Dumb question...my brain is not on tap with it though...

[iomegaman]

Ok...suppose you have a power source...lets just make up some numbers lets say 24 volts...

You take that power source and your drive a generator...you will obviously have some serious energy transfer loss...

So the coils of the generator "regenerate" the power back to some voltage...

Now lets say that instead of 1-2 coils in your generator you have 10x or more...

And lets pretend that in spite of the larger magnets being a HUGE loss inside the coil you were able to eliminate a high degree of the friction/drag/whatever...

Why is it not possible to generate MORE voltage than you use? Yes I get the Newtons law argument but is this law based on something other than friction/gravity/etc...what happens if you do this in space or a vacuum or some place where the elements affecting it don't have as much affect?

What am I missing here?

 

[PRR]

BTW, instead of more turns you can just spin a generator faster to raise the voltage. (Within limits: the coils fly off at some RPM, but we leave that to the mechanical guys.)

> instead of 1-2 coils in your generator you have 10x or more...

Higher voltage for the same turning effort implies lower current.

Put a crank on a 24V dynamo, crank it to the RPM which gives 24V. Un-loaded it turns easy. Load it to 10 Amperes, it will turn hard. (This is almost 1/3 horse-power, more than you can sustain.)

Now get a 240V dynamo, turning the RPM that makes 240V. And now load it to 1 Ampere. It will take the same work on the crank, 24V @ 10A or 240V @ 1A.

The losses in a 1/3rd HP dynamo -or- motor will be at least 10%. (Which means you will have to crank at 0.366 horsepower to get 0.333 HP of power to an electric load.)

OTOH, use your 1/3 HP arm to turn the dynamo, get 0.3 HP of electricity. Put that to a motor, get 0.27 HP of mechanical power out. 0.333HP in to get 0.27 HP out.

Thousands of clever people have thought-up perpetual motion systems. There may not be an absolute law against it. However the empirical fact is that there is NO free lunch, and you always get less lunch than you paid for.

You may point to the earth around the sun and similar celestial long-running motions. These too will run-down eventually. Bigger systems have more stored energy and tend to run-down slower, beyond our limited time-scale. A sea-tide generator, powered by the moon's orbit around the earth, is not truly perpetual, but is perpetual enough for me and all my children. (And will surely rust-out before the moon spirals into the earth.)

 

[gyraf]

(Edit: Already answered while I was typing)

It's no problem getting higher voltages - but you at the same time you get lower current, keeping power (V*A) the same, minus loss.

The simple and most loss-less way to do this is in a transformer - converting input power to a magnetic field, that in turn induces/generates power in an output winding. Turns ratio will determine the output voltage, and output voltage will determine the available output current at given input power.

But there's never more power coming out than going in - there's always a loss.

Jakob E.

 

[iomegaman]

SO the issue is really about magnetism as much as anything, ie: higher current=lower voltage or vice versa...

In other words it's the magnetic fields that have set the limits not the friction/gravity issue...make sense...I know the law of conservation blah blah blah but was missing where it actually took place...

If we ever crack the magnetism thing into something less oblique I'm sure we will see why this is...

 

[sahib]

............................
Thousands of clever people have thought-up perpetual motion systems. There may not be an absolute law against it. However the empirical fact is that there is NO free lunch, and you always get less lunch than you paid for.
............................

Two years ago I was approached by an indeed very clever gentleman to build a prototype of his design.  He would not tell me what it was at the beginning and would only supply me information in stages. Estimated commission value was around £30K. After spending the first £5K I realised that it was a perpetual motion machine and I told him I could not continue as I would knowingly let him waste his money. Thankfully he agreed.

As the (Turkish) expression goes, you will be chewing up a lot of tree for a drop of sap.

 

[joaquins]

...
Thousands of clever people have thought-up perpetual motion systems. There may not be an absolute law against it. However the empirical fact is that there is NO free lunch, and you always get less lunch than you paid for.

You may point to the earth around the sun and similar celestial long-running motions. These too will run-down eventually. Bigger systems have more stored energy and tend to run-down slower, beyond our limited time-scale. A sea-tide generator, powered by the moon's orbit around the earth, is not truly perpetual, but is perpetual enough for me and all my children. (And will surely rust-out before the moon spirals into the earth.)

PRR, there is a physical law against it!!! Maybe is time get your thermodynamic books the dust out...

