2006-08-25 02:20:57 · 14 answers · asked by aldimca 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Engineering
That would be like having a pair of trousers in which the left and right pockets are connected. You can take money from the right pocket and stuff it in the left pocket until the end of time but you will not produce any new spendable money. To generate power you must constantly suppy new fuel (oil, gas or coal, etc.) burn it to produce heat energy and expend the energy to produce steam to drive a steam turbine then exhaust any waste heat. Stop the supply of fuel and energy production also stops. In effect you are merely changing energy from one form to another, e.g., coal (stored energy) to electricity.
2006-08-25 05:56:29 · answer #1 · answered by Kes 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, we cannot.
The problem is that any machine is inherently inefficient. For example, your car engine only delivers about 15% of the available chemical energy in the gasoline as rotational energy for the axles and power for other systems like air conditioning and the radio.
Even if the engine were more efficient, it loses energy to inertia, and as sound and heat.
Newton's three laws of motion defined inertia. The simple, common summary of those laws is:
1. You can't get something for nothing.
2. You can't even break even.
3. You can't opt out of the game.
A perpetual motion machine violates number 2. It's such an accepted fact that the US patent office won't even consider a patent for a potential motion machine. They get round filed immediately.
2006-08-25 02:27:47 · answer #2 · answered by TychaBrahe 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Even if you could achieve 100% efficiency (which you can't), you would not be able to use any power generated without slowing and eventually stopping the machine. Why waste time and money on such a device?
2006-08-25 05:38:18 · answer #3 · answered by spartacus_nuc 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
hahaha excellent....
I suggest you educate yourself a little bit in the subject of physics.
Even if 100% of the output from a generator were put back in to powering the generator, still energy would be lost due to the fact that the generator has moving parts.
2006-08-25 02:23:38 · answer #4 · answered by shoby_shoby2003 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ahh the theory of perpetual motion. not possible :[ energy is lost somehow in someway there would need to be 100% efficient. i remember when i tried...
2006-08-25 04:31:46 · answer #5 · answered by cosmologist dude 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you don't sound like an engineer. Nice imagination, though. But alas, electricity is an energy which cannot flow without losses.
2006-08-25 09:45:17 · answer #6 · answered by Ankit 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That would be perpetual motion but it has been tried many many times and its impossble to achieve.
2006-08-25 02:23:08 · answer #7 · answered by frigon_p 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can put it in the Universe after an initial start.
2006-08-25 02:28:18 · answer #8 · answered by MYINTMOH 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It has been invented thousands of times. It's just never worked.
2006-08-25 02:23:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
check out www.steorn.net the have produced a generator that you may find very interesting.
2006-08-25 02:27:37 · answer #10 · answered by DRGNSTR 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