perpetual motion?

[evaworcim]

i don't know if this is old or not, i just read it in the paper and tried searching the interweb about it but w/e

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1784833525509845733

discuss

[AmericanWeiner]

Perp motion is bollocks. It always has been, it always will be.

There is no free energy.

To address their technology: It takes as much energy to approach a source of magnetism as you get from departing it. Combine that with friction and you simply lose whatever energy you put in.

[evaworcim]

i don't know any physics... my bad, still i thought it was interesting

[PremierManiac]

That video explained nothing.

As for free energy and perpetual motion; they don't exist.

[Eliminator]

I am a perpetual motion machine.

[evaworcim]

the people spent thousands of dollars in advertising this, it seems weird to spend so much if they had'nt really discovered anything, i think it'd be cool if it was real, but i also doubt it myself

[siva_chair]

As for free energy and perpetual motion; they don't exist.

How do you know this? Just because we haven't discovered said things certainly doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[John Paul Harrison]

I thought perpetual motion was theoretically impossible? You know...friction and such...

[evaworcim]

it would disprove some law of physics if it were true, which would then change all our views on science etc, which could be interesting

edit: here's the article i read in the paper, which is weird as both are exactly the same...

oshi i forgot the link

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=402644&in_page_id=1770

[MattyBlade]

there's only a machine that's 99% efficient,
your average combustion engine is 33% efficient

to be perpetual motion you have to be ATLEAST 100% efficient to energy.

[evaworcim]

99% is hella effcient, what is this machine?

[AmericanWeiner]

How do you know this? Just because we haven't discovered said things certainly doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You show me a perpetual engine machine and I'll eat my words.

[drewhet]

http://www.steorn.net/en/news.aspx?p=2&id=221

[TojesDolan]

It is theoretically impossible, but that doesn't mean there can't be a machine that's 99.999999% efficient, with minimal energy loss, since there's a constant energy recycling.

It'd be interesting.

EDIT: Oh man I'm so joining that team when I have enough experience.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

It is theoretically impossible, but that doesn't mean there can't be a machine that's 99.999999% efficient, with minimal energy loss, since there's a constant energy recycling.

It'd be interesting.

EDIT: Oh man I'm so joining that team when I have enough experience.

uh-oh

YOU

want to be a

SCIENTIST?

[PerpetualBurn]

How do you know this? Just because we haven't discovered said things certainly doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Science 1 - 0 Siva Chair

Perpetual motion is impossible and you're an idiot to think otherwise.

[Futue te Ipsum]

How do you know this? Just because we haven't discovered said things certainly doesn't mean it doesn't exist.It breaks both the first and second laws of thermodynamics. It's theoretically impossible.

[Futue te Ipsum]

Furthermore, Steorn has announced that only a group of twelve scientists, which Steorn will choose itself, will have access to the technology"Rofl...

[Volumnius Flush]

How do you know this? Just because we haven't discovered said things certainly doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Isn't God an example of perpetual motion?

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Isn't God an example of perpetual motion?

no, god is infinite and thus cannot move



also, using god as an example in a scientific discussion will give your argument about as much weight as a size 4 on pluto.

[drewhet]

is there a difference between perpetual motion and free energy?

[Volumnius Flush]

[QUOTE=Auberge le Mouton Noir]no, god is infinite and thus cannot move
[QUOTE]

How do you know God exists?

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

[QUOTE=Auberge le Mouton Noir]no, god is infinite and thus cannot move
[QUOTE]

How do you know God exists?

:lol:

I'm an atheist

however, this is not the "my beliefs are less arbtirary than yours thread", it's the perpetual motion thread so i am not discussing it here

as an athiests one subconciously adds "were god to exist" onto the start of any such question

[The Jester]

perpetual motion is not impossible, it would just require a complete reevaluation of everything we understand about physics.

[PerpetualBurn]

No, it's actually impossible.

[bradc1988]

is there a difference between perpetual motion and free energy?

If perpetual motion were possible it would result in free energy, so it's just that one is a consequence of the other in this situation.

Anyone who thinks perptual motion is possible is a jackass, energy cannot come out of nowhere and just be created.

Oh and I think someone asked what device could be 99% effecient...err I think some transformers might be....can't remember from physics....just throw some superconductors in there.

Oh and there was a good episode of Mythbusters where they made a bunch of systems that claimed they perpetual, some nice ideas but none were real.

[spitfirejunky]

no, god is infinite and thus cannot move



also, using god as an example in a scientific discussion will give your argument about as much weight as a size 4 on pluto.

:lol:

Perpetual motion is a misnomer. The loose example he showed was harmonic motion. At one point this was called perpetual motion, but it was renamed for reasons pointed out by previous posts.

[Lydisk]

Anyone who thinks perptual motion is possible is a jackass, energy cannot come out of nowhere and just be created.



where did the energy come from when the universe was created?

[spitfirejunky]

Are we sure the universe was ever created?

[Lydisk]

no

but i like to think so

[bradc1988]

Yer that's the whole theory behind the big bang. They know everything after the big energy 'creation' but not how it began.

Maybe one day we will know.

[The Jester]

No, it's actually impossible.

sigh, I guess the irony of the statement just didn't come through.

[bradc1988]

I don't see the irony, but I ain't on the ball tonight. :/

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

where did the energy come from when the universe was created?

Where did the universe come from if there wasn't always some energy there?

[Lydisk]

Where did the universe come from if there wasn't always some energy there?

but then where did that energy come from?

im just asking stupid questions :confused:

[TojesDolan]

uh-oh

YOU

want to be a

SCIENTIST?
Nah, I'd be more than cool with my guitar never running out of energy.

That and a gigantic Ape robot. Besides Scienticians don't get good money,duh.

[spitfirejunky]

Actually you'd be surprised.

[The Jester]

I don't see the irony, but I ain't on the ball tonight. :/

Yeah, oh well. It's clear that the laws of physics make perpetual motion impossible.

[Volumnius Flush]

No, it's actually impossible.

If it's impossible, then how are you still posting?

Where did the universe come from if there wasn't always some energy there?

Unless there was never any energy to begin with. 'Something from nothing' and you have free energy.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Unless there was never any energy to begin with. 'Something from nothing' and you have free energy.

Yeah but sometimes it's nice to ignore thermodynamics number 2 and content yourself with oscillating universe theory

Nah, I'd be more than cool with my guitar never running out of energy.

That and a gigantic Ape robot. Besides Scienticians don't get good money,duh.

the ones that sell out and do corporate research do

but i'd never want to do that

[RockAndRoll]

The net energy of the universe is 0! :eek:

[PerpetualBurn]

If it's impossible, then how are you still posting?


Non-perpetual motion machines.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Non-perpetual motion machines.

so

maybe

"machines"

[PerpetualBurn]

Your powers of logical deduction astound me.

[siva_chair]

Science 1 - 0 Siva Chair

Perpetual motion is impossible and you're an idiot to think otherwise.

When one says so something is impossible, one dissipates the energy required to inquire whether or not it really is impossible.

And I still disagree with you, as perpetual motion is all around us. The universe, and indeed, the flux of reality is perpetual motion.

It breaks both the first and second laws of thermodynamics. It's theoretically impossible.

The universe is a system of perpetual motion, therefore it is possible.

And I would say it may be "impossible" based on our perception of the laws of physics, but we really at this point have no way of knowing if, in actuality, it is impossible. To just assume it to be impossible in actuality would be kind of shortsighted, wouldn't it?

no, god is infinite and thus cannot move.

I disagree. One of the very aspects of God is flux and movement. I certainly do not view God as some static fixed form or shape, but more akin to a moving stream where an endless number of vortices flow and move. This is much like the unending and whole movement of reality.

Yeah, oh well. It's clear that the laws of physics make perpetual motion impossible.

No, the interpretation of the laws of physics make perpetual motion appear to be impossible.

[PerpetualBurn]

When one says so something is impossible, one dissipates the energy required to inquire whether or not it really is impossible.

And I still disagree with you, as perpetual motion is all around us. The universe, and indeed, the flux of reality is perpetual motion.


