The concept that perpetual motion or perpetual energy is not possible is a lie!

[ajb]

Yes they are doing work, they are in motion, how can you define motion has not work.

Think about it carefully. A planet after one full orbit is in exactly the same position and velocity as when it started that orbit. The kinetic energy and the gravitational potential energy are the same. There is no change in energy.

[Relative]

Here we go again. Posts upon posts explaining advanced physics from different angles while the basics are not yet understood...

2 equal masses, on an x axis been vertical, been balanced of an equilibrium of weight, A been at 0 degrees, and B been at 180 degrees, increase the mass of A by thermodynamics and A gains more mass.

Think about it carefully. A planet after one full orbit is in exactly the same position and velocity as when it started that orbit. The kinetic energy and the gravitational potential energy are the same. There is no change in energy.

Maybe my definition of perpetual is off?

[studiot]

 

The planets do work, opposite reaction to action,

 

 

Do work on what?

[Strange]

I have an idea of a machine that should in concept, be perpetual motion, however, the machine would harvest external energies ,

 

from the Universe, to make it work somehow.

 

Then it is not what is commonly known as a "perpetual motion machine" as it has a source of (external) energy.

 

For example, this will spin indefinitely as long as there is a source of light:

[Fuzzwood]

2 equal masses, on an x axis been vertical, been balanced of an equilibrium of weight, A been at 0 degrees, and B been at 180 degrees, increase the mass of A by thermodynamics and A gains more mass.

What? I see only a word salad. The fact that something is moving, does not mean it is doing any work. If things slow down or speed up (ie. acceleration) THEN there is work being done.

 

And yes planets slow marginally down by things like tidal forces, space being not completely empty, etc.

Edited September 27, 2014 by Fuzzwood

[Ten oz]

My evidence I offer, the design and motion of the Universe.

 

I like your example. A major force in the universe is gravity. We know that gravity creates tides in our oceans, make our whole planet orbit the sun, but we do not have an efficient means of utilizing gravity in the production of electricity. Sure, hydroelectric uses gravity's effect on water but that is a single shot. Once the water is at a lower level it requires energy to move it back up to a higher level. No perpetual motion there. However if gravity could be manipulated, partially shielded so to vary its strength, in combination with magnetism a lot of very interesting things might become possible. something like a perpetual hydroelectric loop could be made. Gravity directs tank water down a tube through a turbine on one end then into a series of smaller tubing with no gravity where the water is directed back up to the tank where there is gravity.

 

I have no idea how that would be accomplished though. All matter has gravity so perhaps it simple isn't possible to influence gravity's effect on mass within any giving area with mass. Just seems to me that if perpetual energy were to be achieved gravity would need to play a role.

[Klaynos]

 

The planets do work, opposite reaction to action,

Can you please define, carefully what you understand to mean by work in this context.

[physica]

oh my god relative. Have you not learnt??!!!! You failed to get your head round a block sliding down a slope so you've gone back to thinking about how the universe is proof of perceptual motion???!!!!

[Relative]

Can you please define, carefully what you understand to mean by work in this context.

I believe your definition would have the planets rolling around a spiral falling, the curvature of time and space?.

 

I would have to redefine gravity with my explanation, which involves thermodynamics and equilibrium's. So to be honest I am best not answering the question, it will take us of topic.

I like your example. A major force in the universe is gravity. We know that gravity creates tides in our oceans, make our whole planet orbit the sun, but we do not have an efficient means of utilizing gravity in the production of electricity. Sure, hydroelectric uses gravity's effect on water but that is a single shot. Once the water is at a lower level it requires energy to move it back up to a higher level. No perpetual motion there. However if gravity could be manipulated, partially shielded so to vary its strength, in combination with magnetism a lot of very interesting things might become possible. something like a perpetual hydroelectric loop could be made. Gravity directs tank water down a tube through a turbine on one end then into a series of smaller tubing with no gravity where the water is directed back up to the tank where there is gravity.

 

I have no idea how that would be accomplished though. All matter has gravity so perhaps it simple isn't possible to influence gravity's effect on mass within any giving area with mass. Just seems to me that if perpetual energy were to be achieved gravity would need to play a role.

I like your thinking, we should be able to utilize something, my thinking is that two metal/iron , pyramids, with a bar splitting them up, both of equal mass, peak points facing each other, 0 degrees and 180 degrees, respectively looking like a vertical dumb bell except with pyramids.

 

 

We know that by adding energy to either pyramid, the thermodynamics will increase the mass potential,

 

 

If we increase the thermodynamics of the pyramid at 0 degrees, the mass will make the pyramid heavier and it will swing down forcing the 180 degrees now lighter pyramid to rise. Then repeat, and repeat.

 

 

Heat rises, and radiation is higher at altitude, and that is where I am at with my idea.

 

S=entropy

 

E=energy

 

 

more likely this way around.

 

 

The thermodynamics of the one in the sun making more mass, making motion by gravity,

North and west points of energy gain needed to maintain momentum.

West and south in the dark, protective cover from heat/energy of the sun.

If this is not classed has perpetual motion?

 

what is it?

[Strange]

 

If this is not classed has perpetual motion?

 

what is it?

 

It is an engine driven by solar power (see post 29, for example).

 

(Note that I have no idea how it is supposed to work or whether it would actually work. But you show the Sun as the source of input energy; therefore it is not "perpetual motion" in the accepted meaning of the term.)

[Relative]

 

It is an engine driven by solar power (see post 29, for example).

 

(Note that I have no idea how it is supposed to work or whether it would actually work. But you show the Sun as the source of input energy; therefore it is not "perpetual motion" in the accepted meaning of the term.)

The motion would be perpetual over time, at night the motion would only be suspended, and no solar panels involved, just thermodynamics and gravity. I suppose it is harnessing solar energy.

 

We add energy to a block of metal it gains weight , science told me, we may have to offset the bar , but in principle the north should go south by design of a pyramid, and a pyramid on its tip will always topple over.

 

Momentum then should lift the cooler pyramid with less mass, then the process should repeat.

[ajb]

Your device is not an example of a perpetual motion machine. You have said it yourself, 'we add energy to a block of metal...'. Your device (assuming it works) could be used to do work, but the ultimate source of the energy is the Sun. You have a solar powered device and not a perpetual motion machine.

Edited September 28, 2014 by ajb

[Relative]

Your device is not an example of a perpetual motion machine. You have said it yourself, 'we add energy to a block of metal...'. Your device (assuming it works) could be used to do work, but the ultimate source of the energy is the Sun. You have a solar powered device and not a perpetual motion machine.

I do see what you are saying, I will rephrase, my device would be perpetual over time, of the suns existence and the Earths existence, but not infinite unless the energy was infinite?

And we are not exactly adding energy, it is a natural event.

[Strange]

I do see what you are saying, I will rephrase, my device would be perpetual over time, of the suns existence and the Earths existence, but not infinite unless the energy was infinite?

 

This is true of any machine powered by an external energy source: it will runs as long as the energy source is there (and the materials do not break down, the bearings wear away, etc.).

[ajb]

And we are not exactly adding energy, it is a natural event.

You are allowing your device to be an open system and gain energy from the Sun.

 

So your machine may run indefinitely, say until the Sun dies, but this is still not considered to be a perpetual motion machine. You have not violated the laws of thermodynamics. (Again, forgetting details of if your device will actually work, I am just looking at the power source)

[Relative]

You are allowing your device to be an open system and gain energy from the Sun.

 

So your machine may run indefinitely, say until the Sun dies, but this is still not considered to be a perpetual motion machine. You have not violated the laws of thermodynamics. (Again, forgetting details of if your device will actually work, I am just looking at the power source)

Thank you, I think you may be correct and my idea of perpetual motion is not the same .

 

You think the power source would not be effective enough for the matter to gain mass?, maybe not in some countries, but a huge flat surface made of iron or equivalent, in a hot country would heat to a great temperature, especially if painted black?

[ajb]

You think the power source would not be effective enough for the matter to gain mass?, maybe not in some countries, but a huge flat surface made of iron or equivalent, in a hot country would heat to a great temperature, especially if painted black?

You should do a back of the envelope calculation. What is the mass difference per degree of iron? You could think about the specific heat capacity of iron and equate the heat to E= mc^2 to get an idea of the mass change. I am worried that the c^2 will mean the change in mass is tiny.

[Relative]

You should do a back of the envelope calculation. What is the mass difference per degree of iron? You could think about the specific heat capacity of iron and equate the heat to E= mc^2 to get an idea of the mass change. I am worried that the c^2 will mean the change in mass is tiny.

I would not know where to start with the calculation you suggest.

 

I do know that in critical balancing, there is very little force needed to make an off balance.

 

 

And the pyramid design , needs little force to fall over if on its tip, it is a natural shape the will always land feet first,

 

the greater volume of mass area , always finding gravity , but I can see that the concept may be flawed, unless I could harness more energy maybe....

[ajb]

I would not know where to start with the calculation you suggest.

Okay, so just as an order of magnitude calculation the specific heat capacity of iron is 106 Jules per kilogram per Kelvin.

 

[math]\Delta Q = C \: \Delta T = 106 \: \Delta T[/math].

 

Now I put the change in energy to the change in mass I get

 

[math] \Delta m = \frac{106}{c^{2}} \: \Delta T[/math].

 

Filling in the numbers I get

 

[math]\Delta m = 1 \times 10^{-15} \:\: kg K^{-1}[/math].

 

This means (I think) that if I started with 1 kg of iron and heated it up by one degree kelvin then the mass increase is [math]10^{-15}[/math] kilograms.

 

It looks to me that the mass change is tiny.

[swansont]

I believe your definition would have the planets rolling around a spiral falling, the curvature of time and space?.

 

I would have to redefine gravity with my explanation, which involves thermodynamics and equilibrium's. So to be honest I am best not answering the question, it will take us of topic.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

For the record, and for future reference, this is an unacceptable response. Or rather, non-response. You used terminology (work) in a manner inconsistent with standard physics. You can't then refuse to answer a question about how you are using that terminology.

 

Also unacceptable would be responding to this modnote.

[Klaynos]

I believe your definition would have the planets rolling around a spiral falling, the curvature of time and space?.

 

I would have to redefine gravity with my explanation, which involves thermodynamics and equilibrium's. So to be honest I am best not answering the question, it will take us of topic.

 

It's not about my definition, but yours.

 

If you're going to argue with people using one definition of a word when you are using a completely different one you will never agree, hence all the points about saying that planets do no work.

[Relative]

Okay, so just as an order of magnitude calculation the specific heat capacity of iron is 106 Jules per kilogram per Kelvin.

 

[math]\Delta Q = C \: \Delta T = 106 \: \Delta T[/math].

 

Now I put the change in energy to the change in mass I get

 

[math] \Delta m = \frac{106}{c^{2}} \: \Delta T[/math].

 

Filling in the numbers I get

 

[math]\Delta m = 1 \times 10^{-15} \:\: kg K^{-1}[/math].

 

This means (I think) that if I started with 1 kg of iron and heated it up by one degree kelvin then the mass increase is [math]10^{-15}[/math] kilograms.

 

It looks to me that the mass change is tiny.

Forgive my ignorance , that looks like an alien language to me, but I will take your word for it that the mass change is tiny, and tiny probably not enough difference to make the motion. Maybe I could consider the same concept using a different material than iron, aluminium maybe, or copper.

 

Or would the result be the same?

[xyzt]

Forgive my ignorance , that looks like an alien language to me, but I will take your word for it that the mass change is tiny, and tiny probably not enough difference to make the motion. Maybe I could consider the same concept using a different material than iron, aluminium maybe, or copper.

 

Or would the result be the same?

Here is the data , you can try doing it by yourself. Hint, it will not change much, your theory is DOA.

[Relative]

Can you please definee, carefully what you understand to mean by work in this context.s,

internal workings I think I meant, internal, making external forces, external forces that attract, been gravity, and a magnetic field that repels, repelling the suns rays,

 

I do not for one minute believe that the sun is falling and we spiral around a quantum funnel. I believe the Earths core to be the same has the sun in type of energy,

 

I believe the matter of the Earth is attracted to the core, but also the Matter of Earth is attracted to the Sun, but stays hugging the Earth, been the closer.

 

I believe the Sun repels the core and the core repels the Sun, and the outcome is an equilibrium of critical balance.

 

Thermodynamics playing a part.

 

 

I place a pin by a magnet, but not to close, that the magnetic field takes hold of the pin, over time although there is distance between the pin and magnet, the pin will become slightly magnetized by the thermodynamics involved.

 

Helium is like a lifter, electrical energy making it hover up ,up, and away. The equilibrium of energy making it more positive against the core , repelling it.

 

The Hutchings effect explained , because he changed the equilibrium of matter by frequency of waves transmitted.

[Fuzzwood]

Those are a lot of beliefs, for which science doesn't care a rat's behind. Where is your evidence, supported by mathematics?

Edited September 28, 2014 by Fuzzwood