Perpetual Motion

[aman]

I've seen it named as Ununquadium and its hypothetical properties are part of the basis for "Star Gates" Naquadria.

The fact is we don't know anything yet of its properties other than it should be stable enough to exist for a time comparable to lower elements. It should be the first element past the unstable, short half-life elements and I look forward to enough being produced soon to be experimented on. It's fascinating stuff.

Just aman

[davef]

"All atoms eventually decay, though the process could take an exponential number of years. "

 

When atoms decay, what does that mean exactly. Does it mean that the matter they have becomes energy and the energy that held the thing together is released ad becomes free energy? Does that make sense?

[YT2095]

good question dude!

as far as I was concerned all matter stays as such but can be transformed, and the same applies to energy, there is the E=MC^2 special part that allows matter to become energy and vica verse. but as for an atom decaying eventualy? pass? )

[Guest PYRONOVA]

the perpetual energy thing is what i think to be somem that has just been overlooked and taken upon the wrong way. ppl are always tryin to create somem that uses less engy then it makes. y doesnt someone try to make somem that by using 2 forces makes one with an output is a "use less to do more" energy. For example: 1 kilowat of elctricity can jump start a car battery which doesnt uses more than that 1 kilowat but the battery eventually runs dead. Well if i am right a perepetual engery machine to jump start the car that used .5 kilowats of electricity and put out 1.5 kilowats. This would be suffient enought to send out energy as well as power it self. To make the electic engry u could use physical engry to supply a charge that can be harnessed and then u can keep a constant .5 surge going. But it would have to take a inital .5 surge or a 2 kilowat equivelnt of physical energy to start the thing up

[Skye]

You can't have an engine that uses 0.5 kW whilst producing 1.5 kW.

 

It's agin the Laws of Thermodynamics dagnammit.

[Sayonara]

I presume by "physical energy" he means some sort of dynamo arrangement (although I have no idea what "kickstarting a battery" might involve), in which case isn't he taking energy from outside the system?

[snpssaini]

You can't have an engine that uses 0.5 kW whilst producing 1.5 kW.

 

It's agin the Laws of Thermodynamics dagnammit.

 

ok

we can t have an engine that uses 0.5 kw .......

but i think there is no need of any engine or power consuming machine for producing power.

IT IS POSSIBLE TO MAKE A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE.

I don t know about its technical deffination.But it is very simple mechanism .It is a kind of overbalanced wheel. I am trying to make its prototype.wait for few days it will come with in one month.

[J'Dona]

IT IS POSSIBLE TO MAKE A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE.

I'm afraid you might get a very stiff response if you say things like that on the forums...

 

If it's so simple to make, then don't you think one of the millions of others in the past who've tried to build a perpetual motion machine would have found it?

[Dave]

I'm afraid you might get a very stiff response if you say things like that on the forums...

 

If it's so simple to make' date=' then don't you think one of the millions of others in the past who've tried to build a perpetual motion machine would have found it?[/quote']

 

Quite. All experimental evidence and all the existing theories point to it being impossible to create a perpetual motion device.

[swansont]

Quite. All experimental evidence and all the existing theories point to it being impossible to create a perpetual motion device.

 

You can state it a tad stronger than that. All conservation laws are equivalent to symmetries in the universe, by Noether's theorem (that's theorem, not theory; it's math without any conjecture) Conservation of energy is equivalent to time translation symmetry (this is not the same as time reversal, as in CPT). IOW, the laws of physics must change over time in order for energy not to be conserved.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

ok

we can t have an engine that uses 0.5 kw .......

but i think there is no need of any engine or power consuming machine for producing power.

IT IS POSSIBLE TO MAKE A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE.

I don t know about its technical deffination.But it is very simple mechanism .It is a kind of overbalanced wheel. I am trying to make its prototype.wait for few days it will come with in one month.

Overbalanced wheel? Don't you know that da Vinci tried that? It didn't work.

[snpssaini]

Overbalanced wheel? Don't you know that da Vinci tried that? It didn't work.

 

I don t know too much about their wheels . But i know about a simple mistake, made by them, in their wheels. if u correct it most of the wheels are workable.

It is so simple.

[Sayonara]

I suppose their mistake must have been when they allowed the wheel to operate within the laws of physics of this universe

[swansont]

I don t know too much about their wheels . But i know about a simple mistake' date=' made by them, in their wheels. if u correct it most of the wheels are workable.

It is so simple.[/quote']

 

As evidenced by the plethora of perpetual motion devices that are built these days. Suppressed by the evil oil companies, of course.

[Severian]

There is no problem in physics with 'perpetual motion'. Light from distant galaxies has been in 'perpetual motion' for billions of years to get to us. A particle in a parabolic potential well will oscillate backwards and forwards forever, exchanging kinetic and potential energy back and forth.

