Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
Quote:Original post by Jiia I wish I understood how someone could just say "impossible".
Don't worry, you'll understand why, once you pick up some basic physics. Or, alternatively, when you're finished experimenting and seen for yourself why it doesn't work.
Quote: I just don't like to rule things out based on my math instructors and the "laws" of physics. Heh, maybe I am a fool, then.
No, you're not a fool. A lot of people experiment with things like this when they're kids. It never works, of course, but it can help create an interest in science. You've obviously got curiosity, and that's a great thing to have. The trick is to not cling on to hopeless ideas like the "overbalanced wheel" for too long, become obsessed with it and stop listening to arguments. Passion combined with a closed mind is the stuff that kooks are made of. Ask Alex Chiu;-)
I've tried coming up with perpetual motion machines before. Id always take them to my physics teacher who would then point out the flaws, I think the one I like the most was based on stuff that i cant remember now so bear with me lol...
have a wheel with cups all they way round that can hold mass while the wheel turns (like a ferris wheel). then have two machines at the top and bottom, one machine splits the atoms of the mass and the other puts them back together (fission and fusion (i doint know whether these machines exist or not but i think they could be possible)). I know that if you have an atom and you split it, the two smaller atoms you are left with weigh less in total (I think) than the orignal atom. So you have the fission machine at the bottom and the fusion machine at the top and so one side of the wheel will weigh less that the other side, creating motion. also you can use the energy released from the fission machine to power the fusion machine and generate electricity off the turning wheel.
probably still doesnt work but id like to think it does:)
Quote:
Original post by BosskIn Soviet Russia, you STFU WITH THOSE LAME JOKES!
For ideal systems, the output energy is equal to the input energy. However, this is not to say that the input energy must be supplied by human intervention, perhaps periodic wind currents in the atmosphere which always move in the same direction (if such a thing exists )could be used to raise the matter, and then the gravitational potential gained upon descent could be harnessed.
This is probably just a stupid suggestion, but I think what's important here is figuring out how to get the environment to generate the input energy on its own for you, rather than trying to create energy out of nothing.
Also hypothetically, on a quantum level is it not possible to harness virtual energy particles that pop up in space as pairs and let the anti energy particle dissapear.
Quote:Original post by grekster I know that if you have an atom and you split it, the two smaller atoms you are left with weigh less in total (I think) than the orignal atom.
Slight correction: It's the other way around. The mass of an atom is less than its constituent parts, that mass consumed by "binding energy", and is also a way to show E=mc^2.
A nuke initially has to put this much energy into splitting the atom. Once that's done, a whole shitload of energy is converted from potential (from the nuclear forces) to kinetic. Just some trivia for ya. [wink]
Depends on the atom and the nuclear reaction... In fission of Uranium for example, some of the mass is converted to energy ie. the fission products weigh less than the original nucleus. On the other hand, fusing two hydrogen atoms to make helium also has an end product that weighs less than the original parts, which is why fusion of hydrogen releases energy. (As a rule, light elements are fusible, heavy elements are fissionable.. everything decays towards iron)
Theoretically, you could split helium to produce two hydrogen atoms which weigh more than the helium. This would require you to add enough energy into the system to make up for the added mass.
Yeah its been a while since we did it in physics so i didnt think id get it the right way round lol. it was my only "machine" he couldnt show to not work though:)
I like the idea of perpetual motion machines mainly for one reason only, not using batteries for mobile devices(laptops,PDA's etc). Of course there the whole saving the world side to it but that doesnt really effect me.
Quote:
Original post by BosskIn Soviet Russia, you STFU WITH THOSE LAME JOKES!
Well, I don't have a physics degree either since I dropped out and started making games :)
Anyway, the theoretical reason why I think the fission-fusion wheel wouldn't work is that even if you were able to fuse the fission products back together using the energy from the fission reaction (assuming no losses), transporting that energy to the top of the wheel would be equivalent to transporting the "lost" mass. Therefore, you wouldn't really have a situation where the thing is lighter going up and heavier coming down.
For example, if the energy was emitted as a photon of radiation, you'd have to move the photon up to the top and it'd impart the same momentum on the wheel as moving the missing mass. Or, if it was in the form of kinetic energy of the fission products bouncing around in their little container, their mass would increase according to the theory of relativity (you wouldn't notice a decrease in the weight of the container).
> Or, alternatively, when you're finished experimenting and > seen for yourself why it doesn't work
Hmm, I'm already finished. Way before I had a chance to understand it entirely. I love math, I love it to death, but unfortunately, it doesn't love me back.
For so many people who seem to think this is impossible, it's still an interesting subject, no doubt. Maybe some day when I'm bored with game development (heh, right), maybe I'll devote the rest of my time to trying to create energy from gravity. It's a force, it's there. There's no denying it. The trick would be finding a way to recycle it.
Energy from gravity equals the first mass squared times the second mass squared divided by the distance from thier centroids. "
This statement is extremely wrong. First there is no inherent energy associated with gravity itself. Gravity can do work on a system causing the systems energy to change, or work can be done by an external medium to seperate the constituent parts of a system acted upon by mutual gravitational attraction, causing a change in the gravitational potential energy of that system. If you are speaking of the gravitational potential energy of a system consisting of m1 and m2, your equation would actually look like this (holding either mass fixed).
G m1 * m2 ________________ = GPE r
Sorry, i'm a nerdy physics major; can't stand to see that kind of stuff uncorrected.
