Jump to content
Science Forums

Perpetual motion


Recommended Posts

I have one question. It is quite obvious that perpetual motion dose not exisit purely because of the definition of "perpetual" (http://dictionary.reference.com/ definition is: "Lasting for eternity.") is a falacy. As we you know, nothing in this world or the galaxy for that matter is "eternal" or "perpetual" as even the sun will eventually die. My question is: Shouldnt there be a better name for it, say a machine was built that seemed to go for ever (but of course will eventually stop) what would you call it?. Since you can not patent a perpetual motion machine, there should be another name for such a device that comes close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since there is only one method of coming close in a closed system,

 

It would have to be a Lost Energy Capturing System with Unhindered Self Developement. Including a Multi Free Energy Partisan Assistence System, (which is not in the closed system, technically or mathamatically, but assists the device system to accomplish its purpose 100%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the universe seems to be a 'perpetual machine'

Given recent findings in Astronomy and Cosmology, it appears that even the Universe will "run down". Since the Universe is rather large, this will take a long time, perhaps a hundred times the current age of the Universe, which is around 13 billion years.

 

For the Universe to "run down" all that is required is that all temperature fluctuations even out, with very few truly hot spots {like large, new blue stars} and very few truly cold spots. Once there are no large number of temperature differences, no usable energy is available and no "work" can be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

lol

it's us again

dominic and donatus nwaogu aka ddnpmfng

we just wanted to paint this post black by dropping that our web site now has the picture of the apparatus used to test out the 2 successful simple principles or cycles of our perpetual motion design (in which you call a longish drivel)

wish us a happy 16th birthday

we just turned 16 today.

 

Why dont you visit our web site to see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this seems a bit silly, but I've got an idea using magnets that seems feasible...Is it truly impossible, or simply not yet done? ...

Uncle Al,

I hope I have some credibility with you. I shall tell you straight. Perpetual motion is truly not possible. It is not a "failure of engineering know-how".

 

"Energy" is not an easy concept to understand. Most folks think it is some kind of "fluid" or "stuff" but that misses the mark. Energy is conserved: it is not just a local limit, it is a universal law. (We'll avoid E=mc^2 for the time being; that's another topic.)

 

To make a perpetual motion machine (PPM) would require a system that does not lose any energy at all in its operation. If you attempt to withdraw any energy at all from a PPM to do "work", then like a battery, the PPM has lost energy and will wind down, sooner or later. It doesn't matter HOW the energy is stored in the PPM, or how complicated the energy is switched from magnets to momentum and back, or how creatively you mask the losses. If a PPM does not get any energy from the outside (true by definition), then it is a "battery" storing only the energy it has.

 

In theory, a PPM could made that would "operate" forever. Consider two neutron stars in stable orbit. But their immortality is due to the humongous amount of mass (therefore energy) stored up. It's just a bigger battery. Try to get that system to drive a factory and it might do so for billions of years instead of just for a few days. But it's still a "battery" and it will still drain.

 

If you could make a machine with NO friction whatsoever, suspended in a perfect vacuum, it might spin/rotate/whatever for a very long time. But any attempt to get it to DO something for you will introduce friction (by definition) and this will drain the "battery" of stored energy.

 

Building a PPM is like asking if God could make a rock so big He couldn't pick it up. :( :) ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi! Pyrotex :)

 

 

Given recent findings in Astronomy and Cosmology, it appears that even the Universe will "run down". Since the Universe is rather large, this will take a long time, perhaps a hundred times the current age of the Universe, which is around 13 billion years.

 

For the Universe to "run down" all that is required is that all temperature fluctuations even out, with very few truly hot spots {like large, new blue stars} and very few truly cold spots. Once there are no large number of temperature differences, no usable energy is available and no "work" can be done.

 

 

Doesn’t this contradict Newton’s first law of Motion? :embarass:

 

 

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lets say the universe did finally at one point "run down" and finally came collapse. Would it be moving or not? (the object as a whole) assuming this is feasible.

It makes little sense to say the "universe is moving". Within what? There's just the universe. It can't "move" because "move" must have something "stationary" relative to which it moves.

 

On the other hand, if you meant: will things and stuff inside the universe be moving or not? The answer is of course, there will still be movement inside the universe, but it won't matter. There is no "collapse", nothing dramatic. The universe will be run down because there will be no (very few) differences in temperature -- and therefore, no usable energy with which you can DO anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi! Doesn’t this contradict Newton’s first law of Motion? ...:

Just to make sure we understand each other, what do YOU think the "first" law of motion is? I'm pretty sure the answer wil be "no", but tell me first so I can be sure of giving an appropriate answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given recent findings in Astronomy and Cosmology, it appears that even the Universe will "run down". Since the Universe is rather large, this will take a long time, perhaps a hundred times the current age of the Universe, which is around 13 billion years.

 

For the Universe to "run down" all that is required is that all temperature fluctuations even out, with very few truly hot spots {like large, new blue stars} and very few truly cold spots. Once there are no large number of temperature differences, no usable energy is available and no "work" can be done.

 

 

I'll ask one thing: When will the photons stop moving?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll ask one thing: When will the photons stop moving?

4:25 on a Thursday afternoon. :shrug:

 

Okay, now for a serious answer. The photons will not stop moving. Move is what photons do. Photons carry energy. That energy is proportional to the "frequency" of the photon's wave nature. But usually the energy is expressed in ev (electron-volts). Gamma ray photons have more energy than visible light photons, which have more energy than radio wave photons.

 

As the universe winds down, more and more of the photons will be for radio waves of lower and lower frequency. Photons of gamma rays will become fewer and fewer.

 

EDIT: InfNow beat me!!!! But I'm right. It's on a Thursday. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Entropy is good and all, but forgottens are two systems: One is energy itself. Two is spacetime. These are not subject to entropy. A photon continues on and on across all of spacetime, in no actual time, without stop. All photons can be said to be in perpetual motion.

 

the closest thing I can think of that would "stop" the universe is if it all became one big black hole, but even then somethings escape those... Hmmm I wonder at what point a black hole becomes big enough to not allow anything (well almost, gravity always escapes :shrug: ) to escape from it, not even through quantum tunnelling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Entropy is good and all, but forgottens are two systems: One is energy itself. Two is spacetime. These are not subject to entropy. A photon continues on and on across all of spacetime, in no actual time, without stop. All photons can be said to be in perpetual motion.....

This appears to make sense at first glance, but you changed the definition of "perpetual motion" that we are using. :shrug: We are talking about a perpetual motion machine (PPM), something that either creates more energy than it uses, or something that can perform an unlimit amount of useful work.

 

Sure, a photon will sail on at the speed of light forever until it smacks into something, and then it will cease to exist. It may do one tiny piece of work and then vanish. Not much of a PPM. That a photon "never stops" does not fit the definition of PPM as we were using it. Nor does it demonstrate that a PPM is possible, as the photon is not an example of a PPM as defined originally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...