Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Pretty much the fact that it started by itself would mean that perpetual motion is possible? However it isn't economical at a large scale?
No. Perpetual motion machines are not possible by basic laws of physics. Period. There is no arguing that point, anyone who claims to have a perpetual motion machine is either trying to scam you with it, or too stupid to find the error in their calculations.
The only remotely interesting thing about a claim to have a perpetual motion machine is figuring out exactly where their math error is and/or how they're cheating in the demonstration.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Pretty much the fact that it started by itself would mean that perpetual motion is possible? However it isn't economical at a large scale?
The trick here is to realise there are actually two objects acting on each other. Magnetism draws the ball to the magnet, but it also draws the magnet to the ball. That the ball is lighter and in a place with less friction makes the effect on the ball more pronounced, but it is still working on each other.
Over time the energy input into the system, the potential energy of the distance between the magnet and the ball will decline as the magnet very, very slowly draws closer to the ball. That loss in kinetic energy is what is used to replace the energy lost in the system through heat and sound as the wheel turns.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I do, tthere is an argument to suggest we have already achieved it.[/img]
There's an argument, but it isn't a good argument.
Care to say why. For all intents and purposes the Voyager and Pioneer probes will continue on 'forever'.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Kilkrazy wrote: They will very gradually be slowed down by friction with the interstellar medium.
Over what sort of time period?
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Who cares. A perpetual motion machine runs forever, not merely for a very long time. Once you start talking about anything less than forever it's no longer anything special. The laws of physics have no problem with things running for a very long period of time, and we have no problem designing things that will run for a very long period of time.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Who cares. A perpetual motion machine runs forever, not merely for a very long time. Once you start talking about anything less than forever it's no longer anything special. The laws of physics have no problem with things running for a very long period of time, and we have no problem designing things that will run for a very long period of time.
I stand by my premise. because this isn't theory but practice, as the spacecraft exist and are in motion. The Voyager and Pioneer probes will still be in motion long after we are extinct. Were they hypothetical paper designs then your point would have greater validity. Nothing lasts literally forever as far as we know, these probes are fairly a close approximation and built by human hands.
Forever is a speculative word as the universe may itself be finite. If so not only is perpetual motion not possible, but most other defintions of infinity are likewise flawed. Consequently I stand by the ideology of placing a human reference to the word perpetual. Let us look at the hypothetical ideal of a perpetual motion device, running forever due to lack of friction. Assuming we had enough handwavium to remove friction do we also remove atomic decay. Is a perpetual motion machine fulfilled its purpose when it has succumbed to entropy rather than friction? Which particular ideology of forever are you using? Isn't it better instead to see if there is a practical approach as one exists, normally no because we usually lack any practical example, however in this instance we do, we have at least five human made artifacts which are 'perpetually' moving by the human scale of reference, we certainly have no estimates as to when any of the Voyager or Pioneer probes will or even can stop.
Also our definition of 'very long' also varies. There is very long as in the amount of time you can run the engines of a nuclear powered vessel and thats a completely different magnitude of very long for the duration of forward motion of deep space probes.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Succumbing to entropy would, by definition, mean that the machine doesn't work forever. Good job, you just proved what everyone's been saying all along.
If it's supposed to work forever, and it stops, I'd say it's not working.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/18 13:11:00
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Succumbing to entropy would, by definition, mean that the machine doesn't work forever. Good job, you just proved what everyone's been saying all along.
I think you miss the point here. Perpetual motion is all about lack of friction, entropy is a different end.
What I am saying is different, there is possibly no infinity thus we need to redefine 'perpetual' to account for different paradigms. In practical terms 'perpetual' motion already exists
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Succumbing to entropy would, by definition, mean that the machine doesn't work forever. Good job, you just proved what everyone's been saying all along.
I think you miss the point here. Perpetual motion is all about lack of friction, entropy is a different end.
Guess it's language confusion on my part, but shouldn't a perpetually moving machine be moving, well, perpetually?
