92Views5Replies

Author Options:

Why should perpetual motion be impossible? Answered

Our laws of physics are quite clear when it comes to the impossible.
You can not produce more energy within a system than what actually goes into it.
And since friction will always be a thing in our real world perpetual motion is simply impossible.
With this or quite similar reactions all good scientists end the conversation.
We know it is not possible, so why bother...

If all that is stopping are laws of physics, then it is time to redefine "perpetual motion".
Another term for it would be "free energy" as we would have to draw energy from nothing to keep it moving.
Solar cells provide free energy the same way as wind- or hydro generators, we even use waves on the ocean to produce electricity...
Perpetual motion seems to be defined by mechanical things and motion only.
And free energy seems to be defined as bogus only while ignoring the realities.
We simply can't use the same terms for everything if they are in fact totally different things....
A motor running off a solar cell would be a perpetual motor if you widen the energy term a bit here.
The impossible energy to run the motor comes out of nowhere - our solar cell generates electricity from sunlight.
And a simple water wheel in a stream will power a mill for as long as water runs down the stream....
Humanity and science say this is not free energy as we take energy from other system to make it move.
And of course it is a dead simplification anyways.
You get the picture though.

So far humanity has only managed to tap into a very few forms of energy out there in any direct form.
Solar cells come to mind first of course.
In a way they utilise radiation to transform it into DC electricity.
Then we have all sorts of mechanical energy transfer, from generators over windmills to the modern recovering brakes in electric vehicles.
Last but not least we have heat, steam engines, nuclear reactors and so on.
The laws of physics however know a few more forms of energy....
We seek out new ways to "generate" more electricity than ever before, like fusion reactors.
What we don't seek is understanding what we always had already.
All we do it to try to "generate" electricity.
It is what powers our world but it is only a tiny fraction of what is possible.
We burn fuel in a comustion chamber to make piston go up and down.
Only to transfer this motion into a rotary one to finally drive our wheels.
Most of the energy available in the fuel is wasted this way.
Making it slightly more efficient took us over 100 years....
Thinking about using the fuel more directly does not even come to our minds.
So why bother to consider any other possible form of energy to drive our world.
We are stuck in definitions no one really understands because most of the used terms have more than one use and meaning.
We fail to open our minds to other possibilities just because "that's how it is and always will be".
Flying to the moon?? Impossible!
We did it anyway....
Using batteries to provide electricity to entire towns? What a joke!
In South Australia they do it anyway and with great success as well.
Powering entire cities just from wind and solar energy? Are you joking?
Well, companies invest an awful lot of money here and they wouldn't do so if it would not make massive profits...
So why again should perpetual motion be any different?
At some stage it was hillarious to even think our world would spin around the sun.....

Discussions

0
rickharris
rickharris

5 days ago

PM is - I think - generally regarded as a closed system. ie self powering + the ability to draw some energy from the system.

Changing the definition isn't changing the reality. One can argue that hydroelectric power for example -which is essentially free gets it's energy input from the sun.

Changes in the way we utilise energy are going to come, Why not use solar and or wind power to drive up a big flywheel, then draw power from it when it is dark.

Why not use solar power to draw a train up an inclined track then allow it to run down and generate electricity after dark.

Or you can drill a deep hole, use cheap solar to wind up a weight, the drop the weight into the hole and generate electricity how much well depends on the weight and depth of the hole ubt it is within modern techology.



.

0
Josehf Murchison
Josehf Murchison

19 days ago

Well first of all geothermal heating is 300% efficient yes you put 1000 watts in and get 3000 watts heat out of it.
I love this argument with every PHD that says nothing is 100%.
Free energy; no such a thing. you ether buy or build the device and isn't your labor worth something.
Wind, solar, and hydro dams, are about as close to free energy as you can get and we still pay to build them so what is so free about it.

0
Downunder35m
Downunder35m

Reply 16 days ago

Sort of my point...
It just leaves the question of what types of energy that is "freely" available can be used to be turned into electrircity somehow.
Or how to eliminate the losse lectricity problem for high energy applications altogether.

0
liquidhandwash
liquidhandwash

19 days ago

In one lab they will tell you its impossible there is no "free lunch" And in another lab they calculate how to get the best "free lunch" by sling shoting a space craft around the moon or planet.