Are there any aspects of the scientific world that you do understand? Because one day you might want to talk about them.

The Universe follows the laws of energy conservation. There is a constant amount of energy and it changes form. Energy is not randomly appearing from nowhere - that would be perpetual motion.

[siva_chair]

Are there any aspects of the scientific world that you do understand? Because one day you might want to talk about them.

I believe I understand plenty of it. Just because I have a differing interpretation of things than you doesn't mean I am wrong or do not understand them. Your ego is getting in the way of the discussion and your attempts to insult me are really pointless and will solve nothing.

The Universe follows the laws of energy conservation. There is a constant amount of energy and it changes form. Energy is not randomly appearing from nowhere - that would be perpetual motion.

Actually, a system of perpetual motion is something that uses no external source of energy to power it. Now tell me, does the universe use an external source for energy?

Sorry, but the universe is an undivided whole that moves using it's own internal energy source (i.e. the sum total of the energy in the universe).

The reason we haven't been able to make such a machine is because we haven't been able to make a machine that is 100% efficient. Certainly the laws of thermodynamics are stating that the universe is a system that is 100% efficient, as energy cannot be destroyed.

[PerpetualBurn]

A machine that's 100% efficient would be one that didn't waste any of its source's energy, not one that yielded more energy than was put in.

[siva_chair]

A machine that's 100% efficient would be one that didn't waste any of its source's energy, not one that yielded more energy than was put in.

A machine that was 100% efficient would perpetually move, thus it is in a state of perpetual motion. The universe and reality is in such a state.

[Smokey D]

believe I understand plenty of it. Just because I have a differing interpretation of things than you doesn't mean I am wrong or do not understand them. Your ego is getting in the way of the discussion and your attempts to insult me are really pointless and will solve nothing.

Yes it does! If you differ with the interpretation of modern science and say the earth is the centre of the universe, it's not just a difference of opinion. It's you expressing an opinion that is wrong.

[siva_chair]

Yes it does! If you differ with the interpretation of modern science and say the earth is the centre of the universe, it's not just a difference of opinion. It's you expressing an opinion that is wrong.

So disagreeing with a modern interpretation of science makes you wrong? I was unaware that modern interpretations of science were infallible.

I am not stating that a perpetual motion machine is possible for human beings to create, I am suggesting that one shouldn't say it is impossible, as the universe itself is a system of perpetual motion.

[PerpetualBurn]

A machine that was 100% efficient would perpetually move, thus it is in a state of perpetual motion. The universe and reality is in such a state.

100% efficiency in a car would mean all the energy in petrol becoming movement of the car. Instead, in reality, it is lost as heat, sound, and so on.

The car would still only move as long as petrol was there to provide energy.

[Smokey D]

So disagreeing with a modern interpretation of science makes you wrong? I was unaware that modern interpretations of science were infallible.

When modern science is right, disagreeing with it makes you wrong, yes.

I am not stating that a perpetual motion machine is possible for human beings to create, I am suggesting that one shouldn't say it is impossible, as the universe itself is a system of perpetual motion.

That's only true given that time stops when the universal motion does.

[siva_chair]

100% efficiency in a car would mean all the energy in petrol becoming movement of the car. Instead, in reality, it is lost as heat, sound, and so on.

The car would still only move as long as petrol was there to provide energy.

Yes but a car doesn't provide it's own source of energy. The universe does.

The universe is in perpetual motion without an external source of energy.

When modern science is right, disagreeing with it makes you wrong, yes.

Except it is the downfall of every theory and interpretation of science to assume that it is right. If we hold this view, we have to conclude that Newtonian theory was true until around 1900, after which it suddenly became false, while relativity and quantum theory suddenly became the truth.

If only theories were regarded primarily as ways of looking at the world as a whole (i.e. world views) rather than as 'absolutely true knowlege of how things are' (or as a steady approach to the latter).

That's only true given that time stops when the universal motion does.

If all motion stops, the movement of energy in general and the laws governing such movements would also stop, so discussion of that is really irrellevant, wouldn't you say?

The universe is still a perpetual motion machine, as it fits the definition of a perpetual motion machine as we are experiencing it.

[PerpetualBurn]

The Universe isn't a machine.

[siva_chair]

The Universe isn't a machine.

According to modern scientific interpretation, it fits the definition of a machine very nicely.

[PerpetualBurn]

Well I know how bad with linguistics you are, so I'll let it slide.

The Universe is all the energy there is rather than a machine which uses it, so your point is a strange one.

[siva_chair]

Well I know how bad with linguistics you are, so I'll let it slide.

Except I haven't said anything that wasn't in accordance with accepted linguistics.

The Universe is all the energy there is rather than a machine which uses it, so your point is a strange one.

A machine is made up of energy as well.

A system that utilizes mechanical energy is a machine. The universe certainly does that.

[PerpetualBurn]

Not really.

[siva_chair]

Not really.

Ok, then what, pray tell, is the difference between a machine and the modern interpretation of the system that is known as the universe?

[PerpetualBurn]

A machine is something that we build with the specific aim of making a process or action easier to perform.

Theology aside, the Universe does not fit this. Again, from a point of pedantry maybe you'll go round in circles for a few pages, but it's quite a stupid line of argument.

All the energy in existence is the Universe. Instead of having a machine and an energy supply, like in a car, the Universe is just energy.

[spitfirejunky]

I think we're mixing apples with oranges. The universe is, by definition, all matter and energy that exist within the boundaries this matter and energy exist. The universe cannot be a machine because energy cannot exist outside of it...

EDIT: Bad grammar.

[siva_chair]

A machine is something that we build with the specific aim of making a process or action easier to perform.

That is one specific application of the word machine.

Another one is a system that performs work, and yet another is an intricate natural system or organism. Systems are by nature mechanical and machine like, and the modern accepted worldview of the universe certainly views the universe itself as such a system of interconnected parts doing work.

The universe most certainly can be viewed as a machine and still fit the definition of a machine. Now, if you wish to alter the accepted definition of what constitutes a machine, we have a whole other discussion on our hands.

Theology aside, the Universe does not fit this.

Only if you imply that machines must be man made constructs, which is not inherently implied with the definition of the word 'machine'.

Again, from a point of pedantry maybe you'll go round in circles for a few pages, but it's quite a stupid line of argument.

Not really, as the human body is considered a machine, yet it isn't man made (according to modern scientific worldviews that is).

All the energy in existence is the Universe. Instead of having a machine and an energy supply, like in a car, the Universe is just energy.

And a car isn't composed of energy? All matter is a form of energy. Do you wish to argue this point?

[siva_chair]

I think we're mixing apples with oranges. The universe is, by definition, all matter and energy that exist within the boundaries this matter and energy exist. The universe cannot be a machine because energy cannot exist outside of it...

Energy does not have to exist outside of the universe for the universe to function as a machine or mechanical system.

[Futue te Ipsum]

Not really, as the human body is considered a machine, yet it isn't man made (according to modern scientific worldviews that is).Are you into the stork theory of human reproduction?

:P sorry, I had to.

[TojesDolan]

I think it'd be pretty sane to say at this point that perpetual motion is not possible within our space: That is, our world. Nonetheless, we don't know if a perpetual motion machine is possible in other contexts, so there you go.

[PerpetualBurn]

That is one specific application of the word machine.

Another one is a system that performs work, and yet another is an intricate natural system or organism. Systems are by nature mechanical and machine like, and the modern accepted worldview of the universe certainly views the universe itself as such a system of interconnected parts doing work.

The universe most certainly can be viewed as a machine and still fit the definition of a machine. Now, if you wish to alter the accepted definition of what constitutes a machine, we have a whole other discussion on our hands.


The Universe still doesn't fit those definitions. They all refer to specific systems, usually closed ones, the Universe is all encompassing and not acting in the same way as a machine. But I digress, this isn't really adding anything to the discussion, so please continue to abuse the English language.

Only if you imply that machines must be man made constructs, which is not inherently implied with the definition of the word 'machine'.

