Notices
Results 1 to 30 of 30

Thread: the impossibility of achieving perpetual motion with magnets

  1. #1 the impossibility of achieving perpetual motion with magnets 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    right, just a heads up for those other perpetual motion guys who mess around with magnets. you're not creating more motion when you add a magnet into the equation, you're simply shifting the point of equilibrium.
    a magnet is sort of negative gravity...

    btw, to you who know more about physics, why does magnets work like negative gravity? is it sort of a very strong version of gravity?

    oh and is it possible to magnetize non-magnetic materials by heating or cooling them?
    is there a link between ductility and magnetism?


    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Masters Degree thyristor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    542
    What do you mean by "magnets work like negative gravity"?

    What do you mean by a non-magnetic material? Do you mean a material that not in itself is magnetic? In that case, the answer is yes. Materials that naturally are magnetic are called ferromagnetic. Other materials can be magnetized by a magnetic field. These materials are divided into two groups, para- and diamagnetic materials, where paramagnetic materials intensify the magnetic field, and the diamagnetic weaken it.
    The following link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetism, supports my statements.


    373 13231-mbm-13231 373
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    ok, thanks.

    sorry, "negative gravity" is a gross oversimplification.
    but i'm not sure how to express it in proper terms.
    what i'm thinking about is that its got the power to change the point of equilibrium.
    it can change the vector direction of gravity. is that good?
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Masters Degree thyristor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by dejawolf
    ok, thanks.

    sorry, "negative gravity" is a gross oversimplification.
    but i'm not sure how to express it in proper terms.
    what i'm thinking about is that its got the power to change the point of equilibrium.
    it can change the vector direction of gravity. is that good?
    I'm sorry, but I still don't understand what you mean.
    As far as I know, the force of gravity (if know assume that we are on tha earth) between the earth and a mass around is always, seen from this mass, directed towards the mass center of the earth.
    373 13231-mbm-13231 373
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Masters Degree thyristor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    542
    I now see that I didn't answer all your questions. As far as i know, material cannot be made magnetic by heating it. However, material can be made nonmagnetic by heating it. For example, if I have a magnet and I heat it enough, to the so called Curie point, it will lose its magnetic properties. However, when it's cooled down again, it gets magnetic again. This is due to the magnetic domains in the magnet, which makes it magnetic. They can be seen as small magnets inside the magnet, and when your material is magnetic they are aligned, and when you heat it enough, the alignment disappears.


    In what way do you mean that "perpetual motion guys" mess around with magnets?
    373 13231-mbm-13231 373
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    ok. i just realized that electricity conducts better at lower temperatures, and some objects will start levitating.

    dug this thing up on google.
    claims 440% overunity:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI5jtx0IFgQ

    any peer reviews on this thing?
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by thyristor
    I now see that I didn't answer all your questions. As far as i know, material cannot be made magnetic by heating it. However, material can be made nonmagnetic by heating it. For example, if I have a magnet and I heat it enough, to the so called Curie point, it will lose its magnetic properties. However, when it's cooled down again, it gets magnetic again. This is due to the magnetic domains in the magnet, which makes it magnetic. They can be seen as small magnets inside the magnet, and when your material is magnetic they are aligned, and when you heat it enough, the alignment disappears.


    In what way do you mean that "perpetual motion guys" mess around with magnets?
    There are all kinds of perpetual motion claims of people figuring out how to supposedly build a turbine that operates on the basis of getting a magnet's field to just sort of turn off and on at the right time.

    I've never found one I actually believed, though. A permanent magnet doesn't turn off its field unless you do something to it that requires energy. You can heat it to the Curie point, but that requires you to input energy, so it wouldn't be a good basis for a perpetual motion machine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Senior miomaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    302
    this is a scam. If it would work the energy market would be down, all newspapers would be writing about that man, and big companies would already have bought licenses to build the machine.

