Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22

# Perpetual Motion

 Posts: 11,196 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/31/2011 5:10:25 PMPosted: 6 years agoTake a pendulum for example, what if we surrounded it in an airtight seal, and used vacuum suction to extract all air inside, making it entirely surrounded by dead space. Would it then move forever since air friction is gone?"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
 Posts: 25,980 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/31/2011 5:17:31 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 8/31/2011 5:10:25 PM, 000ike wrote:Take a pendulum for example, what if we surrounded it in an airtight seal, and used vacuum suction to extract all air inside, making it entirely surrounded by dead space. Would it then move forever since air friction is gone?no, since there would still be friction of the pivot point (it has to sit on something, thus making contact, and thus having friction).Something more likely would be...Within a perfect vacuum (not really possible, but we'll ignore that for now) and an electric, objects can move with no friction.For example, placing a metal ring at the bottom of the vacuum area heavily positively charged nd putting a metal ball, which is also positively changed in the middle, the two will repel. But since the strength of the force is related to their distance, they will get far enough away, that gravity will pull the ball back down, then it gets closer and gets pushed away again. This will cause it to go up and down forever."Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
 Posts: 6,871 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/31/2011 5:24:36 PMPosted: 6 years agoPerpetual motion is considered false since it violates (according to my source) both/or the first and second law of thermodynamics...The first law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in process...."In a thermodynamic process, the increment in the internal energy of a system is equal to the difference between the increment of heat accumulated by the system and the increment of work done by it." [1] If perpetual motion is true, than the engine must be forced to, after its generator has powered the parts of its design, to constantly produce energy to maintain motion, thereby violating this law. (Note: the law has been proven by processes [2]) Also note that some perpetual machines don't violate the law.The second law is an " expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system." [3] It deduces the concept of entropy....It in essence places constraints on the efficiency of engines. Again, if perpetual motion exists, then the specific engine, which does not violate the first law (assuming that it has some sort of power source that supplies its energy fully) violates the second, since hypothetically its efficency would be 100 percent...[1]Clausius, R. (1850). Ueber de bewegende Kraft der Wärme und die Gesetze, welche sich daraus für de Wärmelehre selbst ableiten lassen, Annalen der Physik und Chemie (Poggendorff, Leipzig), 155 (3): 368-394, page 384[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...Note that I might have made certain errors, since I'm not too acquainted with Thermodynamics....Feel free to correct me if you find any mistakes..."Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence "I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
 Posts: 25,980 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/31/2011 5:29:20 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 8/31/2011 5:24:36 PM, Man-is-good wrote:Perpetual motion is considered false since it violates (according to my source) both/or the first and second law of thermodynamics...The first law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in process...."In a thermodynamic process, the increment in the internal energy of a system is equal to the difference between the increment of heat accumulated by the system and the increment of work done by it." [1] If perpetual motion is true, than the engine must be forced to, after its generator has powered the parts of its design, to constantly produce energy to maintain motion, thereby violating this law. (Note: the law has been proven by processes [2]) Also note that some perpetual machines don't violate the law.The second law is an " expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system." [3] It deduces the concept of entropy....It in essence places constraints on the efficiency of engines. Again, if perpetual motion exists, then the specific engine, which does not violate the first law (assuming that it has some sort of power source that supplies its energy fully) violates the second, since hypothetically its efficency would be 100 percent...[1]Clausius, R. (1850). Ueber de bewegende Kraft der Wärme und die Gesetze, welche sich daraus für de Wärmelehre selbst ableiten lassen, Annalen der Physik und Chemie (Poggendorff, Leipzig), 155 (3): 368-394, page 384[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...Note that I might have made certain errors, since I'm not too acquainted with Thermodynamics....Feel free to correct me if you find any mistakes...If all friction is removed, it isn't breaking the laws, because it doesn't "create" any energy."Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
 Posts: 6,871 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/31/2011 5:30:10 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 8/31/2011 5:29:20 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:At 8/31/2011 5:24:36 PM, Man-is-good wrote:Perpetual motion is considered false since it violates (according to my source) both/or the first and second law of thermodynamics...The first law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in process...."In a thermodynamic process, the increment in the internal energy of a system is equal to the difference between the increment of heat accumulated by the system and the increment of work done by it." [1] If perpetual motion is true, than the engine must be forced to, after its generator has powered the parts of its design, to constantly produce energy to maintain motion, thereby violating this law. (Note: the law has been proven by processes [2]) Also note that some perpetual machines don't violate the law.The second law is an " expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system." [3] It deduces the concept of entropy....It in essence places constraints on the efficiency of engines. Again, if perpetual motion exists, then the specific engine, which does not violate the first law (assuming that it has some sort of power source that supplies its energy fully) violates the second, since hypothetically its efficency would be 100 percent...[1]Clausius, R. (1850). Ueber de bewegende Kraft der Wärme und die Gesetze, welche sich daraus für de Wärmelehre selbst ableiten lassen, Annalen der Physik und Chemie (Poggendorff, Leipzig), 155 (3): 368-394, page 384[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...Note that I might have made certain errors, since I'm not too acquainted with Thermodynamics....Feel free to correct me if you find any mistakes...If all friction is removed, it isn't breaking the laws, because it doesn't "create" any energy.Would that be classified as causing 'perpetual motion'?"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence "I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
 Posts: 18,496 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/31/2011 5:31:21 PMPosted: 6 years agoI suppose there is a difference between a perpetual motion object and a perpetual engine.I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations. A singular development of cat communications That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection, For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.