 

The problem is conservation of energy. Since energy is conserved, as soon as your system has any energy leak, it will lose energy and eventually run out of energy and stop. Since it is almost impossible to not lose energy, practical perpetual motion seems impossible. Even if it were possible it would not be useful for what people now think of when they say 'pertepual motion' - it would not provide a source of energy since if you start removing the energy the 'perpetual' motion will soon stop.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I believe a perpetual motion machine is supposed to produce more energy than it uses. And what is a "parabolic potential well"?

[Severian]

I would define perpetual motion as something which moves in perpetuity, but you are right that most people would define it as you say. I was maybe being a little facetious.

 

As for parabolic potential potential well: imagine a parabola, like the valley between two hills, and imagine letting a ball roll down one of the hills. It will speed up in its way down and roll up the other side. Now in my analogy, the ball will lose energy due to friction, air-restistance etc, so it will not move indefinitely, but one could imagine the idealised situalion where it would roll back and forth indefinitely.

[YT2095]

fine, if you ignore silly little annoyances such as Gravity as well, but that then begs the question of what would then make it roll downhill in the 1`st place DOH! (

[Sayonara]

Now in my analogy, the ball will lose energy due to friction, air-restistance etc, so it will not move indefinitely, but one could imagine the idealised situalion where it would roll back and forth indefinitely.

So in other words, "A particle in a parabolic potential well will not oscillate backwards and forwards forever, unless it's an imaginary scenario in which it does."

[Severian]

No - a particle in a parabolic potential well will oscillate backwards and forwards indefinitely. It was just that my analogy to explain it doesn't. My point was that it is not the motion itself which is the problem - it is the energy leak.

[Sayonara]

No - a particle in a parabolic potential well will[/b'] oscillate backwards and forwards indefinitely. It was just that my analogy to explain it doesn't. My point was that it is not the motion itself which is the problem - it is the energy leak.

No, I understood your point, I just can't think of any such leak-free scenario.

 

Can you give a real-world example?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

So how do you get it to go back and forth forever?

You need an imaginary situation to let it.

edit: oops, sayo beat me here

[swansont]

There is no problem in physics with 'perpetual motion'. Light from distant galaxies has been in 'perpetual motion' for billions of years to get to us. A particle in a parabolic potential well will oscillate backwards and forwards forever' date=' exchanging kinetic and potential energy back and forth.

 

The problem is [b']conservation of energy[/b]. Since energy is conserved, as soon as your system has any energy leak, it will lose energy and eventually run out of energy and stop. Since it is almost impossible to not lose energy, practical perpetual motion seems impossible. Even if it were possible it would not be useful for what people now think of when they say 'pertepual motion' - it would not provide a source of energy since if you start removing the energy the 'perpetual' motion will soon stop.

 

IOW, the second law of thermodynamics is a harsh mistress.

 

Hardly a news flash.

 

But snpssaini implied energy creation, and that it was a simple correction everybody else's wrong unbalanced wheel.

[YT2095]

no system thus far will even work AT unity, nevermind above it

 

a perpetual motion "Machine" is as of yet impossible, to extract energy FROM such a device is actualy humorous to say the very least

[drz]

I've always heard Perpetual motion machines defined as " a machine that once set in motion (implying someone/thing starts it) will stay in motion until such a time as parts wear out"

 

Anyhow, accepting that definition of a pm machine will allow you to view an atom as such, since it continues in motion until it wears out. Same with the universe, etc.

 

PM is a joke. Sure, you can play with magnets and get a shaft spinning, but try hooking up a generator to that shaft and draw current. You might get a little, but as the draw increases, it puts up more and more resitance to the rotation, eventually canceling out the spin.

 

Your overbalanced wheel is much to the same effect. In a gravity free enviroment, using frictionless (or near frictionless) bearings, you could possibly cause a wheel to spin for a incredible amount of time. But how do you plan on drawing energy from this thing? Turn a generator, maybe via gear and chain or belt and pulley? Perhaps a direct shaft mounted on the wheel?

 

It will bring the spinning motion of the wheel to a halt, if whatever provided the initial energy to spin the wheel up to begin with is removed. Sure, you might make a little power, but not enough to continue respinning the wheel, and, power a 2 bedroom house.

 

Anyhow, the attempts at PM using wheels weren't completly wastefull. Want to see a modern day version of a spinning wheel? Rip the engine out your car and check out the flywheel. The engine's purpose, basically, is to spin the flywheel up to speed. As you disengage the clutch, the flywheels rotation is transferred to the transmission, which, through various gear ratio's outputs to the wheels, and moves you down the road.

 

A pottery table is another example of a flywheel in action. A simple foot pedal spins it up to speed, allowing the person to work on the pottery. After a short time, the wheel must be sped up again. By the person molding the pottery, he/she is removing energy from the system, doing work, and slowly bringing the wheel to a halt.

 

So, it took me all that to say, even if you do get an overbalanced wheel (could you define this "overbalanced" thing) working and spinning, exactly how do plan to harness usefull work out of it?