That is implied. But again, I would rather not argue over the exact definition of "machine". Let us focus on your ridiculous perpetual motion idea...

Not really, as the human body is considered a machine, yet it isn't man made (according to modern scientific worldviews that is).

I've never heard anyone refer to the human body as a machine. Not literally anyway.

And a car isn't composed of energy? All matter is a form of energy. Do you wish to argue this point?

A car is a man-made closed system which uses an external and exhaustable source of energy. The Universe doesn't use an external source of energy, it follows the laws of energy conservation.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

I've never heard anyone refer to the human body as a machine. Not literally anyway.

I have to side against you on this one; the purpose of the human body is to take energy in and use it to manufacture movement, and maintain itself.

I fail to see any great distinction between a well built robot and a person relative to which is machinery.

[PerpetualBurn]

Because a robot would be something man-made with an aim to fulfilling a purpose.

Humans may carry out a function, but they are not specifically designed with the aim of making a task easier. Humans aren't machines. A spoon is a machine.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Because a robot would be something man-made with an aim to fulfilling a purpose.

Humans may carry out a function, but they are not specifically designed with the aim of making a task easier. Humans aren't machines. A spoon is a machine.

a spoon is a tool; human beings are not tools.

a spoon is not a machine; it does not process. A human processes chemicals, it is a machine, "designed" by nature and evolution with the purpose of survival of its species.

[AmericanWeiner]

It's according to what you used the spoon for- there are some cases in which it would act as a simple machine.

[PerpetualBurn]

A spoon is a lever.

A lever is the simplest form of machinery used by man.

[Surtr]

...but they are not specifically designed with the aim of making a task easier.
Is your source reliable? lol

Really though, Perpetual Motion=No.

[PerpetualBurn]

What?

[Surtr]

What?

It was sarcasm/a joke.

I wasn't seriously asking you anything.

[PerpetualBurn]

Oh.

[AmericanWeiner]

A spoon is a lever.

A lever is the simplest form of machinery used by man.


nah it can also be a wedge and (usually) a small cup of sorts (which isn't a machine)

It's not a lever unless you're prying something (like ice cream :shrug: )

[RockAndRoll]

When being used for it's primary purpose (flinging food across the table at people) it acts as a lever.

[AmericanWeiner]

That's a very good point that you make.

I cannot refute.

[RockAndRoll]

Well I did do my Phd thesis paper on the mechanics of spoons.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

A spoon is a lever.

A lever is the simplest form of machinery used by man.

Even as simple as a club?


Anyway, would you therefore say that all tools are machines?

[PerpetualBurn]

If a person or animal were to be made to do something by another person, then that person or animal could perhaps be considered a tool. They still wouldn't be a machine.

[AmericanWeiner]

Even as simple as a club?


Anyway, would you therefore say that all tools are machines?

No.

The sticks used by apes to stick in ant beds and lick clean are not machines.

[RockAndRoll]

Well the traditional list is:
Lever,
Inclined plane,
wheel + axle,
Pulley,
Screw,*
and Wedge*

*actually just a variation of the inclined plane.

So any thing which makes use of one or more of these features would qualify as a machine in that sense.

[AmericanWeiner]

I would say a screw is a complex machine as it makes use of inclined plane and wheel + axle

but that's just me

[siva_chair]

The Universe still doesn't fit those definitions.

Sure it does. It is a natural system and it performs work. Are you saying the universe is not a system or does not function in a mechanical way?

They all refer to specific systems, usually closed ones, the Universe is all encompassing and not acting in the same way as a machine.

The universe is a specific closed system.

But I digress, this isn't really adding anything to the discussion, so please continue to abuse the English language.

And by all means keep making things up.

That is implied.

Not really.

But again, I would rather not argue over the exact definition of "machine". Let us focus on your ridiculous perpetual motion idea...

Why is it ridiculous to accept the possibility of one?

Besides, if the universe is still in perpetual motion. So the idea of perpetual motion does exist in nature.

I've never heard anyone refer to the human body as a machine. Not literally anyway.

ma·chine (mə-shēn')
n.

1. A device consisting of fixed and moving parts that modifies mechanical energy and transmits it in a more useful form.

2. A simple device, such as a lever, a pulley, or an inclined plane, that alters the magnitude or direction, or both, of an applied force; a simple machine.

3. A system or device for doing work, as an automobile or a jackhammer, together with its power source and auxiliary equipment.

4. A system or device, such as a computer, that performs or assists in the performance of a human task: The machine is down.

5. An intricate natural system or organism, such as the human body.

6. A person who acts in a rigid, mechanical, or unconscious manner.

7. An organized group of people whose members are or appear to be under the control of one or more leaders: a political machine.

A car is a man-made closed system which uses an external and exhaustable source of energy.

Yup it sure is.

The Universe doesn't use an external source of energy,

That isn't a prerequisite for a machine. Especially a perpetual motion machine as it would power itself.

it follows the laws of energy conservation.

Sure does. So do all machines.

[PerpetualBurn]

Siva, I just don't think you're understanding the nature of perpetual motion machines.

It would be like putting two miles worth of petrol in a car and having it run for two hundred.

Or putting 100J into machine X and it giving out 1000J.

It's impossible to get more out than you put in.

[RockAndRoll]

I would say a screw is a complex machine as it makes use of inclined plane and wheel + axle

but that's just me

It's not really wheel + axle, although I see your point it is classified as a simple machine.

[TojesDolan]

Siva, I just don't think you're understanding the nature of perpetual motion machines.

It would be like putting two miles worth of petrol in a car and having it run for two hundred.

Or putting 100J into machine X and it giving out 1000J.

It's impossible to get more out than you put in.
I'm almost certain it's about having 100% efficiency, not double, or triple. Just 100% of what you input, you get it as output.

I THINK.

[PerpetualBurn]

A perpetual motion machine outputs more than its input. That's why it's impossible.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

A perpetual motion machine outputs more than its input. That's why it's impossible.

Perpatual = neverending

Motion = movement

your car would have to keep going indeinately to be a perpetual motion machine.

wiki:

"Perpetual motion refers to a condition in which an object moves forever without being driven by an external source of energy.

The term is commonly used to refer to machines which display this phenomenon. In the macroscopic world, perpetual motion is not generally considered to be possible. Perpetual motion machines (the Latin term perpetuum mobile is not uncommon) are a class of hypothetical machines which would produce useful energy in a way which would violate the established laws of physics. No genuine perpetual motion machine currently exists, and according to certain fundamental laws in physics they cannot exist. Specifically, perpetual motion machines would violate either the first or second laws of thermodynamics. Perpetual motion machines are divided into two subcategories (some physicists, including the noted professor of thermodynamics Mark W. Zemansky, include a third), defined by which law of thermodynamics would have to be broken in order for the device to be a true perpetual motion machine."

to be perpetual a mahcine must be of 100% efficiency or more.

[PerpetualBurn]

That quote doesn't support your point at all.

At 100% efficient, a car engine would convert the entirety of petrol into kinetic energy, instead of wasted heat, noise, etc. It would still only run as far as the petrol took it, and not be a perpetual motion machine.

Think of if you could make 100% efficient Newton's cradles. They'd go on forever, but as soon as you actually tried to use such a thing to power anything else, it would stop.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

That quote doesn't support your point at all.

At 100% efficient, a car engine would convert the entirety of petrol into kinetic energy, instead of wasted heat, noise, etc. It would still only run as far as the petrol took it, and not be a perpetual motion machine.

Think of if you could make 100% efficient Newton's cradles. They'd go on forever, but as soon as you actually tried to use such a thing to power anything else, it would stop.

urgh you're right

i'm on a loser with this one

[TojesDolan]

Nonetheless it'd be interesting to have a machine that were 100% efficient, or somewhere close to it.

For instance, cars and such. Petrol derivates is not going to allow that, new sources of energy are recquired.

[PerpetualBurn]

The wiki article should hopefully make it patently obvious for Siva why perpetual motion is impossible.

But then his ability to misinterpret vaguely scientific concepts never ceases to amaze me.

