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

Create chunks from an array

Is every open circuit a capacitor?

Can we carry rice to Japan?

Should I use HTTPS on a domain that will only be used for redirection?

How to kill a localhost:8080

School performs periodic password audits. Is my password compromised?

Are there other characters in the Star Wars universe who had damaged bodies and needed to wear an outfit like Darth Vader?

Wardrobe above a wall with fuse boxes

Do AL rules let me pick different starting equipment?

How to use math.log10 function on whole pandas dataframe

When do _WA_Sys_ statistics Get Updated?

How to mitigate "bandwagon attacking" from players?

Why did the Cray-1 have 8 parity bits per word?

What is the difference between 主菜 and 主食?

Being asked to review a paper in conference one has submitted to

What could be a means to defeat a childrens’ nightmare?

When was drinking water recognized as crucial in marathon running?

Meaning of word ягоза

Has Wakanda ever accepted refugees?

Split a number into equal parts given the number of parts

Can I cast a spell through the Invoke Duplicity clone while inside a Forcecage?

If nine coins are tossed, what is the probability that the number of heads is even?

Why won't the strings command stop?

Book about a time-travel war fought by computers



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?


Why doesn't this magnetic perpetual motion machine work?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?













12












$begingroup$


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.







$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    $endgroup$
    – David Z
    22 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of Why doesn't this magnetic perpetual motion machine work? (Of course the mechanism isn't exactly the same, but I think it falls into the same family of misconceptions.)
    $endgroup$
    – knzhou
    7 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    I recommend you do try to build your machine. You know from the answers here that it won't be perpetual motion, but actually trying it out could help you really understand why.
    $endgroup$
    – iamnotmaynard
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    will do, I'll be posting updates here and tell you what happened :D
    $endgroup$
    – Florian Claaßen
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I can save you the time. My father was always a fan of these types of machines (despite the best attempts of everyone around him to convince him they wouldn't work), and once built a large pendulum device very similar to yours. Of course the result was that no matter how it was adjusted, the pendulum came to rest at some point, usually a little off-center.
    $endgroup$
    – Paul Sinclair
    4 hours ago
















12












$begingroup$


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.







$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    $endgroup$
    – David Z
    22 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of Why doesn't this magnetic perpetual motion machine work? (Of course the mechanism isn't exactly the same, but I think it falls into the same family of misconceptions.)
    $endgroup$
    – knzhou
    7 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    I recommend you do try to build your machine. You know from the answers here that it won't be perpetual motion, but actually trying it out could help you really understand why.
    $endgroup$
    – iamnotmaynard
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    will do, I'll be posting updates here and tell you what happened :D
    $endgroup$
    – Florian Claaßen
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I can save you the time. My father was always a fan of these types of machines (despite the best attempts of everyone around him to convince him they wouldn't work), and once built a large pendulum device very similar to yours. Of course the result was that no matter how it was adjusted, the pendulum came to rest at some point, usually a little off-center.
    $endgroup$
    – Paul Sinclair
    4 hours ago














12












12








12


2



$begingroup$


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 yesterday









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 yesterday









Florian ClaaßenFlorian Claaßen

7816




7816




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.












  • $begingroup$
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    $endgroup$
    – David Z
    22 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of Why doesn't this magnetic perpetual motion machine work? (Of course the mechanism isn't exactly the same, but I think it falls into the same family of misconceptions.)
    $endgroup$
    – knzhou
    7 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    I recommend you do try to build your machine. You know from the answers here that it won't be perpetual motion, but actually trying it out could help you really understand why.
    $endgroup$
    – iamnotmaynard
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    will do, I'll be posting updates here and tell you what happened :D
    $endgroup$
    – Florian Claaßen
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I can save you the time. My father was always a fan of these types of machines (despite the best attempts of everyone around him to convince him they wouldn't work), and once built a large pendulum device very similar to yours. Of course the result was that no matter how it was adjusted, the pendulum came to rest at some point, usually a little off-center.
    $endgroup$
    – Paul Sinclair
    4 hours ago


















