MolecularMan14 Posted August 3, 2004 Posted August 3, 2004 Do you think that someone will somday come up with an actual perpetual motion machine? I like to think so...then again, I like to think that I will come up with one, one night while bouncing a super ball...but what do you think?
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted August 4, 2004 Posted August 4, 2004 It would defy physics as we know it. Perpetual motion machines either: Produce more energy than they use (violating the Law of Conservation of Energy) or convert heat COMPLETELY into other forms of energy, also violating laws of physics. These laws of physics have never been broken, as far as I know.
LucidDreamer Posted August 4, 2004 Posted August 4, 2004 A perpetual motion machine is pretty much a concept designed to never work based on our present understanding of physics. If you ever designed a machine that ran for almost forever people would argue that your just introducing outside energy and therefore you have not created a perpetual motion machine.
Ben_Phys618 Posted August 4, 2004 Posted August 4, 2004 Principle of Entropy: The total amount of energy present in the universe always tends towards a state of least usefulness. Every form of energy that we use ends up as heat energy or sound energy, neither of which are very useful. Electrical energy powers lights, which generate heat, chemical energy from burning wood generates heat. Eventually, every form of energy seems to be converted to heat or sound. So once all the energy runs out, our universe will be dead, but a little hotter. Although some cosmologists theorize quite intuitively that on the universal scale this extra heat will allow new stars to form, which will start the whole entropy process from scratch again. But, my point (if i have one) is that a perpetual motion machine defies this principle. Even if it is 99% efficient in running off its own produced power, it would in some way generate and radiate heat, or sound. And even it was kept in a completely Isothermic environment, so that no heat release was permitted, it would take a large amount of energy to regulate this environment: much more than would be obtained from the supposed machine.
rbp6 Posted August 4, 2004 Posted August 4, 2004 Your only bet as of now is vacuum energy and its sketchy at best at what could be done with it.
[Tycho?] Posted August 4, 2004 Posted August 4, 2004 really...why's that? It violates several laws of physics which have been very well established. And just intuitively it doesn't seem like one would be able to work.
Sayonara Posted August 4, 2004 Posted August 4, 2004 I voted "no", on the assumption you mean a perpetual motion machine that (a) works, and (b) puts out usable energy.
pulkit Posted August 4, 2004 Posted August 4, 2004 2nd Law of thermodynamics says that it is impossible to convert heat into work with 100% efficiency (A fancy way of saying that the total entropy of the universe is increasing). If that is impossible so is a perpetual motion machine.
Phi for All Posted August 12, 2004 Posted August 12, 2004 A perpetual motion machine is pretty much a concept designed to never work based on our present understanding of physics. If you ever designed a machine that ran for almost forever people would argue that your just introducing outside energy and therefore you have not created a perpetual motion machine.I agree with LucidDreamer. While I believe there are other energy sources which we are not capable of understanding at present, if you used such energy for perpetual motion it would be argued that you violated the concept.
MolecularMan14 Posted October 7, 2004 Author Posted October 7, 2004 well, ive often thought about this one. And the only real disad to this would be friction and force needed. Ok, you have a generator attached to a large gear. The large gear spins slowly, and is attached to a small gear. Since the small gear is connected to the slow moving large gear, it spins faster. The small gear is attached to the generator and is powering it. Since the fast moving, small gear is powering the generator, and the generator is powering the slow moving large gear, where would the energy loss take place?
YT2095 Posted October 7, 2004 Posted October 7, 2004 perpetual motion is not possible fullstop, not least of all being that it violates almost every single law of thermodynamics edit: and even I know that and am not even qualified in the field of Physics. (where is a Physics moderator when you need one!?) LOL )
swansont Posted October 7, 2004 Posted October 7, 2004 well' date=' ive often thought about this one. And the only real disad to this would be friction and force needed.Ok, you have a generator attached to a large gear. The large gear spins slowly, and is attached to a small gear. Since the small gear is connected to the slow moving large gear, it spins faster. The small gear is attached to the generator and is powering it. Since the fast moving, small gear is powering the generator, and the generator is powering the slow moving large gear, where would the energy loss take place?[/quote'] "Spinning faster" doesn't mean "has more energy" since the radius is different. Rotational KE is 1/2 I w2, but I goes as r2. So guess what - they end up at unity, barring losses. Energy loss at the gear interface, and inside the motor and the generator. To the surprise of almost nobody, you end up with less than 100% efficiency.
RICHARDBATTY Posted October 7, 2004 Posted October 7, 2004 The closest you can get is an all permanent magnet motor but thats not perpetual as the magnets supply the force and required energy to be imparted to generate the force.
MolecularMan14 Posted October 8, 2004 Author Posted October 8, 2004 yea i figured that there would be an energy loss. Its a shame there's no such thing as a perfect conductor either. If not for friction, I would have a load of other useless perpetual motion ideas too. (Not that perpetual motion would be useless, but my ideas would have no practical use )
Guest mysteryturtle Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 Physics; Pertpetual motion is impossible. Cosmology;The universe is in constant motion. Cancel out common denominators... The universe is impossible ! Mystery --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Seems like the concepts are confused in this thread, Perpetual motion only indicates motion that is perpetual. There is no excess "perpetual energy" able to be extracted from a Perpetual motion system. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- What is being discussed there; is commonly referred to as Zero point, and supposedly there is an excess of energy in such a system. But these are two separate subjects and should not be confused. Mystery
philbo1965uk Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 carefull....when you use a physics example to contradict physics they dont like it and remove your post.
5614 Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 that is not true philbo, im not an admin and have not removed any of your posts, however you have said things which directly contradict pyshics without any proof, Physics; Pertpetual motion is impossible.Cosmology;The universe is in constant motion. physics: agreed cosmology: the universe is everything, one everlasting or infinite area (if you do not agree with that go to another thread, that is what we as humans as a whole believe). therefore it cannot move, because it would be moving into something else - which would also be the universe. also, just a related grammar thing, you cannot have more than one universe because universe means one: UNIverse, you can however have several multi-verses Q) are planets proof of perpetual motion??? A) i have never though about this and would like to post this as the way forward for the thread. would a planet ever stop? even if it did escape the gravitational field of the thing it orbitted, why would it stop? are planets proof of perpetual motion???
swansont Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 carefull....when you use a physics example to contradict physics they dont like it and remove your post. Have you used an actual physics example anywhere?
Sayonara Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 He may have done in the argument with Aeschylus. Frankly it didn't matter what was in those posts, or the intervening responses from other members - the obscenities and expletives guaranteed their fate.
drz Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 planets are not perpetual. I thought this once myself, but someone informed me planets work off angular momentum. Basically, after enough time the planets will either orbit far enough away to break the gravitational hold the sun has on them, or will be drawn into it. But one way or another, the planets will eventually quit moving.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now