 Posts: 11,196 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/31/2011 5:33:03 PMPosted: 6 years agoPerpetual Motion would also be impossible because of neutrino's correct? Even if we achieved a perfect vacuum neutrino's would also enter and add friction right?"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
 Posts: 25,980 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/31/2011 6:25:03 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 8/31/2011 5:33:03 PM, 000ike wrote:Perpetual Motion would also be impossible because of neutrino's correct? Even if we achieved a perfect vacuum neutrino's would also enter and add friction right?No, neutrinos have very little reaction with matter, so most likely they'll pass right through the ball (unless it is a really big ball), after all, nearly all the "volume" of matter is empty space. Though, over time, some will contact the matter. But since neutrinos are traveling at near light speed, they will act as a sum of random forces (which should net zero), not as a dampening force.What I was refering to was that when exposed to an absolute vacuum, particles will break from the surface, basically evaporate. While most things, you'll find only trace amounts of particles, they are still present, and they will function as dampening.A more likely issue (though fun) would be pair production. Since the object has motion, it will have energy, and so black body radiation. Light can create the electron/positron pair, of which the positron will be pushed away by the electric force, and the electron will be attracted. This electron will lower the charge of the object, and over time, robbed it of it's charge."Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
 Posts: 6,958 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/31/2011 6:38:19 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 8/31/2011 5:10:25 PM, 000ike wrote:Take a pendulum for example, what if we surrounded it in an airtight seal, and used vacuum suction to extract all air inside, making it entirely surrounded by dead space. Would it then move forever since air friction is gone?:Perpetual motion violates every law of physics so, no."Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
 Posts: 25,980 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/31/2011 6:44:44 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 8/31/2011 6:38:19 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:At 8/31/2011 5:10:25 PM, 000ike wrote:Take a pendulum for example, what if we surrounded it in an airtight seal, and used vacuum suction to extract all air inside, making it entirely surrounded by dead space. Would it then move forever since air friction is gone?:Perpetual motion violates every law of physics so, no.I know you're exaggerating, since they only really violate one law, not every law. But still, I point out how you can technically have one, though it cannot be used to power anything.After all, electrons spinning around a nucleus are technically in perpetual motion (so long as they are left alone)."Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
 Posts: 12,028 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/1/2011 8:57:39 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 8/31/2011 6:44:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:After all, electrons spinning around a nucleus are technically in perpetual motion (so long as they are left alone).from what I understand.. they don't even "move" in the sense of travelling through space.. they more like teleport... and don't go along paths but simply exist in different places at different times... or even at the same time :/ ? I'm not really too knowledgeable about it.Anywho.. this doesn't sound like perpetual motion so much as Reality being fucked up."He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already." Metaphysics: "The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
 Posts: 11,204 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/1/2011 9:04:54 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 9/1/2011 8:57:39 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:At 8/31/2011 6:44:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:After all, electrons spinning around a nucleus are technically in perpetual motion (so long as they are left alone).from what I understand.. they don't even "move" in the sense of travelling through space.. they more like teleport... and don't go along paths but simply exist in different places at different times... or even at the same time :/ ? I'm not really too knowledgeable about it.Anywho.. this doesn't sound like perpetual motion so much as Reality being fucked up.I thought once you are at the quantum level, you can technically violate the law of thermdynamics, but its nearly impossible to do on a large scale. Take for example heat transfer. It's only a matter of probability that heat moves from hot to cold. It can theoretically go from cold to hot, but the probability is so unlikely that is nonexistent.Open borders debate: http://www.debate.org...