  • $begingroup$
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    $endgroup$
    – David Z
    22 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of Why doesn't this magnetic perpetual motion machine work? (Of course the mechanism isn't exactly the same, but I think it falls into the same family of misconceptions.)
    $endgroup$
    – knzhou
    7 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    I recommend you do try to build your machine. You know from the answers here that it won't be perpetual motion, but actually trying it out could help you really understand why.
    $endgroup$
    – iamnotmaynard
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    will do, I'll be posting updates here and tell you what happened :D
    $endgroup$
    – Florian Claaßen
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I can save you the time. My father was always a fan of these types of machines (despite the best attempts of everyone around him to convince him they wouldn't work), and once built a large pendulum device very similar to yours. Of course the result was that no matter how it was adjusted, the pendulum came to rest at some point, usually a little off-center.
    $endgroup$
    – Paul Sinclair
    4 hours ago
















$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– David Z
22 hours ago




$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– David Z
22 hours ago




2




2




$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Why doesn't this magnetic perpetual motion machine work? (Of course the mechanism isn't exactly the same, but I think it falls into the same family of misconceptions.)
$endgroup$
– knzhou
7 hours ago






$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Why doesn't this magnetic perpetual motion machine work? (Of course the mechanism isn't exactly the same, but I think it falls into the same family of misconceptions.)
$endgroup$
– knzhou
7 hours ago














$begingroup$
I recommend you do try to build your machine. You know from the answers here that it won't be perpetual motion, but actually trying it out could help you really understand why.
$endgroup$
– iamnotmaynard
6 hours ago




$begingroup$
I recommend you do try to build your machine. You know from the answers here that it won't be perpetual motion, but actually trying it out could help you really understand why.
$endgroup$
– iamnotmaynard
6 hours ago












$begingroup$
will do, I'll be posting updates here and tell you what happened :D
$endgroup$
– Florian Claaßen
6 hours ago




$begingroup$
will do, I'll be posting updates here and tell you what happened :D
$endgroup$
– Florian Claaßen
6 hours ago












$begingroup$
I can save you the time. My father was always a fan of these types of machines (despite the best attempts of everyone around him to convince him they wouldn't work), and once built a large pendulum device very similar to yours. Of course the result was that no matter how it was adjusted, the pendulum came to rest at some point, usually a little off-center.
$endgroup$
– Paul Sinclair
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
I can save you the time. My father was always a fan of these types of machines (despite the best attempts of everyone around him to convince him they wouldn't work), and once built a large pendulum device very similar to yours. Of course the result was that no matter how it was adjusted, the pendulum came to rest at some point, usually a little off-center.
$endgroup$
– Paul Sinclair
4 hours ago










6 Answers
6






active

oldest

votes


















67












$begingroup$


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
    yesterday








  • 23




    $begingroup$
    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
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    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
    yesterday






  • 10




    $begingroup$
    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
    yesterday



















4












$begingroup$

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
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @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
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    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
    yesterday



















0












$begingroup$

You are missing that as the metal passes through the changing magnetic field, Eddy currents will be produced.



These currents will result in the metal heating up (with the amount depending on the speed of travel and strength of field).



This heating essentially results in energy being removed from the system; and thus the bobbing can not be done forever; even if the rest of the system is perfect.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    -1












    $begingroup$

    A magnet strong enough to pull the metal up will be too strong to let it fall again.






    share|cite|improve this answer








    New contributor




    rhwhw4j645 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    $endgroup$









    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Only if it were strong enough to pull up more than gravity pulls down. The question mentions that the magnet can't stick, which is what I believe that was getting at.
      $endgroup$
      – JMac
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @JMAC Any force applied by the magnet on the way up will be the same as the force applied on the way down. I.e. net zero
      $endgroup$
      – JeffUK
      5 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @JeffUK I'm aware of that. The point is that OP mentioned the metal "must be heavy enough so it doesn't stick to the magnets"; presumably he was trying to suggest that the magnets would no be so strong as to prevent the metal from swinging back down. It makes this whole answer essentially useless unless it gets expanded on.
      $endgroup$
      – JMac
      5 hours ago



















    -1












    $begingroup$

    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 is proportional to $cfrac{1}{(d+sin phi l)^2}$ and the deccelerating force by the magnet on the close side is proportional to $cfrac{1}{(d-sin phi l)^2}$.



