Perpetual motion not possible ?. Answer this!.

[gevorg]

Never understood people's fascination with perpetual motion. Humankind should look for near-perpetual or "highly efficient" motion that can be harvest for energy. Do that first before even thinking about perpetual motion.

 

[Georgeisdead]

I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the thermodynamic construct of "perpetual motion" and the simple physics behind gravity, and Kepler's Laws.

 

[Onceler]

Couldn't permanent magnets be considered perpetual motion? I mean the electrons race along the outer layer of their clouds causing more electrons in nearby atoms to do so as well, causing a magnetic field that is present even when there is nothing to stick to and magnetic fields do flow either from north to South or the other way(not sure if anyone really knows which way for sure).

 

[pw38]

By all estimates there is no such thing as perpetual motion. It's like alchemy for the 20th and 21st century. A wishful way to exert power over nature that doesn't exist. Even the most powerful and advanced aliens that might ever exist are still subject to entropy. It's just the nature of the universe (pardon the semi-pun).

The reason the planets and sun are still spinning is because they still retain their original rotational momentum. When you think about how much mass is being spun around and the interplay of each planets gravity well compared to the Sun it's not surprising they're still spinning all these billions of years later. The universe works on scales of time we'll never comprehend outside of some rudimentary sense.

 

[Smoblikat]

The universe is expanding, but it is not in motion (as far as we know). This is one of those places that things start to get weird in quantum physics. The universe expands with out actually moving. Remember that the laws of thermal dynamics pertain to everything in the universe, but not necessarily the universe itself.




The idea of electrons spinning around a nucleus is a somewhat intellectually lazy shortcut. It is really a shame that they are still teaching it. Electrons are not actually some little dot zooming around the proton like earth is orbiting the sun. It is more of a shell, think of it like a force field surrounding the proton, but try to remember that even that is a bit of a shortcut. Really the electron is statistically distributed and exists in many places at once.

(What to get really weird? Wrap your head around this. It is even possible that there is only one electron in the entire universe, and our apparent observation of all the electrons is just one electron that is in all those different places and states all at once.)

I dont agree with the second part. Atoms need electrons to be stable, if there was only one electron in the universe and it was moving so fast that it could be in every atom in the universe at once, remain there indefinitley to keep it stable, not only would it travel faster than the speed of light, it would also mean that there are more than one electrons.

 

[disappoint]

(What to get really weird? Wrap your head around this. It is even possible that there is only one electron in the entire universe, and our apparent observation of all the electrons is just one electron that is in all those different places and states all at once.)

 

[Saint Nick]

Someone has been watching too much Futurama!

 

[sao123]

Perpetual motion doesn't exist.

what happened to...
an object in motion will stay in motion, until acted upon by an outside force.

motion does not require energy... only acceleration.

 

[edro]

Why don't we wrap the moon with giant copper cables and generate electricity?
We could power a moon city with the electricity generated from its motion related to Earth!

 

[Howard]

what happened to...
an object in motion will stay in motion, until acted upon by an outside force.

motion does not require energy... only acceleration.

Motion doesn't require acceleration either.

 

[uclabachelor]

So why is the earth spinning at constant speed around its axis ?. For billions of years! This questions goes for the moon spinning around the earth, and the planets orbiting the sun. Where do they get their energy from, how does that translate to the spinning force ?.

From our own definition, these motions would be perpetual motion, would it not ?.

The answer to your question.

 

[wirednuts]

if the terrorists really wanted to win they would just blow up the moon

 

[SMOGZINN]

I dont agree with the second part. Atoms need electrons to be stable, if there was only one electron in the universe and it was moving so fast that it could be in every atom in the universe at once, remain there indefinitley to keep it stable, not only would it travel faster than the speed of light, it would also mean that there are more than one electrons.

You are thinking about an electron as a thing that has to move. Start thinking of it as a field that can be in more then one place at once and you will see not only does it not need to travel faster then the speed of light but it doesn't need to move at all. All points of the universe are one to it.

It is a weird concept, and an unlikely mathematical model, but we have found nothing that would actually contradict it. The point I am making is that when you get to things the size of electrons the rules that govern objects you are familiar with no longer apply and we have to remember that we are dealing with things that do not even fit our common idea of what we think a thing is.

Why don't we wrap the moon with giant copper cables and generate electricity?
We could power a moon city with the electricity generated from its motion related to Earth!

Because that would rob energy from the Earth's magnetosphere and allow an increased amount of solar radiation to bombard Earth, giving us all cancer.

Also, what would be the ground for this giant magneto?
Where would we get enough copper for that?
How would we get it to the moon?

 

[kevinsbane]

Why don't we wrap the moon with giant copper cables and generate electricity?
We could power a moon city with the electricity generated from its motion related to Earth!

