Magnetic gravity engine?

[clintautin]

Very bad name for video, that is why you get so many rude comments. Should of been named "Showing my son magnets pull uphill"

[opucam]

Do you drink alcool today?

[themasterofalllegos]

cool! 

[crazzieg]

I had to dance with a girl when I was that young,,

[kmarinas86]

"Magnetic gravity engine?"

More like a pinball launcher where you push instead of pull....

[jamesabout]

I had magnets and blocks when I was 3 years old. It was fun then but some of us move on to better and bigger things.

[djburke135]

I learned manners when I was 3 as well.

[Harley22RUS]

чё за шляпа

[sal90dv]

sorry but what you have done?

[hydrogravitypower]

 cool

[Stonemagick]

give your kids back their lego!

[mdlman583]

This is sad

[djburke135]

Not as sad as being rude to the kids

[yakir11114]

you are just saying that it can repeat itself i wanna see a video

[FORCETHETRUTH]

These posters are IDIOTS, they totally missed your point. They repeat the same old tired crap conservation of energy, but the entire UNIVERSE is an OPEN SYSTEM!!! IDIOTS!!

[axander511]

When you lift something to a higher place, you've given it potential energy, when it rolls down, you're witnessing that energy minus energy lost to friction. You can not have this running in a continuous circuit , you can only make the design more complex and hard to think about, simplicity is key.

[noimw]

LEGO - High Tech shit.

[killie232]

LOL

[LifesVoyager]

absolutely

[DEVENSTATION]

LAME I did stuff like this when I was 4 its not anything new

[boatfreak]

It would be perfect if you can make the ball turn around with a turn or something and where after it is pulled up again.

[obamanodraft]

Discovering a way to raise/place the ball bearing back to it's orignal point of drop utilizing less energy than what is generated from the drop would be the idea, right? Thus to have a net positive gain in energy as the result.

[LifesVoyager]

Yes, wouldn't it be nice to produce a 'net positive gain in energy'! Oh my, that would lead to perpetual motion, wouldn't it? Now wouldn't that be sweet!

[CrimCheeto]

Something funny to me is people not seeing that magnetics in its self is perpetual motion, how do you think in continues to shoot particals out and about without input of energy?

[CrimCheeto]

A magnet niether losses or gains energy yet keeps particals on the move...so if we have an example of perpetual motion, how can it be said its not possible?

[Unterschnitzel]

Magnets are by no means perpetual. Magnetism is the result of atomic polarization, meaning most of the molecules within a given object are facing the same direction. This cohesion results in a magnetic field.

A magnet's life-span is anywhere from a few hundred to several thousand years, depending on its strength and its make-up. We can't make machines that work forever simply because of friction and the law of conservation of energy.

[CrimCheeto]

not true, magnitism is due to stationary electrons which vibrate eletric fields which vibrate magnetic fields, there electrons never leave it holds them in a state. And there is a partical suspected for the magnitism, it dosen't work by magic, somethings got to be there. Either way, perpetual motion, Spin something in space and it will spin forever unless tampered with, there's perpetual motion.

[cyborgtroy]

No, magnetism is due to orbiting electrons which generate a small electric circuit which produces a magnetic field.

There is no energy used, and no radiation emitted. And no photons or gravitons.

[frankensteinmoneymac]

I dont think that anyone ever means LITERALY perpetual.....No one truley would believe that......But rather something which is functionaly perpetual....If it works until it physically breaks...(which in the case of the magnet would mean when its molecules stop facing the same way in a couple hundred years or however long it takes).You seem to think that someone is suggesting it is LITERALY perpetual in the sense it would keep working till the end of time, and thats just silly!!

[LifesVoyager]

What 'particles' are you talking about?

[CrimCheeto]

gravitron or something similar, like i said, something is moving to cause the pull, its an elementary partical at play many suspect,. not just me.

[CrimCheeto]

yes, that is a very good point too, consevation of energy is theory, not fact. So you can't say because it breaks theory it cannot be true, its not wize to pull out that card, just look at the spinning object in spece, it defeats the conservation of energy, the amount of energy used to spin the object could never be equal to the object spinning forever, people forget that the rules of science tend to change from time to time.

[thefullmonte03]

Sorry man, not even close. Energy conservation is true always. Except on quantum mechanical scales, where energy doesn't have to be conserved over finite time intervals. That is, energy is not conserved temporarily. Eventually, usually on the order of nano seconds, the books have to be balanced and energy "loans" have to be repaid. Energy conservation is just a theory, like gravity is just a theory...

[frankensteinmoneymac]

The particles which make up the physical magnet.

[thefullmonte03]

Magnetic fields are always a result of moving charge. (except in the case of a magnetic field induced by a changing electric field.) Magnetism is a consequence of electron spin. Obviously not all materials are magnetic. What makes a material magnetic is when the magnetic dipole moments from the indvidual electrons are aligned. When I say spin, I don't mean orbiting the nucleus, I mean spinning on their axis like the Earth (this is only a classical mechanical analogy, not a literal description.)

[jimbooboo]

No one cares, he was just demonstrating to his son that you can pull a ball up hill with magnets. Read the description ..

[amandarandom89]

Pauli would disagree with you there. The electron's orbit of the nucleus is (depending on the arrangement) very important as well.

All you need to do is line up all the unpaired electron-holding atoms and you have quite the magnet, almost all based on orbit. IIRC, that's how most regular magnets are made.

[thefullmonte03]

The work done on any particle moving in a magnetic field along a closed path is 0. What you fail to appreciate is that he did work on the ball to get it to the magnet in the first place. This gave it magnetic potential energy which became kinetic energy. perpetual motion is not possible. I haven't ever seen an example that wasn't faulty in some way...

[patternsandstatic]

you could actually have this running in a contious circuit brilliant!!!! That would make a cool window attraction or something to leave round the house. Probably wouldn't last long though! But if you can do it i'd love to see it!

[LifesVoyager]

excellent - a 'machine' that produces no output but needs a human to keep feeding it balls. That about describes it: balls.

[djburke135]

Only a demo of a principle, no need for hostility.

[furzeham]

Nice one, further work explained in my latest vid, yet to be proven

[AdminOnDuty]

Nicely demonstrated. Especially educational is use of gravity to escape the field at the end. One of the pitfalls to using magnet power is the escape velocity of the final set. Progressive strength magnets can be arranged to accelerate the target, but at the end you will have such a large strength that more energy will be needed in removing the target from the field than would have been spent getting it there.

[only1duk]

nice one mate

magnetic energy is interesting

[djburke135]

Yes there is a slight tug as the magnets grab the ball but if you allign enough of these in a line that are powerful enough you should be able to get the ball to go up hill at a good angle and release it at the top. It would then roll down gaining speed (Kentic energy) to the bottom to be regrabbed and sent to the top.

Continuous motion?? There are always losses involved in these systems but it's interesting.

[ddanvos68]

You are storing up the energy when you place it in the track. Do you notice a slight tug when you put it in the track?