    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



    $$ cfrac{1}{(d+sin phi l)^2} - cfrac{1}{(d-sin phi l)^2} = cfrac{(d-sin phi l)^2 - (d+sin phi l)^2}{(d-sin phi l)^2 (d+sin phi l)^2} $$



    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:



    $$ (d-sin phi l)^2 - (d+sin phi l)^2 = d^2 - 2dsin phi l + sin^2 phi l^2 - d^2 - 2dsin phi l - sin^2 phi l^2 = -4dsin phi l $$



    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
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      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
      yesterday












    • $begingroup$
      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
      yesterday






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      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
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      I have proposed an edit that rewrites your equations using Mathjax. Please check to make sure I didn't introduce any errors compared to the originals.
      $endgroup$
      – a CVn
      yesterday





















    -5












    $begingroup$

    Replace the magnets with a lock that catches the pendulum and then releases a separate pendulum next to it. That pendulum then swings over and gets locked on the opposite side, releasing the other pendulum and so the process repeats. No need for magnets at all. The hard part is extracting work from the contraption. You aren't gonna save society by having some balls swinging back and forth. Even if you could extract work it wouldn't be enough to light a single home. You need to devise a system that scales to such massive levels as that it would replace a dam or power plant if built large enough.






    share|cite|improve this answer








    New contributor




    user224619 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    $endgroup$









    • 12




      $begingroup$
      "The hard part is extracting work from the contraption" -- The harder part is rewriting physics.
      $endgroup$
      – azurefrog
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @azurefrog A (approximately) perpetual motion machine is relatively trivial if you don't have to extract work from it. Any object orbiting the sun, for example, is one.
      $endgroup$
      – immibis
      22 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @immibis, now that would be an interesting separate question - in the absence of space debris, how long would it take for such a "machine" to stop working (i.e., the object crashing into the star)... only due to whatever spontaneous virtual quantum level vacuum interaction going on...
      $endgroup$
      – AnoE
      11 hours ago






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Why would this be any better than just letting a pendulum swing without the locking mechanisms?
      $endgroup$
      – JMac
      8 hours ago






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @JMac The locks turn it from simple perpetual motion into a perpetual motion machine. *nodnod*
      $endgroup$
      – David Richerby
      5 hours ago










    protected by David Z 22 hours ago



    Thank you for your interest in this question.
    Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



    Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?














    6 Answers
    6






    active

    oldest

    votes








    6 Answers
    6






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    67












    $begingroup$


    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
      yesterday








    • 23




      $begingroup$
      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
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      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
      yesterday






    • 10




      $begingroup$
      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
      yesterday
















    67












    $begingroup$


    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
      yesterday








    • 23




      $begingroup$
      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
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      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
      yesterday






    • 10




      $begingroup$
      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
      yesterday














    67












    67








    67





    $begingroup$


    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 yesterday









    Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty

    84.4k22209424




    84.4k22209424








    • 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
      yesterday








    • 23




      $begingroup$
      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
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      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
      yesterday






    • 10




      $begingroup$
      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
      yesterday














    • 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
      yesterday








    • 23




      $begingroup$
      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
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      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
      yesterday






    • 10




      $begingroup$
      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
      yesterday








    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
    yesterday






    $begingroup$
    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
    yesterday






    23




    23




    $begingroup$
    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
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    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
    yesterday




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    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
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    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
    yesterday




    10




    10




    $begingroup$
    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
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    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
    yesterday











    4












    $begingroup$

    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
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @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
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      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
      yesterday
















    4












    $begingroup$

    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
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @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
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      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
      yesterday














    4












    4








    4





    $begingroup$

    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 yesterday





















    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 yesterday









    JhorJhor

    2346




    2346




    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
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @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
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      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
      yesterday


















    • $begingroup$
      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
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @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
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      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
      yesterday
















    $begingroup$
    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
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    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
    yesterday












    $begingroup$
    @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
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    @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
    yesterday












    $begingroup$
    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
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    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
    yesterday











    0












    $begingroup$

    You are missing that as the metal passes through the changing magnetic field, Eddy currents will be produced.