For instance, cars and such. Petrol derivates is not going to allow that, new sources of energy are recquired.

Have fun trying to make an engine without friction and one which produces no noise.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

But then his ability to misinterpret vaguely scientific concepts never ceases to amaze me.


We're just assuming that perpetual motion isn't just a property of all matter

[AmericanWeiner]

A point worth making is that a machine that can harness energy that we don't use at the moment is every bit as as useful and effective as a perpetual motion device.

[Futue te Ipsum]

Nonetheless it'd be interesting to have a machine that were 100% efficient, or somewhere close to it.

For instance, cars and such. Petrol derivates is not going to allow that, new sources of energy are recquired.interesting? It would blow our entire understanding of science out of the window. Things that were thought to be unlikely have been achieved, but something that the fundamental laws of physics say is impossible? Whilst we can't disregard that our understanding of reality may be incorrect, this is something that doesn't make sense.

Interesting doesn't even begin to describe it. Unbelievable is closer to it. That's why the scientific community is so sceptical to these claims and the possibility of them being shown correct.

[Futue te Ipsum]

A point worth making is that a machine that can harness energy that we don't use at the moment is every bit as as useful and effective as a perpetual motion device.it's not. un-used energy will run out whilst perpetual energy would by it's very nature keep going.

[siva_chair]

Siva, I just don't think you're understanding the nature of perpetual motion machines.

I think I understand them perfectly fine.

It would be like putting two miles worth of petrol in a car and having it run for two hundred.

Or putting 100J into machine X and it giving out 1000J.

It's impossible to get more out than you put in.

You don't need to, you only need it to be 100% efficient to keep it in motion.

If a car engine were 100% efficient, could put 2 miles worth of gasoline in it and it would continually keep running. Note, I am not saying you could drive a car forever with such an engine (as once you place wheels on a surface, you have friction, which cannot be present in a system that is 100%). I am saying the engine would continue to turn once started, as it would lose no energy via friction, heat, ect. and continue to turn itself perpetually.

A perpetual motion machine outputs more than its input. That's why it's impossible.

No, a perpetual motion machine is a machine that is perpetually in motion. A system that is 100% or greater in efficiency would qualify as a perpetual motion machine.

That quote doesn't support your point at all.

At 100% efficient, a car engine would convert the entirety of petrol into kinetic energy, instead of wasted heat, noise, etc. It would still only run as far as the petrol took it, and not be a perpetual motion machine.

Think of if you could make 100% efficient Newton's cradles. They'd go on forever, but as soon as you actually tried to use such a thing to power anything else, it would stop.

To create a perpetual motion car, yes, it's output would have to exceed the input as you are introducing friction into the equation when you place wheels on a road. An engine that is a perpetual motion machine, however, would only need to be 100% efficient as the system would turn itself perpetually.

The practicality of something has nothing to do with whether or not it is impossible.

[siva_chair]

Have fun trying to make an engine without friction and one which produces no noise.

Just because it seems absurd to us now, does not mean it is impossible.

[YDtoad]

Just because it seems absurd to us now, does not mean it is impossible.

Yeah, at one point the thought of flying in the air seemed absurd.

[spitfirejunky]

Energy does not have to exist outside of the universe for the universe to function as a machine or mechanical system.

Define the word machine.

[siva_chair]

Define the word machine.

I did. Check the previous page.

[AmericanWeiner]

Yeah, at one point the thought of flying in the air seemed absurd.


To be fair, we have a firm grasp of basic mechanical physics now.

If some device could work, chances are that it would have to breach a line between dimensions or something like that, because that's generally the area that we don't understand.

[spitfirejunky]

I did. Check the previous page.

A machine must moderate the transfer of energy. The universe neither abstracts nor produces energy.

[AmericanWeiner]

A machine must moderate the transfer of energy. The universe neither abstracts nor produces energy.


We don't know what the universe does beyond the universe (if that is possible).

[spitfirejunky]

If we define the universe as that which encapsulates all energy and matter, then we can logically assume that energy can't exist outside of it, and it can't qualify as a machine as such.

[YDtoad]

Well then you could get into tangent universes and other such stuff in higher dimensions.

[AmericanWeiner]

String theory would support differently.

Different planes and such would not be considered under your definition since (apparently) it's all the same energy and matter, though the differing circumstances can effect things differently.

I don't pretend to understand it. I'm just a proponent of the we-don't-know-**** theory.

[spitfirejunky]

So you're saying a universe may moderate energy within different dimensions?

[AmericanWeiner]

I'm saying humans don't know ****.

We can predict some things with fair accuracy but when it comes to really knowing things, we have no idea.

[spitfirejunky]

And I'm saying given our current definition of the word universe, it cannot be a machine.

Ninja EDIT:

Yes, but I'm simply using logic to support my argument, not anything empirical or relating to research.

If you were tempted to say that a universe moderates energy within different dimensions, then that would simply mean that given the current definition of the word universe, it would now include the entirity of these dimensions because we have concluded that energy and matter cannot exist outside of it. If we were to say anything within these dimensions is a universe, that would be a misnomer.

[AmericanWeiner]

But there is nothing outside of the universe in string theory...it's all in the same space.

Universe is typically used as the physical energy, space, and matter that we can theoretically reach. It all exists in one infinite "room"

"Cosmos" generally refers to the house, the neighborhood, etc.

[spitfirejunky]

Universe is typically used as the physical energy, space, and matter that we can theoretically reach.

This definition differs from mine. If I were to impose my definition of universe into the string theory framework, "cosmos" would be universe and universe would be sub-universe.

[AmericanWeiner]

Your definition of universe is wrong, then. :thumb:

[Futue te Ipsum]

Yeah, at one point the thought of flying in the air seemed absurd.Then people looked into the sky and noticed birds could do it.

[MattyBlade]

I think I understand them perfectly fine.



You don't need to, you only need it to be 100% efficient to keep it in motion.

If a car engine were 100% efficient, could put 2 miles worth of gasoline in it and it would continually keep running. Note, I am not saying you could drive a car forever with such an engine (as once you place wheels on a surface, you have friction, which cannot be present in a system that is 100%). I am saying the engine would continue to turn once started, as it would lose no energy via friction, heat, ect. and continue to turn itself perpetually.



No, a perpetual motion machine is a machine that is perpetually in motion. A system that is 100% or greater in efficiency would qualify as a perpetual motion machine.



To create a perpetual motion car, yes, it's output would have to exceed the input as you are introducing friction into the equation when you place wheels on a road. An engine that is a perpetual motion machine, however, would only need to be 100% efficient as the system would turn itself perpetually.

The practicality of something has nothing to do with whether or not it is impossible.


needing gasoline or any third party thing as a 'fuel' does not mean it's perpetual because as you and I know the fuel will eventually wear out/exhaust from the system.

[MattyBlade]

It is theoretically impossible, but that doesn't mean there can't be a machine that's 99.999999% efficient, with minimal energy loss, since there's a constant energy recycling.

It'd be interesting.

EDIT: Oh man I'm so joining that team when I have enough experience.

there is something that's 99% efficient. it looks like a big ferris wheel.

there's another one which is run with magnets and a ball travelling around on a circle. I forget the details of it (and suck at explaining what it looks like) but if you search perpetual motion machines you should be able to find it.

the guy who made it stores it in some facility because he is scared the russian government(conspiracy nut) are going to be after it and try and steal his technology.

[Smokey D]

Except it is the downfall of every theory and interpretation of science to assume that it is right. If we hold this view, we have to conclude that Newtonian theory was true until around 1900, after which it suddenly became false, while relativity and quantum theory suddenly became the truth.

If only theories were regarded primarily as ways of looking at the world as a whole (i.e. world views) rather than as 'absolutely true knowlege of how things are' (or as a steady approach to the latter).

Of course, but there are some things which are utterly unquestionable, like the earth revolving around the sun or energy being required to produce any given reaction.



If all motion stops, the movement of energy in general and the laws governing such movements would also stop, so discussion of that is really irrellevant, wouldn't you say?

Yes, that's my point. Which is why it's stupid to think of the universe as a machine.