    Magnets do not change the direction of gravity. It is like a charged piece of plastic which sticks to your body, not because it is some sort of negative gravity, but because of the charge. It is not the same with magnets. But its similar to it, both do not inflect any sort of force towards gravity or non metals.
    I haven't come to fight my word, but to find the truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by dejawolf
    ok. i just realized that electricity conducts better at lower temperatures, and some objects will start levitating.

    dug this thing up on google.
    claims 440% overunity:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI5jtx0IFgQ

    any peer reviews on this thing?

    Where does the power for the magnets come from?

    Answer: electricity supply for electromagnets.


    So where does this 'free' power come from?

    Answer: the mains supply.


    Alternatively, you could use naturally magnetic materials, such as magnetite. Then you would get free power for a few seconds, and not very much of it. Also, magnetite is not that common.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Senior Booms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    The perceptual schematic known as earth
    Posts
    361
    Both gravity and Magnetism are caused by Vanderwalls forces (not sure about gravity)


    although we have no idea how or why gravity does what it does we know magnetism is caused by the atoms of a material becoming allinged, this essentially dumps each atoms vanderwaals force together forming a MUCH stronger magnetic pull (vanderwaals are inter-electron bonds caused by the opositly charged protons and electrons, it's what binds electrons to the proton I think) and because it's allinged atoms, you get a negative and positive end to magnet (incidentally iron is commonly used as a magnet because it's much easier to push the atoms into position than in say, a lump of wood)


    Truthfully, despite what many scientists will tell you, we know abnormally little about magnetism and gravity (abnormal considering how much we use them), sure we can see the effects of both, and we have a rough idea (rock falls down because earth is bigger rock) and there are plenty of theories for the mechanics of both (Higg's Boson particles and such). But what it appears to be is a force that doesn't run out, gravity (as far as we know) is never going to decreases or shrink to nothing, therefore the logical assumption is that it's a potentially infinite source of energy


    In my opinion gravity and magnetism are both slow release of an unknown particle of an atom meaning while it's a good source of energy, it's not infinite, perhaps the particles that make up gluons (the particles that hold the protons and neutrons together), this makes sense because as we know less is more when it comes to energy, smaller suns burn longer, the Hydrogen bomb, Gluons are the strongest connective things we know of, Vanderwaals forces are so strong they allow gecko's to stick upside down on a bin lid.
    It's not how many questions you ask, but the answers you get - Booms

    This is the Acadamy of Science! we don't need to 'prove' anything!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree thyristor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by Booms
    Both gravity and Magnetism are caused by Vanderwalls forces (not sure about gravity)


    although we have no idea how or why gravity does what it does we know magnetism is caused by the atoms of a material becoming allinged, this essentially dumps each atoms vanderwaals force together forming a MUCH stronger magnetic pull (vanderwaals are inter-electron bonds caused by the opositly charged protons and electrons, it's what binds electrons to the proton I think) and because it's allinged atoms, you get a negative and positive end to magnet (incidentally iron is commonly used as a magnet because it's much easier to push the atoms into position than in say, a lump of wood)


    Truthfully, despite what many scientists will tell you, we know abnormally little about magnetism and gravity (abnormal considering how much we use them), sure we can see the effects of both, and we have a rough idea (rock falls down because earth is bigger rock) and there are plenty of theories for the mechanics of both (Higg's Boson particles and such). But what it appears to be is a force that doesn't run out, gravity (as far as we know) is never going to decreases or shrink to nothing, therefore the logical assumption is that it's a potentially infinite source of energy


    In my opinion gravity and magnetism are both slow release of an unknown particle of an atom meaning while it's a good source of energy, it's not infinite, perhaps the particles that make up gluons (the particles that hold the protons and neutrons together), this makes sense because as we know less is more when it comes to energy, smaller suns burn longer, the Hydrogen bomb, Gluons are the strongest connective things we know of, Vanderwaals forces are so strong they allow gecko's to stick upside down on a bin lid.
    Anybody, please correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, magnetism is not a phenomenon of Van der Waals force. Both electrons and protons have got a spin, and in magnets it is the spin of the elctrons that is present, that makes it " a small magnet". Furthermore, in magnets, these spins are aligned into magnetic domains consisting of a bunch of atoms. As well, these magnetic domains are aligned. This is what causes a material to be magnetic.

