- #36
brewnog
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 2,750
- 7
I'll do it! I have development, research and manufacturing facilities. I'd be more than happy to develop your prototype!
brewnog said:I'll do it! I have development, research and manufacturing facilities. I'd be more than happy to develop your prototype!
yes. It is not exactly energy conservation involved here.cronxeh said:perpetual motion is impossible. from laws of thermodynamics:
You could always "bleed off" the extra energy - if, for example, the output is 100W more than the input, you can add a resistor (a light bulb) to turn that 100w into heat, bringing the sysem into equilibrium.amwbonfire said:I've just reread the thread, and it seems we're only looking at machines that increase energy output as time goes on. So the machine would eventually break down (due to overheating, etc.) And there's no way you could stop it, because it just keeps getting faster, and the amount of force needed to stop it increases.
Well, it started as a legitimate discussion of why perpetual motion isn't possible. Its kinda meandered though. But I don't know that the crackpottery level is high enough to close it.Nereid said:What is this thread doing in Engineering (other than provide amusement to some readers)?!? :grumpy:
Didn't I read that there's been a bit of a change in how the site guidelines are implemented here at PF?
russ_watters said:You could always "bleed off" the extra energy - if, for example, the output is 100W more than the input, you can add a resistor (a light bulb) to turn that 100w into heat, bringing the sysem into equilibrium.
amwbonfire said:The energy output is continually increasing. You'd need to keep adding more and more lightbulbs forever...
rdt2 said:Perpetual motion? No problem!
Perpetual motion machine? No chance!
-- Dr. Lee De Forest, inventor of the vacuum tube and father of television.Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future scientific advances.
maps said:-- Dr. Lee De Forest, inventor of the vacuum tube and father of television.
Never say never. Never say impossible. Every one of today's advances in science were all considered "impossible" by the scientific elite of the past. Instead of denying it, why don't you present day scientific elite (geniuses :rofl: ) work on it?
To expand on what enigma said, what you have here is a very common misunderstanding of the difference between science and technology (engineering). Dr. Forest would certainly not have claimed that space travel violated the laws of physics. Same goes for the commonly cited "sound barrier" issue. These and others are engineering problems that many scientists/engineers/inventers never thought we'd solve.maps said:-- Dr. Lee De Forest, inventor of the vacuum tube and father of television.
Never say never. Never say impossible. Every one of today's advances in science were all considered "impossible" by the scientific elite of the past. Instead of denying it, why don't you present day scientific elite (geniuses :rofl: ) work on it?
No, it is not possible to create a perpetual motion machine. The concept of perpetual motion violates the laws of thermodynamics, specifically the first and second laws, which state that energy cannot be created or destroyed and that energy will always tend towards a state of disorder. Therefore, a machine that can run indefinitely without an external source of energy is not possible.
A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical device that can continue to operate indefinitely without any external source of energy. It would essentially create energy out of nothing, which is not possible according to the laws of physics.
No, there has never been a successful perpetual motion machine. Many people have attempted to create such a machine throughout history, but they have all failed. Any machine claiming to be a perpetual motion machine has either been a hoax or a misinterpretation of how the machine actually works.
People continue to try to create perpetual motion machines because it is an intriguing and alluring concept. The idea of creating infinite energy without any cost is very appealing. However, as scientists, we must rely on the laws of physics and evidence to determine what is possible and what is not.
No, perpetual motion machines cannot be used as a source of renewable energy. As mentioned before, they violate the laws of thermodynamics and are not physically possible. However, there are many other renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, and hydro power, that are viable and sustainable alternatives to traditional fossil fuels.