The universe is still a perpetual motion machine, as it fits the definition of a perpetual motion machine as we are experiencing it.

No, the Universe is the system in which all other machines operate. It's not really a machine in itself.

[QUOTE=AmericanWeiner;13271184]Your definition of universe is wrong, then. :thumb:

The Universe is all the energy in existence, and any dimension relating thereto. Our current understanding of everything scientific is predicated on the notion of conservation of energy, so imagining that maybe energy can somehow come into existence is not a useful concept and should not be accepted as valid to introduce to a discussion unless absolutely incontravenable proof exists.

[TojesDolan]

there is something that's 99% efficient. it looks like a big ferris wheel.

there's another one which is run with magnets and a ball travelling around on a circle. I forget the details of it (and suck at explaining what it looks like) but if you search perpetual motion machines you should be able to find it.

the guy who made it stores it in some facility because he is scared the russian government(conspiracy nut) are going to be after it and try and steal his technology.
I think magnetism is the way to go to create better , more efficient, and more useful machines. It may also be the answer to flotation, but it recquires some research.

[wrongz]

perpetual motion will never happen, although alterations or variations on it are a possibility

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

I think magnetism is the way to go to create better , more efficient, and more useful machines. It may also be the answer to flotation, but it recquires some research.

I dunno, there's an article in one of the more recent new scientists about a guy who has an engine for scapecraft using nothing but microwaves.

yes i know microwaves are electromagnetic in nature but professor science here probably does not and even if he does i think e means magnetism with magnets

[TojesDolan]

I dunno, there's an article in one of the more recent new scientists about a guy who has an engine for scapecraft using nothing but microwaves.

yes i know microwaves are electromagnetic in nature but professor science here probably does not and even if he does i think e means magnetism with magnets
Development nowadays. :D

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Development nowadays. :D

it meant they were powered by rays from the sun and so didn't have to carry petrol so they could send out the spacecrafts for aaaages

[CannedKoala]

Hey guys its school time,

The laws of thermodynamics arnt quite as simple as your making them out to be.

You cant have an engine capable of 100% because of the 2nd Law which partly states that Heat can only flow from high temperature to low temperature. I doubt anyone can seriously disagree with that.

So think of this experiment...we want to extract energy from heat, and use it as useful work (such as moving something). an example of this would be combusting the fuel in your car and we are going to do this as a cycle.

(1) you have a piston, with some high temperature gas in it, you add heat from a high temperature source. It expands and pushes the piston up (this is where our work occurs) all the while staying at this high temperature

2) We take away the heat source. The gas will expand more, pushing up the piston still. The gas will now decrease in temperature.

3) We now push back on the piston, compressing the gas but this gets us nowhere because it is a reversal of step 2. Instead, when we push back on the piston, we compress the gas but put it in contact with a source at a LOWER temperature so that we discard some heat as we compress. This step requires less energy to be put into the system than we got out of it

4) we take away the low temperature source and keep compressing, so as to return the gas to its inital high temperature ready for more cycles

(this is called the carnot reversible heat engine if anyones interested)

This is pretty complicated and i dont even totaly understand it myself cos im still learning about it. basicaly, you HAVE to discard heat. you CANNOT transfer 100% heat energy into work.

That means that you can theoreticaly only get efficiencys of about 60ish%(they have equations for it and whatnot)
I'll also point out that this assumes no friction loss and other similar factors that would affect it.

Thats theory, reality is that you will get much less than that due to friction etc.

So when someone tells you that a nuclear powerplant is crap because its only 45% efficiant, theres really a cap of about 60% so effectivly its about 75% efficient as they can make it which is pretty good

This is why perpetual motion isnt possible. its easy to do handwavy stuff and dismiss a few decades of pretty solid science if you dont understand it

The universe isnt perpetual either, because whenever we do something that results in some heat, we cant get that energy back. Its stuck there as low energy heat. After however million trillion bajillion years, everything will cool down to the same temperature, there will be no more heat differences, thus no transfers and thus no more work can be made from it and that is called 'heat death' of the universe.

another thing to think about, would you rather a block of energy as lots of low temperature gas, or the same block of energy as a small amount of high temperature gas.

Theres more too it as well but im only halfway through the class :p

but yeh, i just basicaly wanted to say things arnt really as simple as they sound and id trust the people that really do understand it such as all those klever physicist types.

hope you had fun!

[PerpetualBurn]

If that doesn't end the discussion, then I don't think I know what to do.

[RockAndRoll]

I doubt anyone can seriously disagree with that. So you haven't been here long eh?:p

The universe isnt perpetual either, because whenever we do something that results in some heat, we cant get that energy back. Its stuck there as low energy heat. After however million trillion bajillion years, everything will cool down to the same temperature, there will be no more heat differences, thus no transfers and thus no more work can be made from it and that is called 'heat death' of the universe.
To be fair we're not really sure of the fate of the universe.

hope you had fun!
:lol:

[siva_chair]

A machine must moderate the transfer of energy. The universe neither abstracts nor produces energy.

The universe most certainly moderates the transfer of energy within itself, unless you are claiming that the laws that govern the universe are seperate from the universe itself.

The fact is, modern science still views the universe as a machine-like process. Any system is going to be mechanical in nature as anytime you break something down into interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements, you introduce mechanics. If the universe is viewed as interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements (like science is concerned with the understanding thereof), then the universe becomes an order of mechanics within such a discussion and is mechanical in nature. Something that is mechanical in nature can quite easily be seen as a machine.

If we define the universe as that which encapsulates all energy and matter, then we can logically assume that energy can't exist outside of it, and it can't qualify as a machine as such.

Correct, but the fact remains that in a scientific discussion, the universe is divided into interacting and interrelated parts (it is viewed as a system, afterall), and thus introduces a mechanical order.

needing gasoline or any third party thing as a 'fuel' does not mean it's perpetual because as you and I know the fuel will eventually wear out/exhaust from the system.

If a machine is 100% efficient it will continue to run forever as there would be no friction, heat loss, or energy loss of any kind. The engine would keep turning and the mechanical energy created by the gasoline would continue to run the engine long after the gas has evaporated/completely changed energy form.

Of course, but there are some things which are utterly unquestionable, like the earth revolving around the sun or energy being required to produce any given reaction.

I wouldn't say they are unquestionable. Nothing is unquestionable. Perhaps disbelief in the said phenomenon might be viewed as crazy/wrong/unstable, but that is neither here nor there.


Yes, that's my point. Which is why it's stupid to think of the universe as a machine.

If the universe is a system (which we are claming it is in every scientific discussion we have of it), it is relevant to view the mechanical order of said system. It certainly is not stupid to think of the universe as a machine if there is a mechanical order within the system that is the universe.

No, the Universe is the system in which all other machines operate. It's not really a machine in itself.

The universe is a system, which consists of interrellated and interdependent parts interacting with an inherently mechanical order (for the purpose of scientific discussion). Of course, there are alternate worldviews, but they aren't neccessarily popular with more orthodox and dogmatic views of science, so they aren't really relevant at this point.

If that doesn't end the discussion, then I don't think I know what to do.

Why would it end the discussion? It simply stated a certain modern interpretation of the laws of physics and science. Just because our understanding of physics states that an event appears to be impossible, does not mean that it actually is. Not leaving open the possibility of something is incredibly shortsighted and misleading. So is not accounting for human fallibility at all times.

[PerpetualBurn]

The fact is, modern science still views the universe as a machine-like process.

Citation needed.

? It simply stated a certain modern interpretation of the laws of physics and science

It stated the actual laws of physics.

[siva_chair]

Citation needed.

Anytime something is viewed as a system, there is a mechanical order. I would think that you could see this quite clearly.

It stated the actual laws of physics.

It stated the actual interpretation of the laws of physics. The description is not the described.

[AmericanWeiner]

Machines transfer or process input to output.

Can you demonstrate how the universe recieves input and processes it as output?

I think not.

[PerpetualBurn]

Anytime something is viewed as a system, there is a mechanical order. I would think that you could see this quite clearly.