An excellent idea! If we could do it.

Then you realise that by doing so, you rob some of the moon's kinetic energy to generate said electricity. Causing it to lose altitude (ie, fall). Congratulations! You've found an even crazier idea for destroying the earth than by using up all the earth's fossil fuels and causing global warming! Granted, it'd take millions of years, but.... seeing as we're into big ideas...

 

[WHAMPOM]

So why is the earth spinning at constant speed around its axis ?. For billions of years! This questions goes for the moon spinning around the earth, and the planets orbiting the sun. Where do they get their energy from, how does that translate to the spinning force ?.

From our own definition, these motions would be perpetual motion, would it not ?.

It has not. The Earth once had less than a five hour day, a spinning Moon ten times closer, filling half the sky. Due to the interaction of gravity in orbiting objects , we now have a 24 hour day(getting longer), a tidal locked face of the Moon, also the Moon is slowing down and moving into a higher orbit.

 

[sjwaste]

We haven't been spinning at a constant speed. The moon slowly slows us down and days are getting longer.

In space, you don't need energy to keep spinning because there is no friction. If there was only one object in the universe, and you started it spinning, it may in fact spin for next to forever.

That's an interesting thought. If there is one object in the universe and you set it spinning, then there is more than one object in the universe. If there was only that one object, I can't think of a scenario where some asymmetry that caused that object's initial angular momentum wouldn't also involve some interaction with a massive or energetic body. So yeah, next to forever is exactly right.

Of course, I haven't thought hard about this and I have had a Scotch.

 

[cotak13]

I hope some of these comments were jokes. That or there really needs to be an overhaul of the education system.

So many face palms. The orignal question to the suggestion that electrons spinning around inside atoms are another example of perpetual motion. LOL

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

what happened to...
an object in motion will stay in motion, until acted upon by an outside force.

motion does not require energy... only acceleration.

You serious bro?

 

[maddie]

Try reading this. Download the PDF.

http://www.google.tt/url?sa=t&rct=j...sg=AFQjCNFGDD-5j1nQEqW1YxVBRaSt2tt3jw&cad=rja

 

[mindless1]

The words "perpetual motion" are being used as if they mean more than "perpetual motion". You are trying to paint it in the context of a perpetual motion energy machine where it produces equal or more than put into it.

The planets are not energy producing machines, there is energy input greater than produced. The stars are a different matter, we know them to have long but finite lives as they output greater than input.

 

[Joepublic2]

Electrons moving around in a superconductor loop.

Electrons have mass, ergo they should eventually succumb to gravitational drag in a superconductor, even when bound up in cooper-pairs I think. Super-fluids (a fluid-like state of matter with unique properties like exerting no drag against the walls of the container that they're in) would also eventually succumb to gravitational drag too, and a lot faster. Electrons perpetually "orbit" (not really, but a simplification) their nucleus so that should count as perpetual motion. If space was a perfect vacuum, and no other masses existed inside it, you could accelerate a mass along a trajectory and it should hold that trajectory forever. Since this is no the case, though, any object traveling in space will eventually succumb to the drag induced by colliding with diffuse hydrogen atoms and the gravitational interactions of other masses in the universe.

 

[soccerballtux]

here's a better perpetual motion idea-- spin two magnet bars next to each other in opposite directions like this, starting with north oriented on top, on both--
| |
/ \
- -
\ /
At this point North is on the bottom and south is on the top of the magnets:
| |

IE, the left magnet is rotating clockwise, the right magnet is rotating counterclockwise.
spin them at a significant fraction of the speed of light, such as 0.5c.
The magnetic field also propagates at the speed of light, meaning you can "sneak" the magnets into the "- -" position before the magnetic fields from each repel each other. As the magnets leave the "- -" horizontal alignment and approach "\ /", the magnetic field from one magnet finally propagates to the other magnet, and applies a "repelling" force (since it's N against N), accelerating the magnets further away from horizontal alignment.

Harvest this energy, and use it for something.

 

[bryanW1995]

Perpetual motion doesn't exist.

Obviously, you don't have a 5 yr old.

 

[wahdangun]

what happened to...
an object in motion will stay in motion, until acted upon by an outside force.

motion does not require energy... only acceleration.

wow you are so wrong, we can't create energy or destroy it that is the basic physic, we can only transform it, so there are no way we can create infinity energy.

motion is some kind of energy and if there are some friction then some of that motion energy is transformed into heat or something else, and that why in space if you are moving object then the object will move forever because the object can't transfer its energy to something else.

 

[bryanW1995]

You are correct. For the rate of acceleration to increase there must be additional energy.

Look up 'Dark Energy' for more on this.

At least according to currently accepted theory that is correct. However, history is riddled with examples of the observable universe obstinately refusing to follow our theories.