spring with magnetic energy

mcgarry098

I have this idea after doing magnets in school and am just curios to see if it would be beneficial!

It basically consists of a spring which has a platform on top connected to a vertical line of cogs, which when lowered meet the cogs of a dynamo to create electricity. any electricity created is fed through a wire which passes over the top of the tube causing a magnetic affect. by changing the rate at which the current alternates you can get the magnet to repel then attract a metal weight which is placed at the top of the tube.

This weight falls due to gravity onto the spring and in turn the dynamo is turned creating electricity which causes the magnetic affect,. If you can get a weight proportionate to the force of the spring you could use the force of the spring to push the weight say 3 quarters of its original height, but then by using the magnetic affect ( which you set to alternate its direction of force due to direction of current) in time with the weight falling and then going upwards you could get the weight up to its original height.

The magnetic affect occurs naturally with no extra loss of energy as the current passes through the wire. The wire naturally has resistance where some energy will be lost, and energy would also be lost due to heat.

So overall do you think the idea would work creating more energy than it uses!

Cheers!

P.s. when the current goes one direction it helps push the weight downwards, and when the current alternates it helps pull the weight upwards in coherence with the spring.

amen

won't work for ever (after several cycles you will run of energy).

Best way to prove it is to start at a height h, work out the potential enegry, then work out the impact of hitting the spring and how high the magnet will rebound.

Work our the energy from this height then work out the impact of hitting the spring and how high the magnet will rebound etc.

You could probably create a formula and figure out how many cycles before you ran out of energy.

mcgarry098

hi ya amen, ya i was thinking it would as theres no real such thing as perpetual energy but i was hoping the power of the "magnet" ( the wire containing any current made, by the turning dynamo, which passes over the top of the tube) would alternate at the right time to push the weight down faster, and then help the spring push it up!! ( change of direction of the force of the magnet coming from an alternating current timed to alternate at the rise and fall of the magnet!). Even if the weight with the help of the magnet never reaches the same height I wonder if it would still create more energy than it takes to get the weight back to the starting point, thus making it a sort of never ending green(no emissions) energy cycle!!!!


amen i think ill try and make a formula for this experiment on the weekend or something!!

Cheers

Capt'n Midnight

IIRC BNFL made a resonant Stirling engine with just one moving part. Can't remember if it used magentic coupling or magnetic spring.

And before you ask it was a heat engine

bnt

Magnets are not a source of energy, they create a potential field. If you let a magnet attract a piece of iron, it's a release of potential energy, and you have to put energy in to get the iron out again. Conceptually similar to the release of energy when something falls downwards under gravity, actually: to reverse the effect, you have to put energy in. Either way, your contraption contains no source of energy, only opportunities for losing it. It has been tried before: see here under "Magnetism and Gravity"

mcgarry098

bnt wrote: »

Magnets are not a source of energy, they create a potential field. If you let a magnet attract a piece of iron, it's a release of potential energy, and you have to put energy in to get the iron out again.

but if i direct the current over the tube does that not automatically form a magnetic affect, and as the current alternates naturally you dont have to put anymore energy in then what is already there for the magnetic affect to be reversed and thus automatically push the weight downwards. the same current that causes the magnetic affect can then be connected to the mains supply of electricity or something. the magnet is just a useful side effect of the current.

Conceptually similar to the release of energy when something falls downwards under gravity, actually: to reverse the effect, you have to put energy in.

Gravity helps the weight to pick up speed in order to turn the dynamo. the spring helps push the weight back to near its original height and the magnet replaces most of the energy lost in the turning of the dynamo so that the weight can go even closer to its starting position to repeat the cycle.

Either way, your contraption contains no source of energy, only opportunities for losing it.

As energy cant be created or destroyed is there ever a real case of a source of energy if gravity and the likes don't count, but just a case of changing energy from one form to another more useful form as in this instance!

Delphi91

mcgarry098 wrote: »

..As energy cant be created or destroyed is there ever a real case of a source of energy if gravity and the likes don't count, but just a case of changing energy from one form to another more useful form as in this instance!

The problem is, that every time you do the conversion, it's not a straight conversion i.e. there's an energy loss to somewhere else. So gradually over time, the energy available to your system reduces.

Ultimately it's the second law of Thermodynamics, which loosely translated says you can't get out more than you put in. What about the energy lost through friction between the cogs and the dynamo? Plus you need an initial current in the wire to hold the weight in place which implies an initial amount of energy. Where did that come from since your dynamo (which is not moving at the start) is used to create the alternating current to hold the weight in place?

The wire naturally has resistance where some energy will be lost, and energy would also be lost due to heat.

In this statement, you've actually given the reasons why it won't work. There will always be an energy loss somewhere, which you'll have to compensate for by putting in energy. Therefore you always get less out than you put in.

Capt'n Midnight

"In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics."

And besides even if you could figure out free energy you'd have to compete with $2 a watt solar panels

Also if you could figure out a free energy system what would prevent a" thermal runaway" where you get positive feedback ?