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
I think you miss the point here. Perpetual motion is all about lack of friction, entropy is a different end.
What I am saying is different, there is possibly no infinity thus we need to redefine 'perpetual' to account for different paradigms. In practical terms 'perpetual' motion already exists
So you're suggesting perpetual motion exists, for significantly small values of perpetuity?
Bringing in the human perspective as a point does not prove anything.
Primitive humans see a man from the future, with fantastic wonders such as electricity and cosmic knowledge at his disposal. To their perspective, he is nothing short of a god - and hey, well, their perspective means that he totally is.
Physics is just mathematics. Mathematics has no perspective.
There's also the problem of a perpetual motion machine not just moving perpetually - it's supposed to generate infinite energy. An object moving through space is using the same kinetic energy it initially had and is simply expending it at a very slow rate.
Helium in air moves upwards forever.Does that mean it has infinite kinetic energy? No.
Helium in air moves upwards forever.Does that mean it has infinite kinetic energy? No.
It would if you had an infinite air column. As for the ball and wheel that I posted earlier, when would it stop? If the magnet nor the ball every actually move closer to each other would that not mean that it will be in motion perpetually? Or at least until the end of the universe? And by that definition wouldn't he universe itself be a perpetual motion machine?
Helium in air moves upwards forever.Does that mean it has infinite kinetic energy? No.
It would if you had an infinite air column. As for the ball and wheel that I posted earlier, when would it stop? If the magnet nor the ball every actually move closer to each other would that not mean that it will be in motion perpetually? Or at least until the end of the universe? And by that definition wouldn't he universe itself be a perpetual motion machine?
The ball and magnet might never move toward each other, but you have friction incurred in the movement of the ball/wheel and also in the axle of the wheel itself. I suspect that eventually the friction will overcome the momentum of the ball, or if not, entropy as such will simply see the breakdown of the ball to the point where it will no longer turn.
Arguably, you're also exploiting external forces (gravity) to make this viable.
Orlanth wrote: What I am saying is different, there is possibly no infinity thus we need to redefine 'perpetual' to account for different paradigms. In practical terms 'perpetual' motion already exists
Fine, here's a new definition for you: a perpetual motion machine is a machine which runs without losing energy*. A probe in deep space is constantly losing energy to friction, and therefore is not a perpetual motion machine.
*At minimum. The ones that supposedly produce energy out of nothing are even more hilariously stupid.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Orlanth wrote: What I am saying is different, there is possibly no infinity thus we need to redefine 'perpetual' to account for different paradigms. In practical terms 'perpetual' motion already exists
Fine, here's a new definition for you: a perpetual motion machine is a machine which runs without losing energy*. A probe in deep space is constantly losing energy to friction, and therefore is not a perpetual motion machine.
*At minimum. The ones that supposedly produce energy out of nothing are even more hilariously stupid.
And doesn't take energy from an external source, otherwise a could claim that if i I threw something in a friction-less vacuum then it would be a perpetual motion machine.
H.B.M.C. wrote:
"Balance, playtesting - a casual gamer craves not these things!" - Yoda, a casual gamer.
Three things matter in marksmanship -
location, location, location
MagickalMemories wrote:How about making another fist?
One can be, "Da Fist uv Mork" and the second can be, "Da Uvver Fist uv Mork."
Make a third, and it can be, "Da Uvver Uvver Fist uv Mork"
Eric
The words "reason" and "denigrate" aren't mutually exclusive. If they were, then your choice to call me a troll would be unreasonable.
No reason and denigrate arent mutuially exclusive, but one can be chosen instead of the other, hence the wording 'in lieu of'.
Anyway I identify you as a troll on account to your repeated lack of manners.
Again, you're probably approaching this from a perspective similar to Flat Earthism, and doing a very bad job of it.