About the original question, Conservation of energy is about energy, not voltage, voltage has nothing to do with energy (ok, it does) They are different things, you could have very different voltages with the same amount of energy (is exactly what happens in a transformer, plus some heat in the core and windings) But you can get in with a few volts and get out with a lot of volts, not violating the conservation of energy  8)

The thing is, you can generate more voltage, you can't generate more energy.

I can put a lot of examples here, turbo charger in cars makes it generate more power but using more fuel, it allows the engine to burn more fuel in the same volume. Atomic energy seems to be the case but you are using energy from the atom, you have to heat it a bit before it starts, but once it starts you get more energy out of it than you initially put in, but you put the atoms in there and they had the energy stored inside, so technically you aren't getting more energy than you put in.

JS

 

[sahib]

...
Thousands of clever people have thought-up perpetual motion systems. There may not be an absolute law against it. However the empirical fact is that there is NO free lunch, and you always get less lunch than you paid for.

PRR, there is a physical law against it!!! Maybe is time get your thermodynamic books the dust out...

Joaquins,


Would you be able to describe the law in simple terms?

I can not disclose my client's design but the solution to the problem is to provide a mechanism to overcome the dead spot in a  rotor/stator set-up  that utilises the push-pull action of a set of permanent magnets.  My point to the client was that even if we got it working what would he do with it. There are cheaper ways of lighting up an LED.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Friction...

JR

 

[sahib]

John,

Before I respond to that I'll just make sure that we are  talking about the same thing.

As far as I understand the perpetual motion guys do not claim that the lunch does not cost anything. They are just trying to find a way of not paying the bill by means of capitalising on the push-pull action of permanent magnets (though there are other ways too).

If we agree on that then I do not see why the law of friction would be in the way.

 

[joaquins]

... quote of quote of quote... (inside a quote)
Joaquins,


Would you be able to describe the law in simple terms?

I can not disclose my client's design but the solution to the problem is to provide a mechanism to overcome the dead spot in a  rotor/stator set-up  that utilises the push-pull action of a set of permanent magnets.  My point to the client was that even if we got it working what would he do with it. There are cheaper ways of lighting up an LED.

There are 4 laws of thermodynamics,
  The law 0 is quite obvious and useless in our case, if a A is at the same temp than B and B is at the same temp than C, then A is at the same temp than B.
  The law 1 is conservation of energy, the energy of a closed system remains constant, or the sum of energies going in and out of an open system is equal to 0.
  The law 2 is about entropy, a system always goes in the direction of a higher entropy, for example the heat always goes from the place of higher temperature to the lower temperature.
  The law 3 says you can't get to absolute 0 in a finite number of stages, or at 0 ºK entropy gets minimum and constant, or some other ways of describing it.

The thing is that in your system you can't create energy, you could be just converting what you put to start with. In any thermal machine the heats goes from hotter to colder to produce work (or takes work to get the heat going in the other direction). You are supposed to take work from your machine (in the form of a flow of electrons to turn on an LED). The energy you put into the system is the hot end, the higher temperature, the remaining energy is the cold end, the lower temperature. You can't get the energy of a colder side unless you have an even colder side which will be your new colder side. This remaining energy gives the limitation to the efficiency of the machine (hot and cold are not necessary temps but states of different entropy).

You could use a peltier capsule, use a can with hot water and a can with cold water at each side and you turn on an LED with it, this is a quite explicit, if the cold water is at 0ºK and remains there all the process you get all the energy from the hot can. In the real world the difference in temp between the two cans will limit the energy you can take from it (considering the capsule can manage that and doesn't lost any power). You could get water from a higher altitude and drop it to a lower altitude and get the energy from it (hydroelectric power station) but the energy you get from it is limited by the difference in altitude of the water at each side of the station.

Let's go back to the internal combustion energy and the turbocharger as an example. You start with the hot end (air at ambient temperature and fuel) and end with the cold end (exhaust air, such is quite hot, the residues of the combustion, as CO2, H2O, etc. and some extra heat in the motor going out thanks to the cooling system) The energy you took out from the reaction is the energy of burning the fuel less the heat you put into the air at the exhaust and the cooling system.
Note that colder air at the intake is more dense so you can burn more fuel and the cooling system works better so the exhaust gases are colder, overall efficiency doesn't change much but the motor can produce more HP.

