creating a square that has the same area as any given circle—totally different thing, apart from the relatively similar name.

Yeah, but "squaring the circle" just sounds cool.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

It does.

I know what you were referring to, silly; I meant grammatically (don’t you know me well enough by now to know that when I don’t specify what I’m referring to, it’s usually to do with grammar?)

[- - e r i k - -]

Yes, but when something is referring to a common saying it doesn't have to refer to anything else to be grammatically correct. So there.