While I am indeed aware of Flat Earthism, and what is behind it as shown on another recent thread; it is not to give rise to generate the excuse assume I pratice Flat Earthism. For starters Flat Earthism comes with a set cultural attitude, those who practice it do so openly and generally off the internet.
Guess it's language confusion on my part, but shouldn't a perpetually moving machine be moving, well, perpetually?
Yes, in the same way immortality refers to living 'forever' and vacuum indicates nothingness.
However what is perpetuity?
Foreverness? How do we sell bonds known as 'perpetuities' on the grounds that they offer ongoing payments ostensibly forever, are we to assume there will always be a stock exchange?
Preserved in perpetuity is a legal term refering to setting up of monuments, particularly parkland again ostensibly forever. Will these parks survive all time?
Perpetuity and perpetual are human terms. In this respect deep space programs can be seen as practical examples of perpetual motion.
This is not to assume absolute.
Frozen Ocean wrote: Bringing in the human perspective as a point does not prove anything.
Is avoiding the absolute non scientific? Perhaps, but then we need to explain vacuum. Can we make vacuum , scientists say practically yes, we can also make machine that can experience vacuum, deep space probes being one of many. However a total absense of matter doesn't exist anywhere that we know of, there are particles in deep space, which is what may eventually slow a deep space probe. So if we make a machine that includes a vacuum tube are we deluded or liars for not having real vacuum? No, because that would be useless pedantry. We have a good enough vacuum for the job is referred to as vacuum. Likewise if a deep spacwe probe is going to carry onwards long after we and our planet have likely succumbed then haven't we got a practical value of perpetuity.
Physics is just mathematics. Mathematics has no perspective.
This is where you make your mistake. Physics is not just mathematics, mathematics can be abstract, physics deals with the material and energy states and is not abstract.
Also mathematics can deal with infinity, physics in may regards can't.
When you understand that you will notice that concepts like perpetual motion can only be taken in relative terms, because in absolute terms its a non concept. Even if perpetual motion could be achieved perpetuity in a raw sense cannot as the universe is finite, ultimate forces other than friction would cause the perpetual motion engine to cease to function. Thus the term perpetual doesn't and cannot refer to what you think it does. So if perpetual is not a literal eternity why not accept applications that are effectively perpetual to a human reference as perpetual. After all we do in other fields so why not this one.
There's also the problem of a perpetual motion machine not just moving perpetually - it's supposed to generate infinite energy. An object moving through space is using the same kinetic energy it initially had and is simply expending it at a very slow rate.
A classic perpetual motion machine refers sorely to the elimination of friction. So that if moved it would continue moving. The entirely of human efforts on space exploration work on a 'can-do' expression of this concept.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/19 00:15:11
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Orlanth wrote: So if perpetual is not a literal eternity why not accept applications that are effectively perpetual to a human reference as perpetual. After all we do in other fields so why not this one.
Oh FFS, this really isn't complicated. A perpetual motion machine is defined by the fact that it never loses energy. It will run forever, until some outside force disturbs it, because its energy state is never changing. This violates the laws of physics, and is impossible. Therefore, inherent to the claim of creating a perpetual motion machine, is the claim that you have found the secret to how the universe worked that every scientist and engineer has failed to discover.
A machine which merely has low friction is not at all the same. Even if it will run "forever" relative to human scales, the energy stored in the machine is gradually decreasing in perfect obedience to the laws of physics. If left undisturbed forever it will eventually slow down and stop, even if "left undisturbed forever" will never actually happen.
If you can't see the difference between these two concepts then you need to go read a basic physics textbook and stop posting until you do.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Orlanth wrote: I think you miss the point here. Perpetual motion is all about lack of friction, entropy is a different end.
What I am saying is different, there is possibly no infinity thus we need to redefine 'perpetual' to account for different paradigms. In practical terms 'perpetual' motion already exists
No we don't. We have perfectly useful terms and concepts for machines that run a long time without losing energy.