Adding a turbocharger makes it use some of the lost energy at the exhaust changing the hot low-pressure fast air to slower colder higher pressure at the output of the turbo. This energy could be used for what you want, the idea here is to use it as a charger, putting higher pressure air at the intake to be able to burn more fuel, then more HP. Intercooler makes intake air cooler, more dense, more fuel, more HP. The only efficiency you are winning from it is the one recovered from the exhaust gases but isn't used as direct output but to allow the motor to burn more fuel. You get a bit better efficiency but not too much. You do get more fun HP driving it!

Hope it helps, it can't be done, not with vacuum or unobtanium bearings and virgin sweat as lube. It's physics and that's why in most places is not allowed to patent perpetual motion machines, to protect the creator (ASSumed not so brilliant with good reasons) from himself of wasting money in something physics says it can't be done. I think sahib approach was quite appropriate. There is nothing wrong with trying to get a better efficiency generator, there are quite a few things GRONW in trying to create a perpetual motion machine.

JS

 

[sahib]

Thank you for that.

Still I don't see any connection to a (proposed/claimed) rotating machine that capitalises on the push-pull action of permanent magnets. Are you saying this can not be done?

Otherwise as said before there is no dispute that the lunch is not free.

 

[JohnRoberts]

John,

Before I respond to that I'll just make sure that we are  talking about the same thing.

As far as I understand the perpetual motion guys do not claim that the lunch does not cost anything. They are just trying to find a way of not paying the bill by means of capitalising on the push-pull action of permanent magnets (though there are other ways too).

If we agree on that then I do not see why the law of friction would be in the way.

Permanent magnets are not permanent. Extracting work from the magnetic field will degrade the magnet. It's just a bunch of magnetic domains pointing in one direction. Push against them long and hard enough and they will move. 

It is useful to milk the last drop of efficiency out of machinery, but "perpetual motion" is just code for "I do not understand science".  (we have a lot of people like that in politics, but they don't understand economics either).

JR

 

[joaquins]

Thank you for that.

Still I don't see any connection to a (proposed/claimed) rotating machine that capitalises on the push-pull action of permanent magnets. Are you saying this can not be done?

Otherwise as said before there is no dispute that the lunch is not free.

This sound as a discussion I had about electric cars, rough topic nowadays, people without thermodynamics knowledge fights or fails to understand. In my country most electricity is generated by thermic stations (burning fuel). If you use an electric car most of that energy will sill be generated burning fuel, so burning it in a big plant and using it in a car or burning it in the car directly doesn't make much sense, does it? Plus, you add the energetic and environmental cost of producing an electric car (biggest difference is in the battery pack) and you will end losing in the comparison, ending in the conclusion that internal combustion engines are cleaner and more efficient. (KERS is a good thing, but needs smaller batteries and no extra combustion to charge them, or mechanical KERS which needs no batteries but a flying wheel spinning quite fast as LeMans cars IIRC)

The magnets has "all" their electrons turning around in the same direction, that's a low entropy state, a more natural state will be half of them rotating in each direction so the magnetic field is null. When you put a permanent magnet you are putting low entropy expecting to get higher entropy after the machine produced some work, then the magnets will demagnetize. For that we are fine, nothing wrong with that, you could potentially get the machine to turn on an LED. The thing is that in order to get that stone a permanent magnetic field around and lower it's entropy you needed to increase the entropy of something else for at least the same amount, or a bit more if you didn't had a spare 0ºK infinite source laying around. This mean you used energy, most probably from the mains network. in making the permanent magnet you lose some energy and some more using it to generate electricity again. The company who made the magnet will charge you for the energy they used (not the one inside the magnet, all of it) and the material which it's made, plus some men's time and probably some profit. Then you will loss some time to make it work and some energy which is in the magnet and doesn't end in the LED.

The thing is, if you can buy the electricity directly will be cheaper and more efficient. Maybe you are in a boat in the middle of nowhere and you can't buy it in which case makes sense to have some stored energy, usually chemistry makes this better than magnetism (more efficient, compact, less weight and less moving parts) Or you could take a mechanism to take some energy from the environment like a small wind mill or solar panels. In that last case you don't need to carry the energy but a device to take it from the environment, you don't get a finite amount of energy (like in a battery) but you depend on external sources (pretty useless windmill without wind or solar panel at night) So in this cases the most usual approach is to take a bit of both, a battery to store the energy and a way of taking it from the environment, you get "infinite" energy and you have it available all the time.