    These currents will result in the metal heating up (with the amount depending on the speed of travel and strength of field).



    This heating essentially results in energy being removed from the system; and thus the bobbing can not be done forever; even if the rest of the system is perfect.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      0












      $begingroup$

      You are missing that as the metal passes through the changing magnetic field, Eddy currents will be produced.



      These currents will result in the metal heating up (with the amount depending on the speed of travel and strength of field).



      This heating essentially results in energy being removed from the system; and thus the bobbing can not be done forever; even if the rest of the system is perfect.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        0












        0








        0





        $begingroup$

        You are missing that as the metal passes through the changing magnetic field, Eddy currents will be produced.



        These currents will result in the metal heating up (with the amount depending on the speed of travel and strength of field).



        This heating essentially results in energy being removed from the system; and thus the bobbing can not be done forever; even if the rest of the system is perfect.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        You are missing that as the metal passes through the changing magnetic field, Eddy currents will be produced.



        These currents will result in the metal heating up (with the amount depending on the speed of travel and strength of field).



        This heating essentially results in energy being removed from the system; and thus the bobbing can not be done forever; even if the rest of the system is perfect.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 8 hours ago









        UKMonkeyUKMonkey

        1476




        1476























            -1












            $begingroup$

            A magnet strong enough to pull the metal up will be too strong to let it fall again.






            share|cite|improve this answer








            New contributor




            rhwhw4j645 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            $endgroup$









            • 3




              $begingroup$
              Only if it were strong enough to pull up more than gravity pulls down. The question mentions that the magnet can't stick, which is what I believe that was getting at.
              $endgroup$
              – JMac
              yesterday










            • $begingroup$
              @JMAC Any force applied by the magnet on the way up will be the same as the force applied on the way down. I.e. net zero
              $endgroup$
              – JeffUK
              5 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @JeffUK I'm aware of that. The point is that OP mentioned the metal "must be heavy enough so it doesn't stick to the magnets"; presumably he was trying to suggest that the magnets would no be so strong as to prevent the metal from swinging back down. It makes this whole answer essentially useless unless it gets expanded on.
              $endgroup$
              – JMac
              5 hours ago
















            -1












            $begingroup$

            A magnet strong enough to pull the metal up will be too strong to let it fall again.






            share|cite|improve this answer








            New contributor




            rhwhw4j645 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            $endgroup$









            • 3




              $begingroup$
              Only if it were strong enough to pull up more than gravity pulls down. The question mentions that the magnet can't stick, which is what I believe that was getting at.
              $endgroup$
              – JMac
              yesterday










            • $begingroup$
              @JMAC Any force applied by the magnet on the way up will be the same as the force applied on the way down. I.e. net zero
              $endgroup$
              – JeffUK
              5 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @JeffUK I'm aware of that. The point is that OP mentioned the metal "must be heavy enough so it doesn't stick to the magnets"; presumably he was trying to suggest that the magnets would no be so strong as to prevent the metal from swinging back down. It makes this whole answer essentially useless unless it gets expanded on.
              $endgroup$
              – JMac
              5 hours ago














            -1












            -1








            -1





            $begingroup$

            A magnet strong enough to pull the metal up will be too strong to let it fall again.






            share|cite|improve this answer








            New contributor




            rhwhw4j645 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            $endgroup$



            A magnet strong enough to pull the metal up will be too strong to let it fall again.







            share|cite|improve this answer








            New contributor




            rhwhw4j645 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






            New contributor




            rhwhw4j645 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.









            answered yesterday









            rhwhw4j645rhwhw4j645

            1




            1




            New contributor




            rhwhw4j645 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.





            New contributor





            rhwhw4j645 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            rhwhw4j645 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.








