Perpetual Motion: Can It Be Achieved In Space?

AI Thread Summary
Perpetual motion in space is a topic of fascination, but it is fundamentally impossible due to the laws of physics. Any attempt to draw energy from a moving object in space would result in that object's deceleration, negating the concept of perpetual motion. While ideas like using Earth's rotation and magnetic field to generate energy exist, they still do not qualify as perpetual motion devices and would require significant resources. The discussion also highlights that there are many energy production methods, but only a few are cost-effective. Ultimately, perpetual motion remains a theoretical concept that cannot be realized in practice.
scopeside
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I am completely fascinated with it, but my only question is if perpetual motion is achievable in space why don't we connect huge wire's to a machine lifted into space that constantly creates a giant force and never stops then is converted and sent down to earth?

I am not sure if I shed my idea in the best light, but for those who understand what I am trying to say could you please speculate with me I would love to see your thoughts.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you interact with a moving object in space so you can draw energy from it you'll slow it down in the process. So no perpetual motion there either. If you could wrap a coil in space around Earth you could use the rotation of Earth and it's magnetic field to produce large amounts of energy but just think of the size (cost) of the project, and it still wouldn't be a perpetual motion device. There are many crazy ways to produce energy but only a hand full of them are cost efficient.
 
Last edited:
BobiG said:
There is no resistance in space so you're not creating any energy, if you interact with a moving object in space so you can draw energy from it you'll slow it down in the process. So no perpetual motion there either.

Haha thanks so much =]
 
scopeside said:
I am completely fascinated with it, but my only question is if perpetual motion is achievable in space why don't we connect huge wire's to a machine lifted into space that constantly creates a giant force and never stops then is converted and sent down to earth?

I am not sure if I shed my idea in the best light, but for those who understand what I am trying to say could you please speculate with me I would love to see your thoughts.

Scopeside...

Read the rules of the forum ... such discussions are not allowed


Dave
 
scopeside said:
I am completely fascinated with it, but my only question is if perpetual motion is achievable in space why don't we connect huge wire's to a machine lifted into space that constantly creates a giant force and never stops then is converted and sent down to earth?

I am not sure if I shed my idea in the best light, but for those who understand what I am trying to say could you please speculate with me I would love to see your thoughts.

We do not discuss PMMs or Free Energy schemes at the PF. Here are two good links for understanding why PMMs and Free Energy cannot work:

http://wiki.4hv.org/index.php/Free_Energy_Debunking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
 

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

Feynman: Reversible machines, no perpetual motion?
Replies
2
Views
2K
Perpetual motion machine - Intuitive meaning
Replies
35
Views
5K
Can we mimic a perpetual motion machien?
Replies
9
Views
2K
Perpetual Motion: Can Mono Polar Magnets Create It?
Replies
3
Views
2K
Perpetual motion machines can't exist (Feynman's lectures)
Replies
11
Views
3K
What Are the Challenges of Creating a Perpetual Motion Machine?
Replies
2
Views
701
Can a buoyant object achieve perpetual motion?
Replies
2
Views
3K
What is Feynman's Definition of Perpetual Motion?
Replies
4
Views
7K
Perpetual Motion Idea: Is It Possible?
Replies
2
Views
2K
B Can the moon orbit be used as perpetual motion?
Replies
5
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top