    Van der Waals force is not the force between electrons and protons, this is called the electromagnetic force (note that Van der Waals force cannot exist without electromagnetic force.)

    Concerning that gravity is "a potentially infinte source of energy":
    What do you mean? Gravity (on the earth) pulls objects towards the earth (well, actually towards their common mass centre). In order to use gravity as a source of energy, we thus must have something that can fall.

    Magnetism isn't the release of a particle, it's intimely connected to electricity (look up Maxwell's equations).
    373 13231-mbm-13231 373
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Gravity is an infinite source of energy because the range of gravity is infinite, so that the greater the distance from a mass, the greater the potential energy relative to the mass.

    I have several billion joules of gravitational potential energy stored in my little finger, because of just one star in the sky. The problem is, being much nearer to the Earth, the force of the Earth's gravity is so much stronger.


    We could always get energy from gravity by causing the orbits of various meteorites or comets to decay? Only, how to harness it?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Gravity is an infinite source of energy because the range of gravity is infinite, so that the greater the distance from a mass, the greater the potential energy relative to the mass.

    I have several billion joules of gravitational potential energy stored in my little finger, because of just one star in the sky. The problem is, being much nearer to the Earth, the force of the Earth's gravity is so much stronger.


    We could always get energy from gravity by causing the orbits of various meteorites or comets to decay? Only, how to harness it?
    No, gravity is not an infinite source of energy because it has an infinite range.

    In fact it takes a finite amoung to energy to move an object against the inverse square pull of gravity from any finite distance away from the center of the source to infinity. This is precisely the calculation that is done to determine "escape velocity".

    Neither gravity nor anything else is apparently an infinite source of energy. There appears to be a finite amount of energy in the entire universe. Admittedly there are some problems in discussing energy in the context of general relativity. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...energy_gr.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Finite in that there is a maximum distance from objects you can be and still be in the universe, yes. Unlimited in terms of how much we could possibly use.




    as increases, so does .

    This can apply to any object in the universe, so in theory as the universe expands, the distance between objects increases and so the energy. The typical explanation for this would be that the kinetic energy of the matter is being converted into gravitational potential energy, meaning the universe's expansion would be slowing down. Since it is not, the only logical explanation is that the universe is getting energy from somewhere; cue dark energy.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Finite in that there is a maximum distance from objects you can be and still be in the universe, yes. Unlimited in terms of how much we could possibly use.




    as increases, so does .

    This can apply to any object in the universe, so in theory as the universe expands, the distance between objects increases and so the energy. The typical explanation for this would be that the kinetic energy of the matter is being converted into gravitational potential energy, meaning the universe's expansion would be slowing down. Since it is not, the only logical explanation is that the universe is getting energy from somewhere; cue dark energy.
    Precisely when did you repeal conservation of energy ?

    While, as I stated there are problems involved indealing with energy conservation in the context of relativity, your blatant violation would raise eyebrows in most places.

    Others might tend to believe that the energy content of the unverse has been constant since the Big Bang.

    You might also ponder tihs for a bit. The usual reference in physics for calculation of potential energy is a point at "infinity". Relative to a point at infinity, the potential energy in the universe due to gravity is negative. There was speculation among cosmologists at one time, perhaps still, that because of this the net energy content of the unverse is zero. I have no idea if this is true, but if it were it would quite an elegant concept.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Finite in that there is a maximum distance from objects you can be and still be in the universe, yes. Unlimited in terms of how much we could possibly use.




    as increases, so does .

    This can apply to any object in the universe, so in theory as the universe expands, the distance between objects increases and so the energy. The typical explanation for this would be that the kinetic energy of the matter is being converted into gravitational potential energy, meaning the universe's expansion would be slowing down. Since it is not, the only logical explanation is that the universe is getting energy from somewhere; cue dark energy.
    Precisely when did you repeal conservation of energy ?

    While, as I stated there are problems involved indealing with energy conservation in the context of relativity, your blatant violation would raise eyebrows in most places.

    Others might tend to believe that the energy content of the unverse has been constant since the Big Bang.
    As I said; 'cue dark energy'.