Citation needed.

It stated the actual interpretation of the laws of physics. The description is not the described.

The description is valid. The described are the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

[siva_chair]

Machines transfer or process input to output.

Can you demonstrate how the universe recieves input and processes it as output?

I think not.

The universe transfers and processes energy. That can be observed as we speak. Input is simply the amount of energy that is present at a given point in observation, and output is simply the amount of energy present at a later point in observation. The universe is a system of 100% efficiency, as the amount of energy present at a given point of observation (input) is equivalent to the amount of energy present at a further point of observation(output) while work is being performed. The universe is constantly converting it's energy into other forms with 100% efficiency.

Citation needed.


See: prevailing scientific worldview.

Do you deny that science views the universe as a system?


The description is valid. The described are the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Yes, they are the interpretation of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, they are not the actual laws. The description is still not the described.

[spitfirejunky]

Your definition of universe is wrong, then. :thumb:

Well it's not my definition, it's the definition accepted by the greater majority of the scientific community.

What you pose through string theory has not been proven, so if anything your definition is wrong until the existence of these dimensions is proven right, in which case the current definition of universe must be modified.

The Universe is all the energy in existence, and any dimension relating thereto. Our current understanding of everything scientific is predicated on the notion of conservation of energy, so imagining that maybe energy can somehow come into existence is not a useful concept and should not be accepted as valid to introduce to a discussion unless absolutely incontravenable proof exists.

Quoted for truth.

The universe transfers and processes energy. That can be observed as we speak.

Transfers energy where? Energy can't exist outside the universe with our current definition.

[PerpetualBurn]

See: prevailing scientific worldview.

Do you deny that science views the universe as a system?

Citation.
Needed.

Yes, they are the interpretation of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, they are not the actual laws. The description is still not the described.

If you accept the first and second laws of thermodynamics then this doesn't matter, moron.

[sexymuffin]

Transfers energy where? Energy can't exist outside the universe with our current definition.

you're merely accepting a definition that has been perpetuated by society for years and years. All things are relative, even energy. Your perception of energy fluctuates when you experience it in a different linear pattern then what one would normally expect.

:hitsbong:

take it from here siva

[RockAndRoll]

What does that even mean?

[sexymuffin]

absolutely nothing

[RockAndRoll]

Oh, okay, just making sure.

[CannedKoala]

The universe transfers and processes energy. That can be observed as we speak. Input is simply the amount of energy that is present at a given point in observation, and output is simply the amount of energy present at a later point in observation. The universe is a system of 100% efficiency, as the amount of energy present at a given point of observation (input) is equivalent to the amount of energy present at a further point of observation(output) while work is being performed. The universe is constantly converting it's energy into other forms with 100% efficiency.


That is Conservation of Energy right there and that is the first law.

it is 'transforming' energy at 100% efficiency, it doesnt lose any and it doesnt gain any. Within that system we have defined as the universe, the total amount of energy is constant.
This does not make it perpetual anything though other than it will exist for a long time as it is with transformations going on within it

Thinking of the universe as a system however, there are no inputs or outputs.

Anything can be made a system, such as a person.

Think of a person standing in a room, the room is fully insulated so no heat escapes to the surroundings.
If we define our system as the walls of that room, there is no energy crossing that boundary. There is no heat passing through it or work acting on it, there are no inputs or outputs, the first law doesnt care about the total energy, only the change in energy.

(change in Energy) = Heat - Work = 0

to be strict, efficiency = desired output/required input = 0/0 = undefined
so you dont really have 100% because its 100% of nothing
you wouldnt call this room a perpetual motion machine

If we redefine the system as the person, so his skin is now the boundary. If the man is hotter than the room temp, then there will be heat flow from the man to the room. Our system as we have defined it is now losing energy. But remember when looking at the entire room, we know there is no energy being 'destroyed'

This is my understanding of the conservation of energy. if you define your system as the universe, whatever goes on inside doesnt matter, heat -> work -> potential -> kinetic -> electrical, its all within the larger system

The system of the universe, does not have any energy flows crossing its boundary so net change = 0 therfore energy is conserved

if you want to argue about things outside the universe, then i dont know. If you want to postulate that we can steal energy from other dimensions or whatnot then i suppose you can. Back to perpetual motion machines though, i dont think a magnet will quite manage to do that...

The second Law is a bunch of statements about temperature going from hot to cold, and how you cannot convert 100% heat to work

If you assume you can convert 100% heat to work, then you can show that effectivly heat will travel from cold to hot.

What i said before about the piston is part of the foundation of the 2nd law from a guy named Carnot
He states "No engine operating between two heat reservoirs can be more efficient than a Carnot engine operating between the same reservoirs"

(reservoirs are like the ocean, no matter what you do to it, its large enough to stay pretty much the same temperature)

His heat engine, the one i described is the most efficient POSSIBLE. You cant beat it, because of the fact heat flows from hot to cold.

the 2nd law in its summed up state is something like 'Entropy must always increase or stay the same' and entropy is some weird thing (once again justified by how heat flows from hot to cold)

Carnot's heat engine has no change in entropy, therfore the most efficient possible.

So, in summary, you just cant :p
cant have a 100% efficient engine, usualy get a theoretical max of about 60%
cant create energy, only transform it within the confines of the universe

these 2 combined is how the mainstream science community has decided that perpetual motion is impossible.

The patent office no longer accepts patents that claim to break the laws of thermodynamics.

It is people that do not understand the deep foundations of these laws that try to build these machines, and then feel alienated because noone will take them seriously.

Whats the harm in them you say? So many scams have been pulled from these things. Innocent people 'investing' in 'exciting new technology that will change the world'
Im not sure about these Steorn people from the front page that claim to be creating energy. They havent asked for money yet apparently but there are enough people in the world that believe them already...so hmm it will be interesting to watch

[spitfirejunky]

My God, Phys Chem 101.

[siva_chair]

That is Conservation of Energy right there and that is the first law.

it is 'transforming' energy at 100% efficiency, it doesnt lose any and it doesnt gain any. Within that system we have defined as the universe, the total amount of energy is constant.
This does not make it perpetual anything though other than it will exist for a long time as it is with transformations going on within it

It makes it in a perpetual flux of energy being transformed from one form to another.

Thinking of the universe as a system however, there are no inputs or outputs.

Work is being performed by this system. In a 100% effective system in a perpetual state of movement, the output and the inputs are irrellevant as the present energy is continually transforming into other types of energy in a mechanical order.

Anything can be made a system, such as a person.

I am very much aware of that.

Think of a person standing in a room, the room is fully insulated so no heat escapes to the surroundings.
If we define our system as the walls of that room, there is no energy crossing that boundary. There is no heat passing through it or work acting on it, there are no inputs or outputs, the first law doesnt care about the total energy, only the change in energy.

(change in Energy) = Heat - Work = 0

to be strict, efficiency = desired output/required input = 0/0 = undefined
so you dont really have 100% because its 100% of nothing
you wouldnt call this room a perpetual motion machine

I would if the human standing in the room recycled and transformed energy by breathing, sweating, ect. on forever. I would say the room was in a state of perpetual motion, as there is always motion present.

If the desired output is a state of perpetual motion with a required input of 0, then it would certainly be 100% as it fulfills the desire.

If we redefine the system as the person, so his skin is now the boundary. If the man is hotter than the room temp, then there will be heat flow from the man to the room. Our system as we have defined it is now losing energy. But remember when looking at the entire room, we know there is no energy being 'destroyed'

This is my understanding of the conservation of energy. if you define your system as the universe, whatever goes on inside doesnt matter, heat -> work -> potential -> kinetic -> electrical, its all within the larger system

The system of the universe, does not have any energy flows crossing its boundary so net change = 0 therfore energy is conserved

The universe is a system as it is defined by it's interacting, interellated, interdependent parts. That is certainly a system. It is a system within a perpetual state of motion. It achieves that because a continual transformation is taking place at 100% efficiency. A state of energy conservation is achieved with any system that is 100% efficient.

if you want to argue about things outside the universe, then i dont know. If you want to postulate that we can steal energy from other dimensions or whatnot then i suppose you can. Back to perpetual motion machines though, i dont think a magnet will quite manage to do that...