            • 3




              $begingroup$
              Only if it were strong enough to pull up more than gravity pulls down. The question mentions that the magnet can't stick, which is what I believe that was getting at.
              $endgroup$
              – JMac
              yesterday










            • $begingroup$
              @JMAC Any force applied by the magnet on the way up will be the same as the force applied on the way down. I.e. net zero
              $endgroup$
              – JeffUK
              5 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @JeffUK I'm aware of that. The point is that OP mentioned the metal "must be heavy enough so it doesn't stick to the magnets"; presumably he was trying to suggest that the magnets would no be so strong as to prevent the metal from swinging back down. It makes this whole answer essentially useless unless it gets expanded on.
              $endgroup$
              – JMac
              5 hours ago














            • 3




              $begingroup$
              Only if it were strong enough to pull up more than gravity pulls down. The question mentions that the magnet can't stick, which is what I believe that was getting at.
              $endgroup$
              – JMac
              yesterday










            • $begingroup$
              @JMAC Any force applied by the magnet on the way up will be the same as the force applied on the way down. I.e. net zero
              $endgroup$
              – JeffUK
              5 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @JeffUK I'm aware of that. The point is that OP mentioned the metal "must be heavy enough so it doesn't stick to the magnets"; presumably he was trying to suggest that the magnets would no be so strong as to prevent the metal from swinging back down. It makes this whole answer essentially useless unless it gets expanded on.
              $endgroup$
              – JMac
              5 hours ago








            3




            3




            $begingroup$
            Only if it were strong enough to pull up more than gravity pulls down. The question mentions that the magnet can't stick, which is what I believe that was getting at.
            $endgroup$
            – JMac
            yesterday




            $begingroup$
            Only if it were strong enough to pull up more than gravity pulls down. The question mentions that the magnet can't stick, which is what I believe that was getting at.
            $endgroup$
            – JMac
            yesterday












            $begingroup$
            @JMAC Any force applied by the magnet on the way up will be the same as the force applied on the way down. I.e. net zero
            $endgroup$
            – JeffUK
            5 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            @JMAC Any force applied by the magnet on the way up will be the same as the force applied on the way down. I.e. net zero
            $endgroup$
            – JeffUK
            5 hours ago












            $begingroup$
            @JeffUK I'm aware of that. The point is that OP mentioned the metal "must be heavy enough so it doesn't stick to the magnets"; presumably he was trying to suggest that the magnets would no be so strong as to prevent the metal from swinging back down. It makes this whole answer essentially useless unless it gets expanded on.
            $endgroup$
            – JMac
            5 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            @JeffUK I'm aware of that. The point is that OP mentioned the metal "must be heavy enough so it doesn't stick to the magnets"; presumably he was trying to suggest that the magnets would no be so strong as to prevent the metal from swinging back down. It makes this whole answer essentially useless unless it gets expanded on.
            $endgroup$
            – JMac
            5 hours ago











            -1












            $begingroup$

            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 is proportional to $cfrac{1}{(d+sin phi l)^2}$ and the deccelerating force by the magnet on the close side is proportional to $cfrac{1}{(d-sin phi l)^2}$.



            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



            $$ cfrac{1}{(d+sin phi l)^2} - cfrac{1}{(d-sin phi l)^2} = cfrac{(d-sin phi l)^2 - (d+sin phi l)^2}{(d-sin phi l)^2 (d+sin phi l)^2} $$



            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:



            $$ (d-sin phi l)^2 - (d+sin phi l)^2 = d^2 - 2dsin phi l + sin^2 phi l^2 - d^2 - 2dsin phi l - sin^2 phi l^2 = -4dsin phi l $$



            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
              yesterday










            • $begingroup$
              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
              yesterday












            • $begingroup$
              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
              yesterday






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              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
              yesterday






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              I have proposed an edit that rewrites your equations using Mathjax. Please check to make sure I didn't introduce any errors compared to the originals.
              $endgroup$
              – a CVn
              yesterday


















            -1












            $begingroup$

            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 is proportional to $cfrac{1}{(d+sin phi l)^2}$ and the deccelerating force by the magnet on the close side is proportional to $cfrac{1}{(d-sin phi l)^2}$.