The thing is, there's no free lunch, so the more direct path between the original energy source and the LED the cheaper to turn it on.

JS

 

[sahib]

John,

I am completely aware of the nature of permanent magnets, but nevertheless they are referred to as permanent magnets.
I also do not have any objection to the use of perpetual motion. Does not really matter.  But your comment of them not understanding the science is I think a bit premature.  However, certainly the point  they miss is that there is no economic advantage from a such system.

My client certainly came up with a plausible solution. My problem with it was not whether his solution would work or not.  It was  just not worth  spending £30K on something that is not much of practical use.

Joaquins,

I have just read your post while writing mine.  I agree and that is why I said there are cheaper ways of lighting up an LED. However, I'll finish  with this joke which sums up my view on this issue.

The sultan is told that there is this guy in town who would like to demonstrate for his entertainment that he can throw a bit of thread through the eye of a needle  from ten yards  .  The sultan says, yeah bring him over. The guy comes up and right enough takes aim from ten yards, throws a bit of thread straight through the eye of the needle. The sultan turns to his aid and says " give him hundred golden lira and hundred lashes on the back ".  The guy asks why the golden lira and why the lashes. The sultan says " golden lira is for your talent and the lashes are for wasting your talent on a f***g useless thing like this".

 

[JohnRoberts]

John,

I am completely aware of the nature of permanent magnets, but nevertheless they are referred to as permanent magnets.

Sorry I don't mean to be pedantic,,, Yes they are called permanent magnets because they are far more persistent than electro-magnets.  For many applications they appear permanent because they survive long past the life of the device used in.

In the context of perpetual motion we need to be more careful about all definitions. Does "perpetual motion" mean runs for a long time, or runs forever? 

I also do not have any objection to the use of perpetual motion. Does not really matter.  But your comment of them not understanding the science is I think a bit premature.  However, certainly the point  they miss is that there is no economic advantage from a such system.

My point is that there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine that will run forever without a power source adding energy to make up for losses.

My client certainly came up with a plausible solution. My problem with it was not whether his solution would work or not.  It was  just not worth  spending £30K on something that is not much of practical use.

I applaud you for that.

Joaquins,

I have just read your post while writing mine.  I agree and that is why I said there are cheaper ways of lighting up an LED. However, I'll finish  with this joke which sums up my view on this issue.

The sultan is told that there is this guy in town who would like to demonstrate for his entertainment that he can throw a bit of thread through the eye of a needle  from ten yards  .  The sultan says, yeah bring him over. The guy comes up and right enough takes aim from ten yards, throws a bit of thread straight through the eye of the needle. The sultan turns to his aid and says " give him hundred golden lira and hundred lashes on the back ".  The guy asks why the golden lira and why the lashes. The sultan says " golden lira is for your talent and the lashes are for wasting your talent on a f***g useless thing like this".

Yup... We've all met people like that...  Well not exactly like that.

JR

 

[Matt Nolan]

This sound as a discussion I had about electric cars, rough topic nowadays, people without thermodynamics knowledge fights or fails to understand. In my country most electricity is generated by thermic stations (burning fuel). If you use an electric car most of that energy will sill be generated burning fuel, so burning it in a big plant and using it in a car or burning it in the car directly doesn't make much sense, does it? Plus, you add the energetic and environmental cost of producing an electric car (biggest difference is in the battery pack) and you will end losing in the comparison, ending in the conclusion that internal combustion engines are cleaner and more efficient.

That's not necessarily the case.

In a combustion engine car, the efficiency is only optimal at one particular RPM - it usually corresponds to 50mph (80kmph) or so in top gear. At slower or higher speeds than this, the car is much less efficient. When accelerating, the car is really inefficient, and the emissions are worst.

A modern electric motor, however, operates at good efficiency over a much much wider range of RPMs / speeds. 50mph  - good, faster - still good, slower - still good, accelerating - still good. And then you get the bonus of KERS on top of that.

A power generation station, even one that burns fossil fuels, is always run at top efficiency - the turbines always go the same speed, everything is tuned to work optimally there. Furthermore, things are generally more efficient at larger scales. The power station can be tuned for both efficiency and emissions. What emissions there are have more chance of being cleaned or captured at one large central point, though there's more work to be done here.

