4 ms·

The motion depletes the battery, no different than a toy car motor. Yes, you could theoretically provide energy back to the battery. No, it would not be a net p

by BoppreH 12y ago

The motion depletes the battery, no different than a toy car motor. Yes, you could theoretically provide energy back to the battery. No, it would not be a net positive. It would deplete the battery faster, for a net loss because of unavoidable conversion inefficiencies. Edit: if you saw this video, realized there was a battery involved, and your first thought was "Perpetual Motion Device!", you might be delusional or severely misinformed. For your own sake, please research the topic a bit more and avoid echo chambers.

dang 12y ago
This comment would be better without the second paragraph, which is needlessly personal and meta. The first paragraph is splendid.
- BoppreH 12y ago
  I agree the second paragraph is personal and meta, and I don't like it either. But if I ever go down a rabbit hole and end up detached from reality, I would love to have someone to tip me off. It's like pointing out someone's fly is open. Maybe OP is perfectly sane and just got confused on the physics of this system. Maybe they are very young. Or I misread their comment. In that case, OP has my deepest apologies. It's just that perpetual motion is a well known trap for intelligent people; and expressions like "first real perpetual motion machine" and "provide back the energy to the battery somehow" make me worry that a fellow human being is going down the wrong path.
  - dang 12y ago
    Thanks for clarifying the helpful intention behind the comment. That does make sense. Probably all it needed to do was make the intention a bit more explicit, so it wouldn't be mistaken for one-upmanship. By the way, your reply was so neutral and respectful that I didn't realize you were the original commenter. That's remarkable, so thank you.
devindotcom 12y ago
Quite an unnecessary, mean-spirited, and mistaken edit. OP, your confusion is perfectly normal. I came here to post that my dad would think this is a perpetual motion machine. He simply is not familiar with the physical laws that make such a thing impossible and likes the idea of it.

by BoppreH 12y ago

dang 12y ago

This comment would be better without the second paragraph, which is needlessly personal and meta. The first paragraph is splendid.

BoppreH 12y ago
I agree the second paragraph is personal and meta, and I don't like it either. But if I ever go down a rabbit hole and end up detached from reality, I would love to have someone to tip me off. It's like pointing out someone's fly is open. Maybe OP is perfectly sane and just got confused on the physics of this system. Maybe they are very young. Or I misread their comment. In that case, OP has my deepest apologies. It's just that perpetual motion is a well known trap for intelligent people; and expressions like "first real perpetual motion machine" and "provide back the energy to the battery somehow" make me worry that a fellow human being is going down the wrong path.
- dang 12y ago
  Thanks for clarifying the helpful intention behind the comment. That does make sense. Probably all it needed to do was make the intention a bit more explicit, so it wouldn't be mistaken for one-upmanship. By the way, your reply was so neutral and respectful that I didn't realize you were the original commenter. That's remarkable, so thank you.

devindotcom 12y ago

Quite an unnecessary, mean-spirited, and mistaken edit. OP, your confusion is perfectly normal. I came here to post that my dad would think this is a perpetual motion machine. He simply is not familiar with the physical laws that make such a thing impossible and likes the idea of it.