            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



            $$ cfrac{1}{(d+sin phi l)^2} - cfrac{1}{(d-sin phi l)^2} = cfrac{(d-sin phi l)^2 - (d+sin phi l)^2}{(d-sin phi l)^2 (d+sin phi l)^2} $$



            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:



            $$ (d-sin phi l)^2 - (d+sin phi l)^2 = d^2 - 2dsin phi l + sin^2 phi l^2 - d^2 - 2dsin phi l - sin^2 phi l^2 = -4dsin phi l $$



            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
              yesterday










            • $begingroup$
              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
              yesterday












            • $begingroup$
              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
              yesterday






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              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
              yesterday






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              I have proposed an edit that rewrites your equations using Mathjax. Please check to make sure I didn't introduce any errors compared to the originals.
              $endgroup$
              – a CVn
              yesterday
















            -1












            -1








            -1





            $begingroup$

            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 is proportional to $cfrac{1}{(d+sin phi l)^2}$ and the deccelerating force by the magnet on the close side is proportional to $cfrac{1}{(d-sin phi l)^2}$.



            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



            $$ cfrac{1}{(d+sin phi l)^2} - cfrac{1}{(d-sin phi l)^2} = cfrac{(d-sin phi l)^2 - (d+sin phi l)^2}{(d-sin phi l)^2 (d+sin phi l)^2} $$



            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:



            $$ (d-sin phi l)^2 - (d+sin phi l)^2 = d^2 - 2dsin phi l + sin^2 phi l^2 - d^2 - 2dsin phi l - sin^2 phi l^2 = -4dsin phi l $$



            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 is proportional to $cfrac{1}{(d+sin phi l)^2}$ and the deccelerating force by the magnet on the close side is proportional to $cfrac{1}{(d-sin phi l)^2}$.



            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



            $$ cfrac{1}{(d+sin phi l)^2} - cfrac{1}{(d-sin phi l)^2} = cfrac{(d-sin phi l)^2 - (d+sin phi l)^2}{(d-sin phi l)^2 (d+sin phi l)^2} $$



            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:



            $$ (d-sin phi l)^2 - (d+sin phi l)^2 = d^2 - 2dsin phi l + sin^2 phi l^2 - d^2 - 2dsin phi l - sin^2 phi l^2 = -4dsin phi l $$



            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 yesterday









            a CVn

            642517




            642517






            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 yesterday









            Patrik PuchertPatrik Puchert

            643




            643




            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
              yesterday










            • $begingroup$
              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
              yesterday












            • $begingroup$
              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
              yesterday






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              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
              yesterday






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              I have proposed an edit that rewrites your equations using Mathjax. Please check to make sure I didn't introduce any errors compared to the originals.
              $endgroup$
              – a CVn
              yesterday




















            • $begingroup$
              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
              yesterday










            • $begingroup$
              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
              yesterday












            • $begingroup$
              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
              yesterday






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              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
              yesterday






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              I have proposed an edit that rewrites your equations using Mathjax. Please check to make sure I didn't introduce any errors compared to the originals.
              $endgroup$
              – a CVn
              yesterday


















            $begingroup$
            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
            yesterday




            $begingroup$
            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
            yesterday












            $begingroup$
            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
            yesterday






            $begingroup$
            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
            yesterday














            $begingroup$
            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
            yesterday




            $begingroup$
            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
            yesterday




            2




            2




            $begingroup$
            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
            yesterday




            $begingroup$
            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
            yesterday




            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            I have proposed an edit that rewrites your equations using Mathjax. Please check to make sure I didn't introduce any errors compared to the originals.
            $endgroup$
            – a CVn
            yesterday






            $begingroup$
            I have proposed an edit that rewrites your equations using Mathjax. Please check to make sure I didn't introduce any errors compared to the originals.
            $endgroup$
            – a CVn
            yesterday













            -5












            $begingroup$

            Replace the magnets with a lock that catches the pendulum and then releases a separate pendulum next to it. That pendulum then swings over and gets locked on the opposite side, releasing the other pendulum and so the process repeats. No need for magnets at all. The hard part is extracting work from the contraption. You aren't gonna save society by having some balls swinging back and forth. Even if you could extract work it wouldn't be enough to light a single home. You need to devise a system that scales to such massive levels as that it would replace a dam or power plant if built large enough.