Good thing I never said anything about outside our universe.

The second Law is a bunch of statements about temperature going from hot to cold, and how you cannot convert 100% heat to work

If you assume you can convert 100% heat to work, then you can show that effectivly heat will travel from cold to hot.

What i said before about the piston is part of the foundation of the 2nd law from a guy named Carnot
He states "No engine operating between two heat reservoirs can be more efficient than a Carnot engine operating between the same reservoirs"

(reservoirs are like the ocean, no matter what you do to it, its large enough to stay pretty much the same temperature)

His heat engine, the one i described is the most efficient POSSIBLE. You cant beat it, because of the fact heat flows from hot to cold.

the 2nd law in its summed up state is something like 'Entropy must always increase or stay the same' and entropy is some weird thing (once again justified by how heat flows from hot to cold)

Carnot's heat engine has no change in entropy, therfore the most efficient possible.

So, in summary, you just cant :p

According to our current understanding of these laws. I have never disagreed with that, I have simply expanded on the fact that they are only impossible according to our current logical framework of understanding the laws of physics.

cant have a 100% efficient engine, usualy get a theoretical max of about 60%
cant create energy, only transform it within the confines of the universe

these 2 combined is how the mainstream science community has decided that perpetual motion is impossible.

A state of perpetual motion is not impossible (you are living in one), but a perpetual motion machine built by humans may be.

The patent office no longer accepts patents that claim to break the laws of thermodynamics.

It is people that do not understand the deep foundations of these laws that try to build these machines, and then feel alienated because noone will take them seriously.

Whats the harm in them you say? So many scams have been pulled from these things. Innocent people 'investing' in 'exciting new technology that will change the world'

Im not sure about these Steorn people from the front page that claim to be creating energy. They havent asked for money yet apparently but there are enough people in the world that believe them already...so hmm it will be interesting to watch

That is pretty irrelevant to my point that it is only impossible based on our current perception of the laws of physics. One should always account for the falibility of human understanding.

[margin0walker]

If you ever manage to make a perpetual motion machine, I'll be the first in line to invest.

[CannedKoala]

There is nothing perpetual about our universe just like that room i described

As soon as you create heat you will never get that energy back into useful work because it cannot be 100% as stated by Carnot

your breathing, sweating and general being in that room is causing all sorts of energy transformations. After enough time all that useful energy you had will become heat and you cant do anything with it. the room will be the same temperature as you and thus no temperature difference to allow heat transfer

once there is no heat transfer you cannot get any useful work out of it

say you breath and convert 20% to heat, you can get maybe 50% of that heat back theoreticaly, then you breath again, and you convert more heat, and get 49% back because the temperature differance has gone down. given enough breaths you will just run out of energy

it is not perpetual

or think of it this way, you will eventualy die in that room because no outside energy is supplied to you and you would starve. then your body would decompose and after enough time the room would reach a state of equilibrium and everything stops. this is the heat death i mentioned before

This is because the room is a closed system, just like our universe where energy is conserved. the only difference is that the universe is big enough that the timescale for this to happen is astronomicaly huge.

granted though there are other ways the universe can end apparently, this is only one possibility

[CannedKoala]

double post =(

[margin0walker]

I wasnt condoning a perpetual motion machine. I know it can never be done, so I was just saying.

[CannedKoala]

hey

i was replying mostly to siva :p

i find the topic really interesting though and it does make you question the basis of science today, in my case though i feel it just strengthens my belief that we have made great progress.

just look around at todays engineering, thats where the application of these theorys show their strength

space ships and plasma tv's and all this fun stuff

[siva_chair]

There is nothing perpetual about our universe just like that room i described

As soon as you create heat you will never get that energy back into useful work because it cannot be 100% as stated by Carnot

Then the system is not 100% efficient.

The universe is a system that is 100% efficient, and is in perpetual motion. Do you deny that?

your breathing, sweating and general being in that room is causing all sorts of energy transformations. After enough time all that useful energy you had will become heat and you cant do anything with it. the room will be the same temperature as you and thus no temperature difference to allow heat transfer

There will still be electrochemical processes taking place within the room and within your body. I was under the assumption that we assumed this room to be 100% efficient like the universe. That means that starvation, malnutrition, and other things aren't factors.

once there is no heat transfer you cannot get any useful work out of it

I have never denied that.

say you breath and convert 20% to heat, you can get maybe 50% of that heat back theoreticaly, then you breath again, and you convert more heat, and get 49% back because the temperature differance has gone down. given enough breaths you will just run out of energy

Then the system is not 100% efficient and is not comparable to the universe, where a state of perpetual motion is taking place.

If the universe ever "died" from a heat death, that would indeed be the very end of the universe, but as there would be no movement/expansion/ect. there would be no reality and we would be at a theoretical state where we can speculate little, much like "before" the singularity.

it is not perpetual

per·pet·u·al (pər-pĕch'ū-əl)
adj.
1. Lasting for eternity.
2. Continuing or lasting for an indefinitely long time.
3. Instituted to be in effect or have tenure for an unlimited duration: a treaty of perpetual friendship.
4. Continuing without interruption. See synonyms at continual.
5. Flowering throughout the growing season.

I would say the motion of the universe fits the qualifications of being called perpetual.

or think of it this way, you will eventualy die in that room because no outside energy is supplied to you and you would starve. then your body would decompose and after enough time the room would reach a state of equilibrium and everything stops. this is the heat death i mentioned before

This is also not an analogy comparable to the universe, as the human body isn't a machine of 100% efficiency.

This is because the room is a closed system, just like our universe where energy is conserved. the only difference is that the universe is big enough that the timescale for this to happen is astronomicaly huge.

And the fact that time is dependent on the universe, so as soon as it stops being 100% efficient, time will cease to be. To discuss anything relating to the universe and the laws of physics after time ceases is pointless and will get nowhere.

granted though there are other ways the universe can end apparently, this is only one possibility

If the universe died of a heat death, it will have been, through it's existance, a 100% efficient system that was in a state of perpetual motion.

hey

i was replying mostly to siva :p

i find the topic really interesting though and it does make you question the basis of science today, in my case though i feel it just strengthens my belief that we have made great progress.

just look around at todays engineering, thats where the application of these theorys show their strength

space ships and plasma tv's and all this fun stuff

Perhaps instead of looking at theories as knowlege of how the world is, we should go back to looking at theories as ways of looking at the world. That is really what a theory is anyhow. One shouldn't accept things as static absolutes when the field of the unknown is so vast.

[CannedKoala]

The universe is a system that is 100% efficient, and is in perpetual motion. Do you deny that?

Yes.
:)

To begin with, there is no 'efficiency' of the universe, there is no energy crossing its boundary so theres nothing to calculate an efficiency of. its just a big box with all the energy in it jumbling about that will end up all thermal energy one day.

efficiency is defined as (output of what you want)/(input of what you needed to get it)

neither of those exist for a universe, just because it has the same energy from one moment to the next does not make it 100% efficient, only that energy is conserved.

This is where we are sticking, i trust the laws and the laws disallow 100% heat conversion to work and i tried to demonstrate that with the carnot heat engine, its a logical argument. im not putting blind faith into these things, there is background to them.

maybe you should not dismiss them so quick because they are not intuitive

What backs up your belief of perpetual motion other than the disbelief of the laws of thermodynamics?

