2Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteAir resistance is not the only kind of friction, for example electrical resistance of conductors or mechanical friction between moving parts would still produce a net loss.
Could perpetual motion exist in vacuum environments like space? I know there's a lack of air resistance and much less gravity to influence movement but I'm unaware of any countering forces to such a phenomena.
"Draft beer, not people."
Air resistance is not the only kind of friction, for example electrical resistance of conductors or mechanical friction between moving parts would still produce a net loss.
It would work in an endless TRUE Vacuum.Originally Posted by Red Team
However such a condition does not exist, and space is Not an example of a True Vacuum. Space in fact still has some particles within it to create friction on any moving mass.
There appears to be only one form of "perpetual motion" that exits in our universe and that exists only "quantum" scales where physics tells us that transient sub-atomic particles "appear" and then "disappear" in a fleeting instant. The process gives space itself waht has been described as a "foamy" structure/texture .
In experiments where scientists place two very well polished metal plates together face to face so closely that there is no space between them for these particles to "appear" in they can generate what can be described as a "vacuum effect" i.e. force is generated as the particles on outside of the the plates (but not in the space between them) try to "push" the two plates closer together in an attempt to fill the empty space.
In theory you could "generate" energy via this process because a force has been created on the outside of the plates BUT the amount of power created would be so trivial that you would need plates the diameter of the Earth to generate enough power to power to ignite a fart. (Not a real measurement - just an example).
This is as close to "perpetual energy" as you are going to get. So my advice woud be to give it up and concentrate on something more achievable - like balancing the US budget or making Celine Dion's singing fit for human consumption. Cheers
Last edited by Monash; 28 Nov 11, at 12:09.
There is no generation, you are expending the energy (if not more) when you pull such a system apart.There appears to be only one form of "perpetual motion" that exits in our universe and that exists only "quantum" scales where physics tells us that transient sub-atomic particles "appear" and then "disappear" in a fleeting instant. The process gives space itself waht has been described as a "foamy" structure/texture .
In experiments where scientists place two very well polished metal plates together face to face so closely that there is no space between them for these particles to "appear" in they can generate what can be described as a "vacuum effect" i.e. force is generated as the particles on outside of the the plates (but not in the space between them) try to "push" the two plates closer together in an attempt to fill the empty space.
In theory you could "generate" energy via this process because a force has been created on the outside of the plates BUT the amount of power created would be so trivial that you would need plates the diameter of the Earth to generate enough power to power to ignite a fart. (Not a real measurement - just an example).
This is as close to "perpetual energy" as you are going to get. So my advice woud be to give it up and concentrate on something more achievable - like balancing the US budget or making Celine Dion's singing fit for human consumption. Cheers
The laws of physics will not allow any lenience on conservation of energy and matter, regardless of the amount.
Yes I get that but the article I remembered reading on this topic some time ago suggested that you could (in theory) extract a tiny amount of energy on the inward "trip". It would however be a one time deal only because, as you quite rightly point out the energy required to seperate the two plates again and return them to their "start" position would exceed the amount extracted in the first place. So what would be required would be a whole series of plates, each used once and once only. The end result is "energy from nothing" which I took as one description of that old furphy perpetual motion.
The article never suggested the idea as a practicle source of enery only as a thought experiment. Given the choice of the two I would pursue the Celine Dion line of research - I would have a (slightly) better chance of success and the benefits for mankind would be far more immediate.
"Free energy" & "perpetual motion" - attracting hucksters and pseudo-scientists since the dark ages.
Here's my perpetual motion machine... Take two neutron stars of equivalent mass. They don't have to be, but visually, it'd look cooler. Move them to a deep, intergalactic void area. Start them orbiting around a point in space at 90% of the escape velocity of the system. For all intents and purposes, those two would orbit each other forever.
You could up the ante by making each of these objects supermassive black holes.
Are yes but neurton stars and black holes both "lose" energy over time. Neutron stars radiate energy into space via the noraml mechanisms assocaited with stars and black holes emit Hawking radiation which causes them to "evaporate" over a lengthy period of time.
If you could accomplish this feat, perpetual motion would be a realitively trivial consequence...
"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children." -- Confucius
Oh, what the heck! I'm not a sparktrician by any means (my favorite tool is a bigger hammer). But adjusting and/or repairing electric motors of some of my shop tools got me to wondering about something.
An electric motor has field coils (I think three of them) mounted on the inside of the motor casing. The casing is fixed and unmovable bolted down to a frame or a work bench. When the coils are energized, they cause the rotor to rotate. The rotor's shaft then turns my grinding wheels, saw blades, drill motors, fans, etc.
What if the rotor is fixed and the field coil casing rotates? I guess that would call for some redesign to mount field coils on the rotor body and the other electrical bars (normally on the rotor) to be mounted inside the cylindical casing. Wouldn't the centrifugal force of the heavier casing spinning at high speed make a better saw blade -- or -- in the case of this thread --- turn the wheel of a car?
As I said, when I change a light switch, I turn all power off to the entire house and still make sure I'm not standing on any metal objects or wet floor. So I'll let you sparktricians educate me.
Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.
You could do that, but the connections to the rotating field windings would be more complex and have more friction - being more expensive and requiring more maintenance. A flywheel would be another solution to make the rotating mass larger.
If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children." -- Confucius
it can be done.
there are outrunner motors used in rc models, very powerfull things, they have outside spinning, but the coil is stationary as is the core.
some motors have energized coils in stator and rotor.
threre are hub motors used in e-bikes, also have outside shell with magnet spinning.
the thing is it is more practical easier,cheaper to have coils and contacts stationary, rather than spinning, for large motors, small ones are different, almost every drill motor has spining core with coil and "brushes" are moving contacts.
Last edited by omon; 02 Dec 11, at 02:19.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin
I actually recall someone here in Australia trying to take this concept to market a few years ago. (They went on an "Inventers" style TV program to show case their design.) I think it worked in a similar manner to the way you have described - leastways they "reversed" the mechanics of a traditional electric motor. I never heard of it again so I don't think it took off, probably for some of the reasons outlined by omon. But you never know, why not give it a try over there - you might make your fortune
In the UK if an invention is any good , like carbs that get you 70/100 mpg or light bulbs which never burn out , the patent is bought by the govt and the project shelved , for obvious reasons , maybe the concept has been bought up the same , who knows ?I actually recall someone here in Australia trying to take this concept to market a few years ago. (They went on an "Inventers" style TV program to show case their design.) I think it worked in a similar manner to the way you have described - leastways they "reversed" the mechanics of a traditional electric motor. I never heard of it again so I don't think it took off, probably for some of the reasons outlined by omon. But you never know, why not give it a try over there - you might make your fortune
TANKIE.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: