|
dickymint
11,405 posts
127 months
|
My Mother in Laws tongue could be harnessed!
|
|
|
Halb
17,859 posts
52 months
|
dickymint said: My Mother in Laws tongue could be harnessed! Dirty boy.
|
|
|
qube_TA
6,618 posts
114 months
|
Simpo Two said: qube_TA said: perpetual motion is easy, it's called an orbit. Not for ever - and if you tried to extract energy from it the object would quickly fall inwards and crash. Using planets to slingshot satelites into higher orbit, isn't that utilising gravitational energy, conservation of angular momentum and that jazz? Would have to slingshot an awful lot of probes to cause Venus to crash into the Sun. Given that you'd never be able to get Venus to crash into the Sun during its lifespan isn't it essentially perpetual?
|
|
|
R300will
3,603 posts
20 months
|
qube_TA said: Simpo Two said: qube_TA said: perpetual motion is easy, it's called an orbit. Not for ever - and if you tried to extract energy from it the object would quickly fall inwards and crash. Using planets to slingshot satelites into higher orbit, isn't that utilising gravitational energy, conservation of angular momentum and that jazz? Would have to slingshot an awful lot of probes to cause Venus to crash into the Sun. Given that you'd never be able to get Venus to crash into the Sun during its lifespan isn't it essentially perpetual? It is very efficient because there is next to no friction acting on venus bar the faint gravity of the planets around it.
|
|
|
Simpo Two
54,231 posts
134 months
|
qube_TA said: Given that you'd never be able to get Venus to crash into the Sun during its lifespan isn't it essentially perpetual? 'Essentially perpetual' is not 'perpetual'!
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
qube_TA
6,618 posts
114 months
|
Simpo Two said: qube_TA said: Given that you'd never be able to get Venus to crash into the Sun during its lifespan isn't it essentially perpetual? 'Essentially perpetual' is not 'perpetual'! Yeah but I'm easily impressed.
|
|
|
CBR JGWRR
5,078 posts
18 months
|
Aside from the practical difficulties...
|
|
|
Flibble
1,037 posts
50 months
|
qube_TA said: Using planets to slingshot satelites into higher orbit, isn't that utilising gravitational energy, conservation of angular momentum and that jazz?
Would have to slingshot an awful lot of probes to cause Venus to crash into the Sun. Given that you'd never be able to get Venus to crash into the Sun during its lifespan isn't it essentially perpetual? Slingshot Mercury around Venus; we'll see how perpetual it is... 
|
|
|
dickymint
11,405 posts
127 months
|
|
|
Flibble
1,037 posts
50 months
|
Looks like the usual magnets are magic and give free energy hogwash. If there was anything in it he'd be a millionaire by now.
|
|
|
russ_a
1,386 posts
80 months
|
Oakey said: Do I not recall a thread from a PHer who claimed to have invented a perpetual motin machine but couldn't tell anyone how exactly because he was afraid someone would steal the idea and his fortune? I remember that too. Bet he has been killed and buried by BP by now!
|
|
|
Halb
17,859 posts
52 months
|
|
|
NorthernBoy
6,025 posts
126 months
|
grumbledoak said: You cannot win.
You cannot break even.
You cannot leave the table.
Few Physical theories ever get called 'Laws' I was given the three laws as; You cannot win You can only break even on a very cold day It never gets that cold
|
|
|
PugwasHDJ80
5,189 posts
90 months
|
If perpetual motion is impossible de facto is the uivers going to have to contract?
|
|
|
cymtriks
4,014 posts
114 months
|
Some serious questions:
If creating "new" energy is impossible where did it all come from?
Can this process be reproduced? If not, why not?
Why do all comments on "free energy/perpetual motion" claim that a law prevents them? Surely this is incredibly bad justification from a science point of view! Lots of theories and "laws" have had to be abandoned or modified as our knowledge progresses, why is it impossible for this issue to be one of them?
Is it not possible that our current understanding may turn out to be a subset of a bigger understanding that does allow what we currently think is impossible?
|
|
|
hairykrishna
8,973 posts
72 months
|
cymtriks said: Some serious questions:
If creating "new" energy is impossible where did it all come from?
Can this process be reproduced? If not, why not?
Why do all comments on "free energy/perpetual motion" claim that a law prevents them? Surely this is incredibly bad justification from a science point of view! Lots of theories and "laws" have had to be abandoned or modified as our knowledge progresses, why is it impossible for this issue to be one of them?
Is it not possible that our current understanding may turn out to be a subset of a bigger understanding that does allow what we currently think is impossible? All of the energy and mass, which amount to the same thing, was present at the origin of the universe, as far as we know. It is of course possible that the laws of thermodynamics are wrong but, as laws of physics go, they're pretty solid in the grand scheme of things. If they do end up being violated it won't be by something mundane like a string of floats on a chain. Quite simply, we would have noticed by now because everything would be different. It would mean that literally everything we know about the universe would be fundamentally incorrect. It's quite hard to get across how unlikely it is that they're incorrect, Eddington's old quote's a good one; "The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."
|
|
|
Lost_BMW
10,624 posts
45 months
|
cymtriks said: Some serious questions:
If creating "new" energy is impossible where did it all come from?
Can this process be reproduced? If not, why not?
Why do all comments on "free energy/perpetual motion" claim that a law prevents them? Surely this is incredibly bad justification from a science point of view! Lots of theories and "laws" have had to be abandoned or modified as our knowledge progresses, why is it impossible for this issue to be one of them?
Is it not possible that our current understanding may turn out to be a subset of a bigger understanding that does allow what we currently think is impossible? God dit it. Obviously.
|
|
|
Halb
17,859 posts
52 months
|
|
|
TwigtheWonderkid
6,050 posts
19 months
|
Perpetual motion may be impossible, but seeing as we have the sun as an energy source for the next 5 billion years, we should be able to get perpetual motion in effect, for as long as the earth survives.
I have a Jaeger L'Coutre Atmos clock. It has a chamber of gas that expands or contracts as it reacts to minute changes in air pressure. Yes, I know the changes in air pressure are poweered by the sun and the spinning of the planet, but bottom line is that the clock has run since the mid 70s, without winding or batteries. In effect without a power source.
|
|
|
cymtriks
4,014 posts
114 months
|
hairykrishna said: All of the energy and mass, which amount to the same thing, was present at the origin of the universe, as far as we know. That still leaves the question of where it all came from!
|
|