So, as long as the distribution network isn't too lossy, and the efficiency of the battery systems in the car is good enough, the electric car can be less polluting than the combustion car, even taking into account combustion generated power for the electric car. And then, you have the option of non-combustion electricity generation on top of that, making things better still.


As for perpetual motion machines - in theory, you could actually make something that kept moving forever - or certainly for the lifetime of the atoms that make it. But, you couldn't *do* anything with it. If you tried to use it to power something or to move something then you are pulling energy out and thus slowing it down. You couldn't even look at it without causing a disturbance.

 

[joaquins]

This sound as a discussion I had about electric cars, rough topic nowadays, people without thermodynamics knowledge fights or fails to understand. In my country most electricity is generated by thermic stations (burning fuel). If you use an electric car most of that energy will sill be generated burning fuel, so burning it in a big plant and using it in a car or burning it in the car directly doesn't make much sense, does it? Plus, you add the energetic and environmental cost of producing an electric car (biggest difference is in the battery pack) and you will end losing in the comparison, ending in the conclusion that internal combustion engines are cleaner and more efficient.

That's not necessarily the case.

In a combustion engine car, the efficiency is only optimal at one particular RPM - it usually corresponds to 50mph (80kmph) or so in top gear. At slower or higher speeds than this, the car is much less efficient. When accelerating, the car is really inefficient, and the emissions are worst.

A modern electric motor, however, operates at good efficiency over a much much wider range of RPMs / speeds. 50mph  - good, faster - still good, slower - still good, accelerating - still good. And then you get the bonus of KERS on top of that.

A power generation station, even one that burns fossil fuels, is always run at top efficiency - the turbines always go the same speed, everything is tuned to work optimally there. Furthermore, things are generally more efficient at larger scales. The power station can be tuned for both efficiency and emissions. What emissions there are have more chance of being cleaned or captured at one large central point, though there's more work to be done here.

So, as long as the distribution network isn't too lossy, and the efficiency of the battery systems in the car is good enough, the electric car can be less polluting than the combustion car, even taking into account combustion generated power for the electric car. And then, you have the option of non-combustion electricity generation on top of that, making things better still.


As for perpetual motion machines - in theory, you could actually make something that kept moving forever - or certainly for the lifetime of the atoms that make it. But, you couldn't *do* anything with it. If you tried to use it to power something or to move something then you are pulling energy out and thus slowing it down. You couldn't even look at it without causing a disturbance.

You are not taking into account the battery pack which making it and disposing it once it's death is a quite contaminant and energy expensive. Also it's weight reduces the efficiency of the car. I know the efficiency of the big plants is better than a car motor, still I think here, in this country, with mostly fossil fuel energy and very long distribution systems, plus a few other facts added on top of that still is not even close of a clear win for electric cars. The efficiency of electric cars isn't as good as high speeds either, plus a BIG disadvantage of practicality, I have to make a 10' fuel stop at least each 800km, using 6 L/100km 50L tank at 140km/h, I guess I could take that to 1000km (on the limit going at lower speeds). In an electric car you need a few hours to charge it in less than 200km usually, which would make a >200km trip quite long. I make a 400km travel each month in average and another ~200km+some city in a day away from home or any point to leave the car charging, just this would make the car useless for me. For daily use going to work at <50km could be good enough, but certainly not the perfect solution. Hibrid cars with an internal combustion engine to charge the battery at it's optimal load and revs, plus an electric motor and kers does makes much more sense, plus you have both motors for when you want to have fun, which I don't think it should be ignored, traveling by train or any public transport would be much more efficient than any personal car solution if everything is about efficiency, also usually cheaper and some times even faster. Once you got to the station you take a cab for the few next blocks and you don't even need to worry about parking or maintenance.

Perpetual motion can't be archived, please don't get into that, I guess in this forum we respect the laws of physics as they are. Of course even less take out energy to turn on a light from it.

JS

 

[JohnRoberts]

This sound as a discussion I had about electric cars, rough topic nowadays, people without thermodynamics knowledge fights or fails to understand. In my country most electricity is generated by thermic stations (burning fuel). If you use an electric car most of that energy will sill be generated burning fuel, so burning it in a big plant and using it in a car or burning it in the car directly doesn't make much sense, does it? Plus, you add the energetic and environmental cost of producing an electric car (biggest difference is in the battery pack) and you will end losing in the comparison, ending in the conclusion that internal combustion engines are cleaner and more efficient.

That's not necessarily the case.

In a combustion engine car, the efficiency is only optimal at one particular RPM - it usually corresponds to 50mph (80kmph) or so in top gear. At slower or higher speeds than this, the car is much less efficient. When accelerating, the car is really inefficient, and the emissions are worst.

mostly

A modern electric motor, however, operates at good efficiency over a much much wider range of RPMs / speeds. 50mph  - good, faster - still good, slower - still good, accelerating - still good. And then you get the bonus of KERS on top of that.

KERS? I had to google that. Yes that makes an advantage for stop and go city driving (or formula 1 with lots of curves). Coincidentally I recall talking about regenerative braking back in the late '60s /early '70s (probably saw it in pop science magazine). 

A power generation station, even one that burns fossil fuels, is always run at top efficiency - the turbines always go the same speed, everything is tuned to work optimally there. Furthermore, things are generally more efficient at larger scales. The power station can be tuned for both efficiency and emissions. What emissions there are have more chance of being cleaned or captured at one large central point, though there's more work to be done here.

Yup, i'm struggling as a customer of a new  "clean coal" (oxymoron?) power plant, built with not yet perfected state of the art technology... I sure hope they get it working soon. The bills have increased already,

So, as long as the distribution network isn't too lossy, and the efficiency of the battery systems in the car is good enough, the electric car can be less polluting than the combustion car, even taking into account combustion generated power for the electric car. And then, you have the option of non-combustion electricity generation on top of that, making things better still.

My old gasoline powered car still starts and runs some 18 years after manufacture. I've had to replace the starting battery a couple times. With an EV replacing the battery is more significant.

I haven't been a fan of EV for wider use, and suspect without the government subsidies they would still be dead in water over a hundred years after they were invented.

What I think makes some sense for densely populated areas is power transmission via the road surface, so the EV doesn't need much of a battery.  KERS could dump excess energy back to the road.

Of course maybe somebody will invent a battery that doesn't suck, but they have thrown big dollars and some of the smartest guys in the room at that problem, and after decades this is where we still are.  I can just hear some suit 30 years ago saying don't worry about the battery, they'll invent something spectacular. 

As for perpetual motion machines - in theory, you could actually make something that kept moving forever - or certainly for the lifetime of the atoms that make it.

yes atomic decay.... 

The promise of perpetual motion is something for nothing . There is no free lunch in this universe.  AFAIK

JR .

But, you couldn't *do* anything with it. If you tried to use it to power something or to move something then you are pulling energy out and thus slowing it down. You couldn't even look at it without causing a disturbance.

 

[PRR]

Gentlebeings--

The OP's question is not Perpetual Motion (I should not have brought that in).

He wants to know why a machine can't OUTPUT more "juice" than you put in. Perpetual Motion *with a surplus*.

Accounting only for voltage is only half of POWER. Sure you can lever voltage up or down. The point he had not integrated is the the current levers the other way. Total power is, ideally, unchanged.

 

[Matt Nolan]

You are not taking into account the battery pack...
...

Perpetual motion can't be archived, please don't get into that, I guess in this forum we respect the laws of physics as they are. Of course even less take out energy to turn on a light from it.

JS

I'm niether pro nor against electric vehicles. I just like to make sure all avenues are highlighted in an argument. There is some hope though if, for example, graphene supercapacitors exceed the energy density of Lithium Ion batteries in a few years time. Then you'd have smaller, lighter, more efficient batteries that you could charge very rapidly indeed and they'd have no disposal pollution issues at end of life. The question I guess it how cheaply / energy efficiently could they be produced in the first place.

As for a perpetual motion machine, I said "in theory" and I meant literally a thing in perpetual motion / dynamic equilibrium, not a perpetual energy source. It would be utterly pointless though and impossible in practice. It would have to be totally sheilded from all particle rays and gravity fields. You'd have to stick it at some deep space Lagrange point to solve the gravity issue but, even then, the universe is dynamic, so it wouldn't remain a Lagrange point forever. Furthermore, particles would push on the sheilding case in a non-uniform manner, and over time it would drift or rotate so, yes, it is impossible in practice.

It is good to stay open minded, science progresses faster that way. But not so open minded that your brain falls out of your head