Is a Superfluid Perpetual Motion Machine Theoretically Possible?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the theoretical possibility of a superfluid perpetual motion machine. The original poster expresses curiosity about whether such a machine could exist, particularly in a vacuum. However, the consensus is that perpetual motion machines, including those involving superfluids, are not feasible according to the laws of physics. The forum guidelines explicitly prohibit discussions on perpetual motion machines. Ultimately, the idea of extracting useful work from a superfluid perpetual motion machine is dismissed as impossible.
rollete
Messages
53
Reaction score
31
Yes, I'm aware of the countless threads about perpetual motion here. Not sure if this idea has been considered with superfluids, though.

I'm no physics expert (basically a laymen), but the idea of a superfluid in perpetual motion intrigues me because I can't imagine why it wouldn't be possible (at least in a vacuum).

If anyone can confirm that such a machine is theoretically possible, my main question is this: could we extract useful work from it?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
rollete said:
my main question is this: could we extract useful work from it?
Of course not.

Please review our rules (See: Physics Forums Global Guidelines). Discussions of "perpetual motion" machines are not allowed.
 
Last edited:

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

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?
View full post »

Thread 'Free fall of person in a sled to direct horizontal motion by atmospheric resistance'

Let there be a person in a not yet optimally designed sled at h meters in height. Let this sled free fall but user can steer by tilting their body weight in the sled or by optimal sled shape design point it in some horizontal direction where it is wanted to go - in any horizontal direction but once picked fixed. How to calculate horizontal distance d achievable as function of height h. Thus what is f(h) = d. Put another way, imagine a helicopter rises to a height h, but then shuts off all...
View full post »

Similar threads

Why perpetual motion machine wouldn't work.
Replies
15
Views
6K
Perpetual motion machines - gravity an unconventional source?
Replies
4
Views
4K
Is a Perpetual Motion Machine Possible?
Replies
9
Views
5K
My Perpetual Motion - Would it work?
Replies
4
Views
6K
What's the Point of Perpetual Motion Machines?
Replies
8
Views
4K
Why does zero viscosity allow superfluids to climb?
Replies
9
Views
13K
Perpetual motion and free energy possible?
Replies
35
Views
19K
Is a 100% Efficient Machine Considered a Perpetual Motion Machine?
Replies
5
Views
2K
Why not to discuss Perpetual Motion Machines? Is Politics Involved?
Replies
17
Views
5K
What is the Perpetual Motion Machine using Magnets?
Replies
1
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top