1 registered members (AndrewAMD),
945
guests, and 8
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Perpetuum mobile
#352169
01/01/11 19:10
01/01/11 19:10
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 900 Lgh
rojart
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 900
Lgh
|
Just out of curiosity, I would like to hear your opinion about Perpetuum mobile. Do you think, it is possible to build a machine that will remain in operation forever and provide additional work as well?
|
|
|
Re: Perpetuum mobile
[Re: rojart]
#352180
01/01/11 20:20
01/01/11 20:20
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,134 Netherlands
Joozey
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,134
Netherlands
|
No, perpetual machines are not possible by laws of physics. Our universe is shaped in such a way that it can exist out of nothing. It loses nor makes more energy than there already is. But if one was able to disintegrate a sugarcube into pure energy, it could lit the world for 7 seconds: 4,17 gram of sugare = 0.00417(kg) * (3*10^8)^2 = 9*10^13 Joules (e=mc^2) World energy consumption is (added up) 13 terawatt and a bit, is 13*10^12 watt. Striping away all the zeroes (1 joule = 1watt/1sec), we are left with 90/13 = ~7 seconds. So if you were able to convert matter into pure energy, no energy loss (or maybe a tiny fraction for continuing the conversion progress), you practically invented a perpetual machine. Yet nothing stays forever as it is. In the long run, even this matter-to-energy device will subject to decay. Theoretically and practically this is the closest approach to a perpetual device, I think.
Last edited by Joozey; 01/01/11 20:22.
Click and join the 3dgs irc community! Room: #3dgs
|
|
|
Re: Perpetuum mobile
[Re: AlbertoT]
#352281
01/02/11 18:08
01/02/11 18:08
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,615 Cambridge
Joey
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,615
Cambridge
|
The motion of the electrons about the nucleus is an example of perpetuel motion no it isn't.
|
|
|
Re: Perpetuum mobile
[Re: Joey]
#352323
01/02/11 21:32
01/02/11 21:32
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
AlbertoT
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
|
|
|
|
Re: Perpetuum mobile
[Re: AlbertoT]
#352328
01/02/11 22:10
01/02/11 22:10
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 752
bredebrothers
User
|
User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 752
|
A Perpetuum mobile is not possible, because it is against common thermodynamic laws. There are two or more types of different perpetuum mobiles - but all fail at the first or second law of thermodynamics. For the newbie some constructions and effects seem to be an innovation - but looking at it, analizing it, you always come to the conclusion, that you put more engergy in, than you get out (due to loss in friction, heat etc. [but remember, energy can't be lost, it can only be transformed]). You always have to stripe down the very complex constructions to a simple system - then you will always find out that something is wrong Just a small sample: Every force in this world needs a counterpart, otherwise simple constructions as a chair / table etc. would never be able to exist ( they would roll over, begin to fly or collapse). So, transferring this to energy, you can't say that someone is producing energy, just transforming it. Otherwise we all would end up in chaos
|
|
|
Re: Perpetuum mobile
[Re: bredebrothers]
#352343
01/03/11 00:13
01/03/11 00:13
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
AlbertoT
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
|
A Perpetuum mobile is not possible, because it is against common thermodynamic laws. So, mr Niels Bohr ignored the thermodynamic laws when he proposed his model of atom made od electrons orbiting about the nucleus without losing energy A little bit unlikely , dont you agree ?
|
|
|
|