biefchief Posted February 14, 2008 Report Share Posted February 14, 2008 as far as i know this cannot be done, but i havnt heard or seen on the internet to say that this can or cannot be done. soo.... my idea is to use solar cells on a bank of LED's. in theory, when there is light energy on the solar cells, that power is stored in a capacitor (capacitors?) and then through a resistor, and then into the LED bank. they would then produce enough light energy to power the solar cells, and charge the capacitor(s), and so on. this would be started by 2 LED's powered by a cell battery, then turned off when enough energy is built up in the capacitor(s). i understand the theory that the LED's will produce heat as well and burning off the power....but.... if the LED's are sealed in a vacuum, and heat cannot go anywhere, and the resistors are only allowing enough energy to go through and power the LED's, and the capacitor(s) are storing enough energy to power the LED's...can this work???? can anyone build a working model to show this cant work???? ???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted February 14, 2008 Report Share Posted February 14, 2008 This will not work. Perpetual motion implies infinity.Solar cells, as well as other electrical components, do not last forever. Specific to your idea, you lose efficiency of work through every step of the process. As you said, LEDs and any other electrical transmission system will give off heat which will be lost regardless of the LEDs being placed in a vacuum. Solar cells operate at an efficiency of 6% to 42.8%. It's simply not possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UncleAl Posted February 28, 2008 Report Share Posted February 28, 2008 1) Time is homogeneous. 2) Noether's theorem 3) Mass-energy is locally conserved. 4) No Type I perpetual motion machines (net gain). 5) Second Law of Thermodynamics 6) No Type II perpetual motion machines (zero loss). End of perpetual motion machine discussion. InfiniteNow 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted February 28, 2008 Report Share Posted February 28, 2008 1) Time is homogeneous. 2) Noether's theorem 3) Mass-energy is locally conserved. 4) No Type I perpetual motion machines (net gain). 5) Second Law of Thermodynamics 6) No Type II perpetual motion machines (zero loss). End of perpetual motion machine discussion. In-f'ing-deed! Good to see you, UncleAl. :hihi: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexander Posted February 28, 2008 Report Share Posted February 28, 2008 lol idea flawed from the start, first solar cells, then resistors.... hey you have to realize that even if you laid the bank of leds on top of the cell, there would still be so much loss, its ridiculous... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patmac Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 Yeah, but Thermodynamics law for my concept only applies for energy combustion steam etc... For electricity, apply Electromagnetism, and that it ís'nt completly studied yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 Yeah, but Thermodynamics law for my concept only applies for energy combustion steam etc... For electricity, apply Electromagnetism, and that it ís'nt completly studied yet. Resistance (resistors) is to electrical circuit what friction is to mechanical system. Again, end of perpetual motion discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigD Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 Yeah, but Thermodynamics law for my concept only applies for energy combustion steam etc... For electricity, apply Electromagnetism, and that it ís'nt completly studied yet.Resistance (resistors) is to electrical circuit what friction is to mechanical system. Again, end of perpetual motion discussion. C1ay is correct. The principle of increasing entropy applies not only to physical systems, but even to mathematical ones where not all operations are reversible. Such systems are more common than exceptional – for example, one that allows operations such as S := S + A, and where (S + A) + B = S + C, which include ordinary arithmetic, where 5 = 2 + 3, 5= 1 + 4. In this example, the inability to derive 2 and 3, rather that 1 and 4, from 5, is analogous to not being able to reverse the heat flow of a heat engine or charge battery from an electric motor/generator while continuing to get power from it, or to determine the exact original shape of a broken object, such as a teacup. The connection between purely mathematically describable information and physical work of any kind is, to physicists dating back at least to Maxwell, and to me, fascinating. It’s been discussed various places in hypography, such as this post and this one. This connection suggests that the laws of thermodynamics are not only a feature of a particular physical system, or of all possible physical systems in the universe, but of all possible physical systems in any conceivable universe even slightly resembling ours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 The connection between purely mathematically describable information and physical work of any kind is, to physicists dating back at least to Maxwell, and to me, fascinating. It’s been discussed various places in hypography, such as this post and this one. This connection suggests that the laws of thermodynamics are not only a feature of a particular physical system, or of all possible physical systems in the universe, but of all possible physical systems in any conceivable universe even slightly resembling ours. Darn you mean I can't gain energy by shifting an element that is stable in one universe and exhanging it for another that is unstable in mine? Idealy each element would be stabel in it's repsective universe but unstable in the new one. yeah there's a sci fi novel to this effect...... Intellegences in each universe make the exchange. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozi-rock Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 Hi everyone I hoping somebody could explain why the unbalanced wheel does not work. Would there not be a larger moment on one side of the wheel due to the extra radius of gyration? Would this not make the sum of the moments positive in one direction? Regards, Oisin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 'Perpetual motion' is an oxymoron.It's possible to set objects in motion such that it seems like they will never stop moving. This is not perpetual motion though. Inertia takes over. An unbalanced wheel is subject to inertia (and eventual collapse due to wear and tear). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozi-rock Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 Ah are you saying that it would be possible if it was possible for the materials to last forever? I apologize but inertia is not my strong point, is this argument that the unbalance will put a force on the bearing equivalent to the D'Alembert force created by the imbalance and that these will lead to excessive wear? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Ah are you saying that it would be possible if it was possible for the materials to last forever? I apologize but inertia is not my strong point, is this argument that the unbalance will put a force on the bearing equivalent to the D'Alembert force created by the imbalance and that these will lead to excessive wear? An object in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by a force. - Newton's first LawFor a perpetual machine to be possible, not only must the materials last forever, but the machine needs to be in an environment free of any forces. It's simply not possible with the physical laws we must obey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Ah are you saying that it would be possible if it was possible for the materials to last forever? No, that would require 100% efficiency with no loss of energy through friction or other forces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozi-rock Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Ok freeztar, am I right in saying that if there was no other forces on it other than those of the weight it would keep spinning? I mean it would keep getting energy from the falling weights? Could it not be possible to overcome these forces with greater ones? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interval Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Perpetual motion implies infinity.QUOTE]And no energy supply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozi-rock Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Are you saying that this doesnt constitute perpetual motion because the falling weights supply energy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.