Can a buoyant object achieve perpetual motion?

AI Thread Summary
A buoyant object cannot achieve perpetual motion, as perpetual motion machines violate the laws of thermodynamics. Attempts to create such machines often overlook the energy required to maintain buoyancy, such as pumping air underwater. The discussion emphasizes that regardless of the design, perpetual motion remains impossible. The thread concludes by stating that this topic is not suitable for further discussion.
bluegold
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Would a buoyant object be able to achieve perpetual motion or even past perpetual motion if it were in a machine as portrayed below?https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=93e42fc0d8&view=att&th=12ca0732e35fe2f9&attid=0.1&disp=inline&realattid=f_gh5sgy4n0&zw
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can't post images from attachment like this.

But regardless, no. There is no such thing as perpetual motion. Usually, the attempts involving buoyancy ignore the fact that it takes energy to pump air under water. Since I can't see that image, I can't tell you if that's what it is, but that'd be my blind guess.
 
And since we do not discuss perpetual motion machines here, this is a good spot to finish this thread.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top