Exploring Perpetual Motion Machines: A Fun Site by AAAS and LHUP

  • Thread starter Mr. Robin Parsons
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Work
In summary: If you can do that enough to overcome the friction in your device, you're set, and then frictionlessness is just a calculational convenience.
  • #1
Mr. Robin Parsons
1,256
0
This is a fun site, again brought/linked up to you by the People of the Journal Science, The "www.aaas.org"[/URL]

This is about perpetual motion machines that kinda don't quite make it, [PLAIN]"www.lhup.edu/%7Edsimanek/museum/annex.htm"[/URL]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
BTW as a short notation, when it comes to "Perpetual Motion Machine, if we remove the word 'machine'. and simply look for Perpetual Motion, we find that, the Universe itself, as NONE of the Atoms that comprise the Universe has ever been proven to have stopped going/moving, is our only comparision for what is, (would be known as) perpetual motion.

(Insert age of Universe *here*, that is how long it has all been moving!)
 
  • #3
Sorta kinda not really. See, while it's been going for some time, I believe it should eventually run out of expansion juice and things will start slowing down. Could be wrong though.
 
  • #4
Originally posted by megashawn
Sorta kinda not really. See, while it's been going for some time, I believe it should eventually run out of expansion juice and things will start slowing down. Could be wrong though.

So then your professed belief is that (if) When (according to you) the Universe stops expanding, you think that therefore, then, the ATOMS are going to stop spinning, or cease motion altogether??

If that what you think/ Cause, "No offence", but it is wrong!
 
  • #5
Ok,a lot of those tell us that their machines have frictionless parts...isnt that enough to disprove the claim of perpetual motion??
 
  • #6


Originally posted by dav2008
Ok,a lot of those tell us that their machines have frictionless parts...isnt that enough to disprove the claim of perpetual motion??

If they could come up with frictionless, then perpetual motion would be way more likely achievable, as friction is the main reason why 'perpetual' isn't possible!
 
  • #7


Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
If they could come up with frictionless, then perpetual motion would be way more likely achievable, as friction is the main reason why 'perpetual' isn't possible!
Exactly..thats what I am saying..since its almost impossible (is it?) to have something be 100% frictionless, when they say "assume its frictionless" it kills their "invention"
 
  • #8
Oh So sorry, I hadn't gotten that from your post.

Yes, I would suspect that once someone stated "Assume it is frictionless" I too would begin to doubt it, unless it had no moving parts, but then it wouldn't be doing any "work', now would it!
 
  • #9
So then your professed belief is that (if) When (according to you) the Universe stops expanding, you think that therefore, then, the ATOMS are going to stop spinning, or cease motion altogether??

hmm, I didn't say that. You must remember I do not believe in fairy tales. Anyhow, I meant I believe I heard a theory which states something similar (more technical) that I said previously.

No offence taken, for its not something I care about that much, was just relaying something I've read either here or on one of the various websites, I'm sure someone could explain better then I.

I think the frictionless b.bs are nano tech right? Also I believe gravity has a good bit of play in not allowing pm machines.
 
  • #10
Well, you have expressed it as a belief, sorta, but I can figure out that you meant matter, and perhaps were not thinking at the atomic scales were ceasation of motion is, to date, completely unknown, unseen, and thougth as undo-able.
 
  • #11
I think what i was talking to is one of the conclusions the 2nd law of thermodynamics leads you too. Entropy death or something like that.

I think me and you (mostly me) just misunderstand one another alot.
 
  • #12
it would be quite good if some of the machines worked..i would like to build em but some just a little to complex for a little phisics student.

For somthing to be frictionless, you would have to be working in a vaccume and with superconductors and electromagnets.

one day..one day.
 
  • #13
I think the thing isn't perpetual motion, but rather turning useless random (such as heat) energy into useful work

If you can do that enough to overcome the friction in your device, you're set, and then frictionlessness is just a calculational convenience
 

1. What is a perpetual motion machine?

A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical device that can continue to operate indefinitely without any external energy source. It violates the laws of thermodynamics and has never been proven to exist.

2. Is it possible to create a perpetual motion machine?

No, it is not possible to create a perpetual motion machine. The laws of thermodynamics state that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred or converted. Therefore, any device claiming to be a perpetual motion machine is not scientifically possible.

3. Why do people still try to invent perpetual motion machines?

People continue to try to invent perpetual motion machines because it is a fascinating concept and there have been many attempts throughout history. Some individuals may also believe that they have found a loophole in the laws of thermodynamics, but these claims have not been scientifically proven.

4. What are some examples of perpetual motion machines?

Some common examples of perpetual motion machines include the overbalanced wheel, the perpetuum mobile, and the magnetic motor. However, all of these machines have been debunked and do not actually achieve perpetual motion.

5. How does the "Exploring Perpetual Motion Machines" site by AAAS and LHUP help educate about this topic?

The site provides information and explanations about perpetual motion machines, as well as interactive demonstrations to help users understand why they are not possible. It also includes historical examples and explanations of why they have been proven to be scientifically impossible.

Similar threads

  • Sticky
  • General Engineering
Replies
31
Views
11K
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
31
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
13
Views
1K
Back
Top