            share|cite|improve this answer








            New contributor




            user224619 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            $endgroup$









            • 12




              $begingroup$
              "The hard part is extracting work from the contraption" -- The harder part is rewriting physics.
              $endgroup$
              – azurefrog
              yesterday






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @azurefrog A (approximately) perpetual motion machine is relatively trivial if you don't have to extract work from it. Any object orbiting the sun, for example, is one.
              $endgroup$
              – immibis
              22 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @immibis, now that would be an interesting separate question - in the absence of space debris, how long would it take for such a "machine" to stop working (i.e., the object crashing into the star)... only due to whatever spontaneous virtual quantum level vacuum interaction going on...
              $endgroup$
              – AnoE
              11 hours ago






            • 4




              $begingroup$
              Why would this be any better than just letting a pendulum swing without the locking mechanisms?
              $endgroup$
              – JMac
              8 hours ago






            • 3




              $begingroup$
              @JMac The locks turn it from simple perpetual motion into a perpetual motion machine. *nodnod*
              $endgroup$
              – David Richerby
              5 hours ago
















            -5












            $begingroup$

            Replace the magnets with a lock that catches the pendulum and then releases a separate pendulum next to it. That pendulum then swings over and gets locked on the opposite side, releasing the other pendulum and so the process repeats. No need for magnets at all. The hard part is extracting work from the contraption. You aren't gonna save society by having some balls swinging back and forth. Even if you could extract work it wouldn't be enough to light a single home. You need to devise a system that scales to such massive levels as that it would replace a dam or power plant if built large enough.






            share|cite|improve this answer








            New contributor




            user224619 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            $endgroup$









            • 12




              $begingroup$
              "The hard part is extracting work from the contraption" -- The harder part is rewriting physics.
              $endgroup$
              – azurefrog
              yesterday






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @azurefrog A (approximately) perpetual motion machine is relatively trivial if you don't have to extract work from it. Any object orbiting the sun, for example, is one.
              $endgroup$
              – immibis
              22 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @immibis, now that would be an interesting separate question - in the absence of space debris, how long would it take for such a "machine" to stop working (i.e., the object crashing into the star)... only due to whatever spontaneous virtual quantum level vacuum interaction going on...
              $endgroup$
              – AnoE
              11 hours ago






            • 4




              $begingroup$
              Why would this be any better than just letting a pendulum swing without the locking mechanisms?
              $endgroup$
              – JMac
              8 hours ago






            • 3




              $begingroup$
              @JMac The locks turn it from simple perpetual motion into a perpetual motion machine. *nodnod*
              $endgroup$
              – David Richerby
              5 hours ago














            -5












            -5








            -5





            $begingroup$

            Replace the magnets with a lock that catches the pendulum and then releases a separate pendulum next to it. That pendulum then swings over and gets locked on the opposite side, releasing the other pendulum and so the process repeats. No need for magnets at all. The hard part is extracting work from the contraption. You aren't gonna save society by having some balls swinging back and forth. Even if you could extract work it wouldn't be enough to light a single home. You need to devise a system that scales to such massive levels as that it would replace a dam or power plant if built large enough.






            share|cite|improve this answer








            New contributor




            user224619 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            $endgroup$



            Replace the magnets with a lock that catches the pendulum and then releases a separate pendulum next to it. That pendulum then swings over and gets locked on the opposite side, releasing the other pendulum and so the process repeats. No need for magnets at all. The hard part is extracting work from the contraption. You aren't gonna save society by having some balls swinging back and forth. Even if you could extract work it wouldn't be enough to light a single home. You need to devise a system that scales to such massive levels as that it would replace a dam or power plant if built large enough.







            share|cite|improve this answer








            New contributor




            user224619 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






            New contributor




            user224619 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.









            answered yesterday









            user224619user224619

            1




            1




            New contributor




            user224619 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.





            New contributor





            user224619 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            user224619 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.








