Why perpetual energy is impossible

Agreed, good reasoning. It's like trying to divide by 0, it's not that "we haven't found a solution to it yet" it's just simply impossible to do, within our laws of physics.

 

Maybe it can be like a motor, you start it up then it runs on its own (till it runs out of gas but in this case not).

Maybe, I don't know.

 

yeah i have to agree with you man. The best we could achieve is a very efficient machine but in no way would we ever be able to make anything 100% or more efficient just cant do it.

 

not possible lol a motor would need some kind of "fuel" which it is then converting energy from, usually chemical form into mechanical. Perpetual energy needs to be given up on so we can focus on realistic things like geothermal energy and other energy we can efficiently get from the earth, ie. wind power, water current (tides, wave energy)

 

You obviously missed the part where I said "IN THIS CASE NOT!", as in you would need something to start the "perpetual energy" but after that it runs on its own. I just used a motor as an example because I suck at examples.

Wouldn't wave energy be an example of perpetual energy? You're only spending enough energy to construct the device and install it, the rest is powered on its own. Unless we lose our moon its pretty perpetual no?

 

I saw this type of antique clock on TV that didn't need to ever be touched or wound because it used changes in barometric pressure to wind it automatically

It needed as little as one degree of change daily in barometric pressure to operate normally

That seems like a sharp idea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaeger...almost_Perpetual_Motion_Clock_and_its_history

 

Energy can never be destroyed, but transferred. What if once enough energy is given to a machine, just 1 time, it transfers the energy it's using into itself, which is then transferred back and forth. But the moving of whatever it is, being powered by that energy you first gave it, is creating energy itself (static energy for example), and then the machine utilizes that static energy to power itself. Just a though. Not sure what I said, just typed as I thought.

 

I agree with your reasoning but just gotta add the annoying point of (not impossible, currently unattainable.).

 

if you could build a machine next to water and serperate the hydrogen from the oxygen using electrolysis (wrong term?). you could then run a small engine and one of those magnet copper wire contraptions (name escapes me atm) to produce electricity. if you could produce enough electricity to cover seperating hydrogen and oxegen anything extra would be considered perpetual energy no?

amirite?

 

i had a perpetual energy idea involving magnets repelling in a loop but the scientists on the forum shot it down. if i remember correctly they said that magnets would eventually lose their charge and the wheel would stop spinning due to friction alone. i figured maybe it would be possible to use electromagnets initially powered by the grid but eventually generating its own power enough to charge batteries, running on one dedicated battery it continually recharges and ideally creating excess power to charge additional batteries you could then use to power anything you wanted.

 

This ^^ Until we figure out a way to actually create energy(impossible under current physics theories), perpetual energy is doomed.

Now i'm not a physicist, but it seems far more viable to use ideas like ones suggested in this thread, to make it so we don't have to put any energy into it, so while we aren't achieving perpetual energy, we're harnessing nature to do the work for us.

I think there's huge potential in those natural renewable energy sources (wind, solar, geothermal, wave, etc), I mean all of those energy sources are renewable and don't pollute the atmosphere, so they seem to be worth pursueing more than the perpetual energy pipe dream(at least right now).

 

The reason why perpetual motion is impossible is easily summed up in one word: Friction.

If there was a machine without friction, it would run forever. Since this is not possible, perpetual motion is not possible.

 

you are treating the world, and conservative forces, as a steady state balance..

energy is just that, energy. it can be created, transferred; but not destroyed.

think of it this way. you are 10kg, and 100m above the surface of the earth, where the acceleration due to gravity is 9.81 m/s^2... you have a potential energy of the order of 9,810 Joules (i think these are the proper units hahaha) due to your distance from the Earth, and as soon as you start moving kinetic energy is created from the decrease in potential energy.

K + U + Work (other, due to non conservative forces) = K + U

K being Kinetic Energy and U being potential.

there is a law in physics that states that above, energy is conserved in most kinematic senses, unless acted on by external, non conservative forces.

i understand where you are coming from, but what you are trying to say is if you create energy and input somewhere, the output will spit out equal or greater than before. if this were the case, positive work (in the direction of motion) was done on your system and therefore the law of conservation still applies.

energy in almost all systems is conserved, it is a phenomena that has been tested and proved millions of times.

 

Then in addition to the energy used my the machine's operation, it would also lose the energy lost in the transfer--transformations of one type of energy into exactly one other type of energy will never happen. Then to release that stored energy which is already less than the energy put into it, even more would be lost in yet another transformation of energy.

There's just no way around it, the Conservation of Energy is one of those laws enforced by reality.

 

i think i just tripped into the twilight zone