Perpetual Motion From Satellite Revolution

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the feasibility of harvesting energy from the revolution of nearby satellites, particularly the Moon. While the idea of extracting energy is intriguing, it is clarified that any attempt to do so would result in the satellite losing altitude over time, making perpetual motion impossible. The conversation highlights that tidal energy, influenced by the Moon and Sun, is already being harnessed, albeit with the understanding that the energy required to place satellites in orbit exceeds any potential gains. The Moon's significant size and gravitational influence are emphasized as unique, with no comparable satellite posing a similar opportunity without catastrophic consequences. Ultimately, while energy extraction from satellites is theoretically interesting, practical limitations and existing methods like tidal power render the concept impractical.
LotoSage
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
"Perpetual Motion" From Satellite Revolution

This is going to sound very far fetched, and I know very little about the laws of physics, admittedly (I don't even know if I'm posting this in the right area), but curiosity compels me.

I was wondering if it would be possible to harvest energy from the revolution of a nearby satellite as I've illustrated here: http://i.imgur.com/Z3u5i33.png

I use the moon as an example here, but that could be replaced with any nearby satellite. Would this work, in theory?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure what your sketch is trying to show. However, it is the policy at PF not to discuss PM and the like.

In any event, if you try to extract energy from an orbiting body, you are going cause that body to lose altitude over time. After all, it takes a fixed amount of energy per unit mass to put something into a particular orbit, so while your scheme may be long-lived, it cannot be 'perpetual'.
 
Yeah, that's why I put it in quotes. While my understanding of physics is very limited I felt of course it couldn't last forever. I don't literally mean PM in this case (and that goes twicefold since it's disallowed), but simply a long term means of energy extraction. You seem to have gotten the right idea from my rudimentary illustration, and I thank you for your input.
 
LotoSage said:
I use the moon as an example here, but that could be replaced with any nearby satellite. Would this work, in theory?
We are already extracting that energy in practice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power‎
 
We'd have to expend more energy putting the satellites into orbit than we'd get back, so there's no point.
 
LotoSage said:
I use the moon as an example here, but that could be replaced with any nearby satellite. Would this work, in theory?

It's all a matter of degree. The Moon is the largest object that will ever (could ever) be in orbit around the Earth. Any event that could introduce a comparable size of satellite would spell the end of the world for humans. Tidal surges or whaaaaat?

Tidal effects from the Moon (And the Sun, aamof) are many orders of magnitude greater than from anything else out there so those are the ones to go for. And we already do. From our point of view, the energy is 'inexhaustible' but it's not PM (verboten in PF).
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top