[innerdark]

ok, i'm going to mention something that fits the definition of "perpetual"

if you took Newton's cradle, it moves until stopped by an outside force,

also, the only reason way perpetual motion could work theoretically, is either a pendulum or Newton's Cradle, in a vaccum(sp), seeing as the only forces acting on them previously are air resistance, friction and momentum, 2 of these (friction, air resistance) would be struck out, therefor, leaving the said machine to be in perpetual motion

oh, and you're right in a way koala, we cannot calculate the efficiency of the universe as we have no output total. but, since all science consists of is theories, we use Ockham's Razor (when given two equally valid explanations for a phenomenon, one should embrace the less complicated formulation. ) by using this, is is plain to see that Siva's theory is much more plausible, and is, until proven otherwise, the "right"(note quotation marks) solution

[PerpetualBurn]

oh, and you're right in a way koala, we cannot calculate the efficiency of the universe as we have no output total. but, since all science consists of is theories, we use Ockham's Razor (when given two equally valid explanations for a phenomenon, one should embrace the less complicated formulation. ) by using this, is is plain to see that Siva's theory is much more plausible, and is, until proven otherwise, the "right"(note quotation marks) solution

How is Siva's theory much more plausible?

That's awful application of Ockham's Razor.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

It's not Ocham's razor at all.

we're discussing definitions, not theories.

[Volumnius Flush]

Perpetual motion is as false as evolution is true.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Perpetual motion is as false as evolution is true.

no becuase you see one is forbidden by the alws of physics and the other one has overwhelming observational evidence in favour of it

[AmericanWeiner]

Well it's impossible to have negative empirical evidence, isn't it?

Unless two situations are mutually exclusive I guess

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Well it's impossible to have negative empirical evidence, isn't it?

Unless two situations are mutually exclusive I guess

well if human fossils were found carbondated to 6000 years ago and there was no evidence of any life existing before then that'd be empirical evidence against evolution

and there is NONE O' THAT

[siva_chair]

Yes.
:)

To begin with, there is no 'efficiency' of the universe, there is no energy crossing its boundary so theres nothing to calculate an efficiency of. its just a big box with all the energy in it jumbling about that will end up all thermal energy one day.

efficiency is defined as (output of what you want)/(input of what you needed to get it)

Do natural forces contained within the universe perform work desirable by human beings?

neither of those exist for a universe, just because it has the same energy from one moment to the next does not make it 100% efficient, only that energy is conserved.

And work is being done that is obviously percieved by a conscious entity. You do have an input/output, it is simply within the boundaries of the system. The universes laws that govern energy are 100% efficient at doing just that. The universe (which is governed by laws, and defined by it's parts, including said laws) is in a constant state of motion. Work is being done through the transformation of energy.

This is where we are sticking, i trust the laws and the laws disallow 100% heat conversion to work and i tried to demonstrate that with the carnot heat engine, its a logical argument. im not putting blind faith into these things, there is background to them.

I never said you were. All I have been saying all along is to disregard completely the mere possibility of creating a machine of perpetual motion is illogical. I have said nothing about it actually being possible, however. I have simply said that a state of perpetual motion is present in the universe, so actual perpetual motion is not impossible.

maybe you should not dismiss them so quick because they are not intuitive

What backs up your belief of perpetual motion other than the disbelief of the laws of thermodynamics?

I have never claimed disbelief of them, I have simply not blindly accepted that they are neccessarily complete and still leave open the possibility that human beings are misguided or incorrect in their understanding of the actual laws governing the universe. I have never said the laws of physics are wrong, just merely left open the very real possibility that human beings are misinterpreting them. Saavy?

[spitfirejunky]

To begin with, there is no 'efficiency' of the universe, there is no energy crossing its boundary so theres nothing to calculate an efficiency of.

I thought I'd quote this because it's the same reason it can't be a machine.

Why is this so hard to understand?

[CannedKoala]

Do natural forces contained within the universe perform work desirable by human beings?


Emphasis on the "containted within"

I-------------------------I
IAAAAAAAAQw^AAAAAAAAI
IAAAAAAI-------IAAAAAAAIAAAAAAAAAW= Work out
IAQ->AAIAAAAAAIAW->AAIAAAAAAAAAQ = Heat in
IAAAAAAI-------IAAAAAAAIAAAAAAAAAQw = Waste heat
IAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAI
I-------------------------I

Big box is the universe
Small box is another system of some sort such as an engine WITHIN the universe

the box walls are the boundaries of their systems

Q, Qw and W are all a result of the small system

Efficency of the small box = (output of what we want)/(input of what we needed to get it) = W/Q

we can calculate that.

try calculate it for the system for the universe, where there are no outputs or inputs because nothing crosses the boundary
eff = 0/0 = undefined

So within the system of the universe, energy is transforming, but its still just energy and its all still within the system thus energy is conserved

because energy is conserved you can say for the small box, assuming it is steady state and not storing up energy, Energy in = Energy out

W = Q - Qw

Eff = (Q - Qw)/Q = 1 - Qw/Q

2nd law states that we we must discard some heat as Qw, therefore efficiency of the system is always less than 100% - this means perpetual motion is not gonna happen so long as heat is around.


What happens within the system doesnt matter, that Q energy is likly becoming kinetic in a turbine first, so it can apply a force on something which will become our W

We ignore the transformations because they dont cross the system boundary.

the 100% efficiency at TRANSFORMING energy in the universe is just because of the conservation of energy, not because it is in perpetual motion. It is not even perpetual transformation, because when all the processes within the system have given off Qw, eventually all the energy becomes Qw and we get back to that heat death thing.


All I have been saying all along is to disregard completely the mere possibility of creating a machine of perpetual motion is illogical. I have said nothing about it actually being possible, however. I have simply said that a state of perpetual motion is present in the universe, so actual perpetual motion is not impossible.

I have never claimed disbelief of them, I have simply not blindly accepted that they are neccessarily complete and still leave open the possibility that human beings are misguided or incorrect in their understanding of the actual laws governing the universe. I have never said the laws of physics are wrong, just merely left open the very real possibility that human beings are misinterpreting them. Saavy?


It is not illogical to dismiss perpetual motion because the laws come from a logical thought experiment, Carnot's Engine.

Ive tried to show that your premise of the universe being in perpetual motion is incorrect. The laws dont allow it.
Your assuming the universe is in perpetual motion which disqualifies the very laws that say it isnt. its a bit circular

These Laws didnt come from the bible so we dont have to interperet them :p , they are very direct statements that science has come up with from observation. There is no misinterpreting.

Still..they could be wrong..and most likly incomplete. They have managed to break the second law on the quantum level apparently :smash:

but for all applicable uses thus far theyve been holding for about 150 years

It is good to question things we take as a given though. the concept of "Energy" wasnt around before the 1800's but even non-science types take it as a given today. Before that they thought heat was some mysterious substance called caloric. They even had a theory for the conservation of heat! I wonder what people will say when they look back on our thinking 150 years from now

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Siva, it doesn't require any sicence to realise that a sealed room with numerous machines inside but without anything going in or out is not itself a machine but a container

[punkguitarist549]

Science 1 - 0 Siva Chair

Perpetual motion is impossible and you're an idiot to think otherwise.

I really, really dislike you.

[spitfirejunky]

You bumped a thread to say that? :lol:

[punkguitarist549]

You bumped a thread to say that? :lol:

Yeh... I meant to say it when I first read that comment, but was having 'net problems.

[Futue te Ipsum]

He is right though. Unless our understanding of science is drastically and unforseably mistaken, this IS impossible.

The possibility that such a machine has been created before our understanding of thermodynamics has been amended is unthinkable. It's like creating a calculator before you've discovered maths. A good hard dose of scepticism is needed here, and I'm not sure everybody has got it.

[punkguitarist549]

He is right though. Unless our understanding of science is drastically and unforseably mistaken, this IS impossible.

The possibility that such a machine has been created before our understanding of thermodynamics has been amended is unthinkable. It's like creating a calculator before you've discovered maths. A good hard dose of scepticism is needed here, and I'm not sure everybody has got it.

Yeah, I agree. Although if it someday did happen, it would be amazing.

[Futue te Ipsum]

Indeed, but there's a higher chance of the sun growing a pair of sunglasses and dancing about to the macarena... an event which may also be considered amazing,.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Indeed, but there's a higher chance of the sun growing a pair of sunglasses and dancing about to the macarena... an event which may also be considered amazing,.

Actually if you construct newton's laws of motion with a "heisenberg" term and then apply siva's law of "a pair of sunglasses is not distinct from something that is not a pair of sunglasses" you'll find it's pretty inevitable