    Other theories provide other explanations, some of them not requiring any other source of energy.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    You might also ponder tihs for a bit. The usual reference in physics for calculation of potential energy is a point at "infinity". Relative to a point at infinity, the potential energy in the universe due to gravity is negative. There was speculation among cosmologists at one time, perhaps still, that because of this the net energy content of the unverse is zero. I have no idea if this is true, but if it were it would quite an elegant concept.
    I quite agree. I have proposed something similar to this before, quite possibly on this forum, but I don't know exactly how one would go about proving it.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

    As I said; 'cue dark energy'.
    So dark energy is not energy ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Twist my words to make you right all you want. I can't really see where we disagree, to be honest.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Twist my words to make you right all you want. I can't really see where we disagree, to be honest.
    Maybe we don't. The point is that dark energy, assuming that it exists, would presumably be just another piece of energy to be tossed into the bucket and be conserved, so that the energy content of the universe would remain constant. If it turns out that this is not the case, then that would be a really exciting development and indicate that the laws of physics may need a more radical revision than what is currently contemplated. Nobody really knows, but in the meantime one would expect that there is not net mass/energy gained or lost in the universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,244
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Finite in that there is a maximum distance from objects you can be and still be in the universe, yes. Unlimited in terms of how much we could possibly use.




    as increases, so does .
    That formula only gives an accurate answer when h is small enough that the change in g is very small over it.

    For accurate answers over greater distances, you have to use the form



    Thus to find the difference in energy you have:



    If d1 is the radius of the surface of the body of mass M, and d2 is the distance of mass m from the center of mass M. As d2 approaches infinity, the second term approaches zero.

    Therefore, the maximum gravitational potential mass m can have relative to the surface of mass M is



    Where R is the radius of the mass M. And this has a finite value for any non-zero value of r.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    OK, thanks for the correction.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Senior Booms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    The perceptual schematic known as earth
    Posts
    361
    Quote Originally Posted by thyristor

    Concerning that gravity is "a potentially infinte source of energy":
    What do you mean? Gravity (on the earth) pulls objects towards the earth (well, actually towards their common mass centre). In order to use gravity as a source of energy, we thus must have something that can fall.

    Magnetism isn't the release of a particle, it's intimely connected to electricity (look up Maxwell's equations).

    (man wikipedia rocks!) cool thanks for informing me about Maxwell, the whole thing about Magnetism and particle release is just me coming up with a theory to explain what I didn't know, pay no heed to it



    Gravity is a 'potentially infinite source of energy' because while it is simply a force that attracts objects, causing stuff to 'fall' on earth it is neither changed nor diminished by an increased mass or time of falling, a falling rock and a falling feather both have 981 newtons of force (I think, that's my attempt to convert 9.81 mps falling speed into newtons) enacted on them as the fall,
    the only factor that changes the amount of gravity is distance from the object, so a plane 50km away from earth has a slightly less gravitational pull that a plane 2 feet from earth.

    because gravity is essentially a constant, theoretically if it were possible to suspend an object in perpetual falling, without removing gravity, it could be used as an energy source, (hence the numerous 'perpetual motion machines' involving falling balls and magnets to pull them to the top)
    It's not how many questions you ask, but the answers you get - Booms

    This is the Acadamy of Science! we don't need to 'prove' anything!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Booms
    Gravity is a 'potentially infinite source of energy' because while it is simply a force that attracts objects, causing stuff to 'fall' on earth
    Actually, the objects probably have no forces acting upon them, but are instead in free fall, and the Earth is accelerating up towards them.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Masters Degree thyristor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    542
    [quote="Booms"]


    Well, on the other hand the energy yopu could get from this suspended object is its potential energy which is, on the earth, calculated as W=mgh, where m is the mass, g the gravitational constant of the earth and h its height relative some zero height.