 Posts: 751 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/1/2011 11:59:14 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 8/31/2011 5:10:25 PM, 000ike wrote:Take a pendulum for example, what if we surrounded it in an airtight seal, and used vacuum suction to extract all air inside, making it entirely surrounded by dead space. Would it then move forever since air friction is gone?If you remove all outside forces (except gravity, you need the gravity of the Earth for the pendulum to swing) then in the boadest since it would due to inertia. But if you look closely the swinging would be effected by slight variations in gravity (from the moon for example) would most likely cause the pendulum to slow.The idea of perpetual motion if you equate it to inertia is true though...
 Posts: 25,980 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/1/2011 2:46:26 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 9/1/2011 9:04:54 AM, darkkermit wrote:At 9/1/2011 8:57:39 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:At 8/31/2011 6:44:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:After all, electrons spinning around a nucleus are technically in perpetual motion (so long as they are left alone).from what I understand.. they don't even "move" in the sense of travelling through space.. they more like teleport... and don't go along paths but simply exist in different places at different times... or even at the same time :/ ? I'm not really too knowledgeable about it.Anywho.. this doesn't sound like perpetual motion so much as Reality being fucked up.I thought once you are at the quantum level, you can technically violate the law of thermdynamics, but its nearly impossible to do on a large scale. Take for example heat transfer. It's only a matter of probability that heat moves from hot to cold. It can theoretically go from cold to hot, but the probability is so unlikely that is nonexistent.Various laws are "broken" in quantum, however the 2nd law, energy cannot be created or destroyed is not. Nor is conservation of momentum, charge, angular momentum, etc."Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
 Posts: 25,980 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/1/2011 2:47:53 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 9/1/2011 8:57:39 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:At 8/31/2011 6:44:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:After all, electrons spinning around a nucleus are technically in perpetual motion (so long as they are left alone).from what I understand.. they don't even "move" in the sense of travelling through space.. they more like teleport... and don't go along paths but simply exist in different places at different times... or even at the same time :/ ? I'm not really too knowledgeable about it.Anywho.. this doesn't sound like perpetual motion so much as Reality being fucked up.No, they are still moving, it is just that you can never know what their position and velocity is at any time (damn uncertanity principle)."Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
 Posts: 11,196 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/1/2011 9:22:58 PMPosted: 6 years agoTeleportation is impossible."A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
 Posts: 11,204 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/2/2011 12:53:06 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 9/1/2011 2:46:26 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:At 9/1/2011 9:04:54 AM, darkkermit wrote:At 9/1/2011 8:57:39 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:At 8/31/2011 6:44:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:After all, electrons spinning around a nucleus are technically in perpetual motion (so long as they are left alone).from what I understand.. they don't even "move" in the sense of travelling through space.. they more like teleport... and don't go along paths but simply exist in different places at different times... or even at the same time :/ ? I'm not really too knowledgeable about it.Anywho.. this doesn't sound like perpetual motion so much as Reality being fucked up.I thought once you are at the quantum level, you can technically violate the law of thermdynamics, but its nearly impossible to do on a large scale. Take for example heat transfer. It's only a matter of probability that heat moves from hot to cold. It can theoretically go from cold to hot, but the probability is so unlikely that is nonexistent.Various laws are "broken" in quantum, however the 2nd law, energy cannot be created or destroyed is not. Nor is conservation of momentum, charge, angular momentum, etc.That's the first law. Second law states that entropy can never increase, never decrease. Although, as I stated, in small probability scenarios it can be broken.Open borders debate: http://www.debate.org...
 Posts: 4,488 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/2/2011 1:10:14 AMPosted: 6 years agoI think there is a semantic problem. A "perpetual motion machine" is one that not only keeps moving, but generates some extra energy in the process. That violates either first or second law of thermodynamics. All applications for patent on perpetual motion machines are rejected on the grounds they don't work, and functioning is a requirement for a patent.Still, it's a good question as to whether motion could perpetual without generating or losing energy. I think that's not possible, but maybe there is an exception. Here is one problem:Assume an object is moving in a repeating path. If it is at a temperature above absolute zero it is radiating energy. It has to be above absolute because at the very least it will be warmed by starlight and by the 4 deg K background radiation. It will radiate equally in all directions, however doppler shift will increase the frequency of the radiation ahead of the object and decrease it behind the object. The higher frequency has more energy, so that will put a braking force on the object.I heard about this being used to calculate the age of the solar system. Dust circling the sun is decelerated and falls into the sun. The larger the particles, the less deceleration from the doppler shift. Hence the minimum dust particle size still found in the solar system tells it's age.