            • 12




              $begingroup$
              "The hard part is extracting work from the contraption" -- The harder part is rewriting physics.
              $endgroup$
              – azurefrog
              yesterday






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @azurefrog A (approximately) perpetual motion machine is relatively trivial if you don't have to extract work from it. Any object orbiting the sun, for example, is one.
              $endgroup$
              – immibis
              22 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @immibis, now that would be an interesting separate question - in the absence of space debris, how long would it take for such a "machine" to stop working (i.e., the object crashing into the star)... only due to whatever spontaneous virtual quantum level vacuum interaction going on...
              $endgroup$
              – AnoE
              11 hours ago






            • 4




              $begingroup$
              Why would this be any better than just letting a pendulum swing without the locking mechanisms?
              $endgroup$
              – JMac
              8 hours ago






            • 3




              $begingroup$
              @JMac The locks turn it from simple perpetual motion into a perpetual motion machine. *nodnod*
              $endgroup$
              – David Richerby
              5 hours ago














            • 12




              $begingroup$
              "The hard part is extracting work from the contraption" -- The harder part is rewriting physics.
              $endgroup$
              – azurefrog
              yesterday






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @azurefrog A (approximately) perpetual motion machine is relatively trivial if you don't have to extract work from it. Any object orbiting the sun, for example, is one.
              $endgroup$
              – immibis
              22 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @immibis, now that would be an interesting separate question - in the absence of space debris, how long would it take for such a "machine" to stop working (i.e., the object crashing into the star)... only due to whatever spontaneous virtual quantum level vacuum interaction going on...
              $endgroup$
              – AnoE
              11 hours ago






            • 4




              $begingroup$
              Why would this be any better than just letting a pendulum swing without the locking mechanisms?
              $endgroup$
              – JMac
              8 hours ago






            • 3




              $begingroup$
              @JMac The locks turn it from simple perpetual motion into a perpetual motion machine. *nodnod*
              $endgroup$
              – David Richerby
              5 hours ago








            12




            12




            $begingroup$
            "The hard part is extracting work from the contraption" -- The harder part is rewriting physics.
            $endgroup$
            – azurefrog
            yesterday




            $begingroup$
            "The hard part is extracting work from the contraption" -- The harder part is rewriting physics.
            $endgroup$
            – azurefrog
            yesterday




            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            @azurefrog A (approximately) perpetual motion machine is relatively trivial if you don't have to extract work from it. Any object orbiting the sun, for example, is one.
            $endgroup$
            – immibis
            22 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            @azurefrog A (approximately) perpetual motion machine is relatively trivial if you don't have to extract work from it. Any object orbiting the sun, for example, is one.
            $endgroup$
            – immibis
            22 hours ago












            $begingroup$
            @immibis, now that would be an interesting separate question - in the absence of space debris, how long would it take for such a "machine" to stop working (i.e., the object crashing into the star)... only due to whatever spontaneous virtual quantum level vacuum interaction going on...
            $endgroup$
            – AnoE
            11 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            @immibis, now that would be an interesting separate question - in the absence of space debris, how long would it take for such a "machine" to stop working (i.e., the object crashing into the star)... only due to whatever spontaneous virtual quantum level vacuum interaction going on...
            $endgroup$
            – AnoE
            11 hours ago




            4




            4




            $begingroup$
            Why would this be any better than just letting a pendulum swing without the locking mechanisms?
            $endgroup$
            – JMac
            8 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            Why would this be any better than just letting a pendulum swing without the locking mechanisms?
            $endgroup$
            – JMac
            8 hours ago




            3




            3




            $begingroup$
            @JMac The locks turn it from simple perpetual motion into a perpetual motion machine. *nodnod*
            $endgroup$
            – David Richerby
            5 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            @JMac The locks turn it from simple perpetual motion into a perpetual motion machine. *nodnod*
            $endgroup$
            – David Richerby
            5 hours ago





            protected by David Z 22 hours ago



            Thank you for your interest in this question.
            Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



            Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?



            Popular posts from this blog

            Installing LyX: “No textclass is found.”LyX installation error- text class not found- 'Reconfigure' or...

            (1602) Indiana Índice Designación y nombre Características orbitales Véase...

            Universidad Autónoma de Occidente Índice Historia Campus Facultades Programas Académicos Medios de...