    I would be cautious about calling "g" a "gravitational constant" (too much chance of people confusing it with "G"). I'd be more comfortable with using "standard surface gravity". A small nit pick, but it is always best to avoid possible confusion when possible.
    373 13231-mbm-13231 373
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Booms
    Gravity is a 'potentially infinite source of energy' because while it is simply a force that attracts objects, causing stuff to 'fall' on earth it is neither changed nor diminished by an increased mass or time of falling, a falling rock and a falling feather both have 981 newtons of force (I think, that's my attempt to convert 9.81 mps falling speed into newtons) enacted on them as the fall
    No, this is not correct. They undergo the same acceleration (ignoring air resistance), but the force depends on the object's mass;

    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Booms
    Gravity is a 'potentially infinite source of energy' because while it is simply a force that attracts objects, causing stuff to 'fall' on earth
    Actually, the objects probably have no forces acting upon them, but are instead in free fall, and the Earth is accelerating up towards them.
    Both are subject to the same force (newton's third law). Unfortunately, the Earth doesn't really move much, being so much more massive.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Masters Degree thyristor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    542
    [quote="thyristor"]
    Quote Originally Posted by Booms


    Well, on the other hand the energy yopu could get from this suspended object is its potential energy which is, on the earth, calculated as W=mgh, where m is the mass, g the gravitational constant of the earth and h its height relative some zero height.

    I would be cautious about calling "g" a "gravitational constant" (too much chance of people confusing it with "G"). I'd be more comfortable with using "standard surface gravity". A small nit pick, but it is always best to avoid possible confusion when possible.
    Kind of confusing, there must be some error here. I din't write the last paragraph in my post, I wrote something else which has disappeared.
    373 13231-mbm-13231 373
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,244
    [quote="thyristor"]
    Quote Originally Posted by thyristor
    Quote Originally Posted by Booms


    Well, on the other hand the energy yopu could get from this suspended object is its potential energy which is, on the earth, calculated as W=mgh, where m is the mass, g the gravitational constant of the earth and h its height relative some zero height.

    I would be cautious about calling "g" a "gravitational constant" (too much chance of people confusing it with "G"). I'd be more comfortable with using "standard surface gravity". A small nit pick, but it is always best to avoid possible confusion when possible.
    Kind of confusing, there must be some error here. I din't write the last paragraph in my post, I wrote something else which has disappeared.
    My bad. I meant to guote that part of your thread. and hit "edit" instead. Go ahead and repost, and then I'll come back and clean up the thread.

    My apologies.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Senior Booms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    The perceptual schematic known as earth
    Posts
    361
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by Booms
    Gravity is a 'potentially infinite source of energy' because while it is simply a force that attracts objects, causing stuff to 'fall' on earth it is neither changed nor diminished by an increased mass or time of falling, a falling rock and a falling feather both have 981 newtons of force (I think, that's my attempt to convert 9.81 mps falling speed into newtons) enacted on them as the fall
    No, this is not correct. They undergo the same acceleration (ignoring air resistance), but the force depends on the object's mass;




    Hmmm perhaps I wrote badly, it makes total sense in my head. it just doesn't come out the same way on paper..... err keyboard

    what I mean is gravity doesn't change, air resistance and mass will of course change the overall speed, but the effect of gravity is always a constant pull of 9.81 mps, in is the constant acceleration provided by gravity, this is what I was trying to refer to
    It's not how many questions you ask, but the answers you get - Booms

    This is the Acadamy of Science! we don't need to 'prove' anything!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Booms
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by Booms
    Gravity is a 'potentially infinite source of energy' because while it is simply a force that attracts objects, causing stuff to 'fall' on earth it is neither changed nor diminished by an increased mass or time of falling, a falling rock and a falling feather both have 981 newtons of force (I think, that's my attempt to convert 9.81 mps falling speed into newtons) enacted on them as the fall
    No, this is not correct. They undergo the same acceleration (ignoring air resistance), but the force depends on the object's mass;




    Hmmm perhaps I wrote badly, it makes total sense in my head. it just doesn't come out the same way on paper..... err keyboard

    what I mean is gravity doesn't change, air resistance and mass will of course change the overall speed, but the effect of gravity is always a constant pull of 9.81 mps, in is the constant acceleration provided by gravity, this is what I was trying to refer to
    OK, no problem. Your post implied that was constant, rather than . Unless I misread. Ah well, as long as we agree now.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •