you can't
2006-08-29 21:23:25
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Just how impossible is impossible?
Scientists and engineers accept the possibility that the current understanding of the laws of physics may be incomplete or incorrect; a perpetual motion device may not be impossible, but overwhelming evidence would be required to justify rewriting the laws of physics. Any proposed perpetual motion design offers a potentially instructive challenge to physicists: we know it can't work (because of the laws of thermodynamics), so explain how it fails to work. The difficulty (and the value) of such an exercise depends on the subtlety of the proposal; the best ones tend to arise from physicists' own thought experiments. Because the principles of thermodynamics are so well established, serious proposals for perpetual motion machines are often met with disbelief on the part of physicists.
2006-08-29 21:34:48
·
answer #2
·
answered by the king 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
A perpetual motion machine. You can only use theoretical mathmatics to prove its existence, and that is very, very hard. Not to happen until humans figure out what other dimensions are. Most rudimentary way is through geometry. Ask an ancient Mayan/Egyptian/Greek astronomer. Its mythic root is in the past, modified by chemists drawing their studies off the ancient and learned past (alchemists, divines learning from the Greek stuff). Our culture is not concerned with it. To the scientific community it's just an example of thermodynamics to teach to students.
If you can figure it out, publish it for everybody.
2006-08-29 21:31:18
·
answer #3
·
answered by Gremlin 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
ANALOGY OF A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE
A perpetual motion machine is like an animal that eats nothing but its own poop over and over again and lives forever, never needing any other source of food after its first meal.
This is exactly how a perpetual motion machine works and exactly why it won't work.
I just couldn't resist the temptation this time. I need to get a life.
LOL
2006-08-29 22:32:08
·
answer #4
·
answered by Jay T 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
the answer to this one is a maximum sure "NO!!" when you consider that's impossible. circulation generates friction, even in area, and this would ultimately halt the mechanism. tries to conquer this are doomed to failure: One layout which includes ideas has a field of water with a wood wheel with paddles on the sting. The water is meant to drift a paddle, consequently inflicting the wheel to coach, the subsequent paddle entering the field (under the exterior of the water) by a valve - and then being led to to drift and so on. the project right here is that the blended capacity required to bypass the paddle contained in direction of the valve and concurrently keep the water would be extra desirable than that liberated with the help of the floating of the previous paddle. average result - capacity drains away, and the wheel stops. there is not any such element as a perpetual action device - and there by no ability could be.
2016-12-17 19:37:53
·
answer #5
·
answered by bunton 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Any scientist will tell u that the answer is no. The reason is based on what is one of the most important laws of science, the principle of the conservation of energy. According to this principle, energy can’t be created and can’t be destroyed in nature. Energy can be transferred from one place to another,energy can be freed or unlocked, but energy can’t be created. This means that any machine that does work must have a source of energy.
2006-08-30 05:24:51
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
That's not feasible.
A "so-called" perpetual machine would stop at one point, due to a variety of reasons.
2006-08-29 21:33:00
·
answer #7
·
answered by Cascade Ranger 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
i do it very easily! the foillowing is from Wikipedia and proves that it is very much possible to do.
Just how impossible is impossible?
Scientists and engineers accept the possibility that the current understanding of the laws of physics may be incomplete or incorrect; a perpetual motion device may not be impossible, but overwhelming evidence would be required to justify rewriting the laws of physics.
2006-09-01 10:38:25
·
answer #8
·
answered by NTH IQ 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
If you get any good answers, let me know... it might help me with my work on a perpetual motionless machine that I am currently worknig on.
2006-08-29 21:27:48
·
answer #9
·
answered by WenckeBrat 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
You must be either gullible or ignorant. Nothing in the universe can work on nothing, it has to have a source of energy. Go back to your basic physics books and study them.
2006-08-29 21:26:58
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Talk to Tesla.
2006-08-29 21:24:54
·
answer #11
·
answered by Sherry M 4
·
0⤊
0⤋