0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Really?
No comprendo.
Changing my reference frame changes the velocity of the other object in my co-ordinate system.
So all I need to do is accelerate myself (not the machine) and then the machine's moving components can have it's kinetic energy replenished.
Why is this OK? I need to maintain relative motion between myself and the other object. I can do this by applying thrust to myself. I don't need to input any energy to the other object, I can always just take energy from it.
No comprendo. Since the other object has some (non-zero) velocity in my frame, it has some kinetic energy in my frame. Just extract some of that by any of the usual methods (e.g. use a dynamo to obtain electricity from motion). This will slow down the other object a little but it doesn't matter. Just change my reference frame again.------Why is this OK? I need to maintain relative motion between myself and the other object. I can do this by applying thrust to myself. I don't need to input any energy to the other object, I can always just take energy from it. This isn't obtaining energy from nowhere, the entire system consists of the other object + myself. I'm frequently inputting energy to myself. This is quite a lot of work for a fairly small and light hearted discussion. You guys just want my patent. Get your own.
You're expending stored energy in your scenario. You can't keep it up. You know this, so I'm not sure what your point is with the example.
Sorry everyone. I should probably get some sleep.
Yes, absolutely. I was only trying to avoid putting any energy into the machine directly.
it will get far less than 100 Joules
If you're drawing energy off it, you're part of the machine.
Since this is the technology section, we should also mention that there is an easier way to put energy in at one place and extract energy at another place. An electrical circuit takes energy from the cell (battery) carries this along some wires and allows energy to be extracted and used at a remote location.Best Wishes.
Perpetuum mobile is a term for music characterised by a continuous steady stream of notes or repetition.Music also encompasses math and technology.
My father was approached by an PM enthusiast looking for investment. He produced his prototype and said "I have achieved perpetual motion for 20 minutes." No deal was struck.
Quote from: Eternal Student on 09/08/2021 12:49:30Perpetual motion doesn't seem to be too much of a problem.Really?
Perpetual motion doesn't seem to be too much of a problem.
The laws of classical mechanics (i.e. the Larmor formula) predict that accelerating electric charges will release electromagnetic radiation, hence will lose energy.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model#OriginQuoteIn the early 20th century, experiments by Ernest Rutherford established that atoms consisted of a diffuse cloud of negatively charged electrons surrounding a small, dense, positively charged nucleus.[2] Given this experimental data, Rutherford naturally considered a planetary model of the atom, the Rutherford model of 1911 – electrons orbiting a solar nucleus – however, the said planetary model of the atom has a technical difficulty: the laws of classical mechanics (i.e. the Larmor formula) predict that the electron will release electromagnetic radiation while orbiting a nucleus. Because the electron would lose energy, it would rapidly spiral inwards, collapsing into the nucleus on a timescale of around 16 picoseconds.[3] This atom model is disastrous, because it predicts that all atoms are unstable.[4]But experiments using superconductor ring show that circulating electrical current can go on indefinitely, which means they don't lose energy through radiation.https://arxiv.org/ftp/cond-mat/papers/0506/0506426.pdfQuoteAn extremely sensitive method for the purpose, pioneered by Onnes himself, is thetechnique of estimating the upper limit of the resistivity by studying the decay rate of thepersistent current in a superconducting ring. Once established, the time dependence of thecurrent I(t) through the ring is given by I(t) = I0 e – (R/L) t where I0 is the current at t = 0, R is theresistance and L is the inductance of the ring. If the superconductor had zero resistance, thecurrent would not decay even for infinitely long times. However, an experiment can beperformed only over a limited amount of time. In a number of such experiments no detectable decay of the current was found for periods of time extending to several years.QuoteIn a minor variation of the experiment, after the loop became superconducting, thesource current was switched off, the superconducting loop being driven into the persistentcurrent mode. It was observed that even now the field generated by coil B remained muchlarger than the value in the normal state, indicating that the resistances in the two paths areexactly zero. This provides additional evidence that no extraneous effects such as differentialterminal resistances have any role to play. In summary, we have demonstrated that the dc resistance of a superconducting wireis indeed zero and not just unmeasurably small, thus resolving the uncertainty that had lingeredon for nearly a century after the discovery of the phenomenon of superconductivity.
In the early 20th century, experiments by Ernest Rutherford established that atoms consisted of a diffuse cloud of negatively charged electrons surrounding a small, dense, positively charged nucleus.[2] Given this experimental data, Rutherford naturally considered a planetary model of the atom, the Rutherford model of 1911 – electrons orbiting a solar nucleus – however, the said planetary model of the atom has a technical difficulty: the laws of classical mechanics (i.e. the Larmor formula) predict that the electron will release electromagnetic radiation while orbiting a nucleus. Because the electron would lose energy, it would rapidly spiral inwards, collapsing into the nucleus on a timescale of around 16 picoseconds.[3] This atom model is disastrous, because it predicts that all atoms are unstable.[4]
An extremely sensitive method for the purpose, pioneered by Onnes himself, is thetechnique of estimating the upper limit of the resistivity by studying the decay rate of thepersistent current in a superconducting ring. Once established, the time dependence of thecurrent I(t) through the ring is given by I(t) = I0 e – (R/L) t where I0 is the current at t = 0, R is theresistance and L is the inductance of the ring. If the superconductor had zero resistance, thecurrent would not decay even for infinitely long times. However, an experiment can beperformed only over a limited amount of time. In a number of such experiments no detectable decay of the current was found for periods of time extending to several years.
In a minor variation of the experiment, after the loop became superconducting, thesource current was switched off, the superconducting loop being driven into the persistentcurrent mode. It was observed that even now the field generated by coil B remained muchlarger than the value in the normal state, indicating that the resistances in the two paths areexactly zero. This provides additional evidence that no extraneous effects such as differentialterminal resistances have any role to play. In summary, we have demonstrated that the dc resistance of a superconducting wireis indeed zero and not just unmeasurably small, thus resolving the uncertainty that had lingeredon for nearly a century after the discovery of the phenomenon of superconductivity.
But experiments using superconductor ring show that circulating electrical current can go on indefinitely, which means they don't lose energy through radiation.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 23/08/2021 09:01:09But experiments using superconductor ring show that circulating electrical current can go on indefinitely, which means they don't lose energy through radiation.The big question is will it be powerful enough to run a lawnmower in the long grass.
Depends on the size of the ring. But it won't be perpetual motion anymore, because energy is taken out from the system.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 30/08/2021 03:29:14Depends on the size of the ring. But it won't be perpetual motion anymore, because energy is taken out from the system.And it technically wouldn't be perpetual anyway, as all materials break down over time (at the very least due to proton decay or quantum tunneling, although such would take a very, very long time).
No one who claimed to have built a perpetual machine claim that their machine can't break down forever.