Whereas the concept communicated by the impossibility of perpetual energy machines - that such a thing is impossible because you cannot conserve all energy within a moving machine - is just fine as it is.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/19 05:41:09
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
No reason and denigrate arent mutuially exclusive, but one can be chosen instead of the other, hence the wording 'in lieu of'.
Anyway I identify you as a troll on account to your repeated lack of manners.
The way your comment was presented it seemed you were implying that using denigration made reason impossible, or that denigration could not be used by way of reason.
I suspect what you were really attempting to do was deflect an attack on your position. I gave you direct criticisms of the argument you made. I also suspect that what you're doing in this thread is trolling because the argument you're making is absurd.
While I am indeed aware of Flat Earthism, and what is behind it as shown on another recent thread; it is not to give rise to generate the excuse assume I pratice Flat Earthism. For starters Flat Earthism comes with a set cultural attitude, those who practice it do so openly and generally off the internet.
I didn't say you actually practice Flat Earthism, I said your approach to this conversation is very similar. I said this because your use of terminology is very similar in its deliberate ignorance and flexible mode of interpretation.
Perpetual motion is impossible, and the examples of "perpetual motion machines" you have given are not perpetual motion machines. It is really that simple.
Under current mathematical models we can say with some degree of certainty that the universe is indeed infinite or at least expanding infinitely at rate faster then the speed of light
H.B.M.C. wrote:
"Balance, playtesting - a casual gamer craves not these things!" - Yoda, a casual gamer.
Three things matter in marksmanship -
location, location, location
MagickalMemories wrote:How about making another fist?
One can be, "Da Fist uv Mork" and the second can be, "Da Uvver Fist uv Mork."
Make a third, and it can be, "Da Uvver Uvver Fist uv Mork"
Eric
Oh FFS, this really isn't complicated. A perpetual motion machine is defined by the fact that it never loses energy. It will run forever, until some outside force disturbs it, because its energy state is never changing. This violates the laws of physics, and is impossible. Therefore, inherent to the claim of creating a perpetual motion machine, is the claim that you have found the secret to how the universe worked that every scientist and engineer has failed to discover.
It isn't complicated at all. We have different values of forever, we can take it literally or practicality. Taken literally its a non-issue, end of. Because we cannot fathom a perpetual motion device, or anything else that can survive entropy.
We can however look at this practically. You are confused because you cant see beyond the literal concept to the practical, so let me help you.
What does immortality mean. 'Live forever'? How anal do you want to be over the concept of forever. We have a concept of immortality and that concept is expressed in our fiction and even as a hard science research goal. Some credible scientists believe that if we master cellular regeneration technology we have clinical immortality.
So are you now going to turn around and say 'its not immortality because you wont live forever'. That would be a joke, we have a concept of immortality which despite the literalist meaning is not absolute.
If you can't see the difference between these two concepts then you need to go read a basic physics textbook and stop posting until you do.
The same practical interpretation we use for the concept of immortal can and is used for perpetual. I gave examples where something ongoing and intended never to end is known as perpetual. Are you now going to whine 'why don't all these lawyers and park administrators read physics books like I do'.
Reading a book is not enough, you need also to think.
Many forms of space travel include a non-literal practical application of perpetual motion, because it does. Aeroplanes drop out the sky if not frequently refuelled, satellites don't.
We don't actually know that the universe is finite. It may well be infinite.
Dimensionally we are not sure, possibly that will end in a Big Crunch.
But we can also succumb entirely to entropy known as the Big Freeze.
Either places an end to all things material. A machine built with a literalist interpretation of perpetual characteristics will eventually succumb to one fate or the other.
In this respect all things have a finite end, though the dimensions of the universe may well extend forever, literally.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/19 22:12:23
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
So are you now going to turn around and say 'its not immortality because you wont live forever'. That would be a joke, we have a concept of immortality which despite the literalist meaning is not absolute.
I like how you're pretending that there is a fixed concept of immortality.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/19 22:23:56
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
