Why Is Perpetual Motion Impossible?

[ZapperZ]

ZapperZ, >>

Semantics aside: What I thought was that electron is obvious 'perpetual motion device', not the 'machine'.

And yes, moving in shells, not orbits.

How is it moving in, say, the s-orbital? What is the angular momentum of that electron?

Device... machine... is there a difference? A device is supposed to do something, i.e. a machine.

Zz.

 

[sophiecentaur]

"Moving" implies that, now it's here and a bit later it's over there. In its bound state, you have no way of knowing where the electron is at any time so the concept of moving is not appropriate.
Why are you persisting in all this? Perpetual Motion by any definition, is a nonsense, whether you are referring to something keeping going for ever on its own or, even worse, supplying inexhaustible energy. You are just looking for 'loopholes' and changing your argument in an attempt not to be wrong.

The problem with this sort of discussion is that it gives the Non-Scientist the idea that really free energy is available and that the Scientists have got it all wrong. Why perpetuate this sort of mis information? As with all the other myths (Homeopathy / MMR scares / Climate Change denial etc) it just serves to confuse people and promotes bad decision making.

 

[Unrest]

For the 100% efficient machine, how about an electron in an atom? It loses exactly no energy.

 

[ZapperZ]

For the 100% efficient machine, how about an electron in an atom? It loses exactly no energy.

Have you missed the last few posts in this thread?

Zz.

 

[sophiecentaur]

And it isn't 'doing' anything so what could be is the efficiency quotient?

 

[Buckleymanor]

So? Nothing about that is anything to do with perpetual motion or energy.


You'll be backing this up I assume?

Let us be clear: it is a fact that all observations (that's what nature shows us) tell us free energy is impossible. Not implausible, impossible.
If you don't understand thermodynamics you may want to do some reading.

It may sound negative, but it is completely realistic. That's not something wishful thinking and a positive attitude will change.

Now either back up your claims relating to free energy or drop this nonsense. It doesn't belong here.

Backing this up are you so full of nonesense that you deny the universes existence and how it came about.
Ok. it is a tricky subject but there is no doubt it exists and if you do all the sums it might all cancell out from a thermodynamic perspective.
However in the mean time we are surrounded by energy which if we harness can be put to work.
Don't imagine that being pedantly correct is being completely realistic the wheel would never have come about with an attitude like that.

 

[JaredJames]

Backing this up are you so full of nonesense that you deny the universes existence and how it came about.

I'm not denying its existence - in fact I'd like you to quote where I said that. We don't know how it came about so anything pre big bang is nonsense because we just don't know. The big bang theory does not cover how things started, only what happened after that time.

However in the mean time we are surrounded by energy which if we harness can be put to work.

Uh, what does this have to do with free energy? I know if I burn the log outside I get usable energy - I'm also very much aware that once burnt, I can't burn it again. The useful energy is gone.

You are confusing energy available and creating energy. Free energy is the latter.

Don't imagine that being pedantly correct is being completely realistic the wheel would never have come about with an attitude like that.

I have no idea how that statement relates to anything or what it has to with the wheel. It doesn't make sense. No amount of wishful thinking will make free energy possible.

Now, for the final time, are you going to back up your free energy claims as per forum rules?

 

[Vanadium 50]

This has become a good example as to why perpetual motion is on the list of no-no topics.