 Posts: 751 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/5/2011 1:45:20 PMPosted: 6 years agoAssume an object is moving in a repeating path. If it is at a temperature above absolute zero it is radiating energy. It has to be above absolute because at the very least it will be warmed by starlight and by the 4 deg K background radiation. It will radiate equally in all directions, however doppler shift will increase the frequency of the radiation ahead of the object and decrease it behind the object. The higher frequency has more energy, so that will put a braking force on the object.That is an interesting idea about doppler shift and energy differences but I don't think it is quite right for a couple of reasons.The doppler effect has to do with an observer and not with the source of the radiation. The frequency of radiation is the same for the source in both the direction it is moving and the opposite direction even though observers in those two directions would see slightly different frequencies.Alsom you can't observer you own radiation (unless you see a reflection) because it is moving away from you to fast. So you never "run into" that higher energy in front of you because it is gone by the time you get there.
 Posts: 25,980 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/6/2011 12:26:06 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 9/2/2011 12:53:06 AM, darkkermit wrote:At 9/1/2011 2:46:26 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:At 9/1/2011 9:04:54 AM, darkkermit wrote:At 9/1/2011 8:57:39 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:At 8/31/2011 6:44:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:After all, electrons spinning around a nucleus are technically in perpetual motion (so long as they are left alone).from what I understand.. they don't even "move" in the sense of travelling through space.. they more like teleport... and don't go along paths but simply exist in different places at different times... or even at the same time :/ ? I'm not really too knowledgeable about it.Anywho.. this doesn't sound like perpetual motion so much as Reality being fucked up.I thought once you are at the quantum level, you can technically violate the law of thermdynamics, but its nearly impossible to do on a large scale. Take for example heat transfer. It's only a matter of probability that heat moves from hot to cold. It can theoretically go from cold to hot, but the probability is so unlikely that is nonexistent.Various laws are "broken" in quantum, however the 2nd law, energy cannot be created or destroyed is not. Nor is conservation of momentum, charge, angular momentum, etc.That's the first law. Second law states that entropy can never increase, never decrease. Although, as I stated, in small probability scenarios it can be broken.You're right that I was refering to the 1st law, however, your statement of the 2nd law is incorrect. The second law states that in an isolated system, entropy will always increases or remain the same."Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
 Posts: 5,200 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/6/2011 4:18:39 PMPosted: 6 years agoWhat really hurts your head is trying to work out why machines that use relativistic affects do not break the first law.Two ships move towards each other at high speeds beaming a laser at each other. Each also has a super efficient solar collector. As the laser is blue shifted, the energy received is increased so each space ship is collecting more energy than is beamed by the other!
 Posts: 11,204 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/6/2011 4:57:01 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 9/6/2011 12:26:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:At 9/2/2011 12:53:06 AM, darkkermit wrote:At 9/1/2011 2:46:26 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:At 9/1/2011 9:04:54 AM, darkkermit wrote:At 9/1/2011 8:57:39 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:At 8/31/2011 6:44:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:After all, electrons spinning around a nucleus are technically in perpetual motion (so long as they are left alone).from what I understand.. they don't even "move" in the sense of travelling through space.. they more like teleport... and don't go along paths but simply exist in different places at different times... or even at the same time :/ ? I'm not really too knowledgeable about it.Anywho.. this doesn't sound like perpetual motion so much as Reality being fucked up.I thought once you are at the quantum level, you can technically violate the law of thermdynamics, but its nearly impossible to do on a large scale. Take for example heat transfer. It's only a matter of probability that heat moves from hot to cold. It can theoretically go from cold to hot, but the probability is so unlikely that is nonexistent.Various laws are "broken" in quantum, however the 2nd law, energy cannot be created or destroyed is not. Nor is conservation of momentum, charge, angular momentum, etc.That's the first law. Second law states that entropy can never increase, never decrease. Although, as I stated, in small probability scenarios it can be broken.You're right that I was refering to the 1st law, however, your statement of the 2nd law is incorrect. The second law states that in an isolated system, entropy will always increases or remain the same.I knew that, but somehow again somehow worded stupidly. No really I knew it :p.Open borders debate: http://www.debate.org...