Perpetual motion machine

[Random010203]

Violating the laws of thermodynamics.

Not a violation at all, similar to how a pendulum works.

- - - Updated - - -

The first or second or both.

How are the laws violated?

Even Adam Savage calls the machine bullshit:

https://twitter.com/donttrythis/stat...53230052589568

[skitzin]

How are the laws violated?

None since it obeys the principles of physics. Even if some people cannot see it.

However, an actual perpetual motion machine would violate either the first law or the second law or both. Hence, my comment.

[Noradin]

The first or second or both.

None.
That construct shown in the video breaks neither the first nor the second law of thermodynamics.

[skitzin]

None.
That construct shown in the video breaks neither the first nor the second law of thermodynamics.

Go up and read what I just said in the reply above.

[Random010203]

None since it obeys the principles of physics. Even if some people cannot see it.

However, an actual perpetual motion machine would violate either the first law or the second law or both. Hence, my comment.

This is my point, the video has been debunked, no laws were broken lol.

[Noradin]

None since it obeys the principles of physics. Even if some people cannot see it.

However, an actual perpetual motion machine would violate either the first law or the second law or both. Hence, my comment.

And that is the aswer to the question "which law would be violated", not to the question "which law is violated".
Replying "the second or the first law of thermodynamics" to the second question ("which law is violated") implies that a law was violated.
That is not the case.

- - - Updated - - -

Go up and read what I just said in the reply above.

Go up and read the quote and what you replied to it, then read it again and think about it.

[unbound]

So assuming it is on the up & up (i.e. there isn't anything under the table, and his swaying with his hands on the table is not having an impact), we really haven't seen anything useful to indicate it is actually a perpetual motion machine.

It is a relatively low friction device. Note that he doesn't place the green ball in the device, he gives it energy pushing the ball to one side. We observed it for less than 30 seconds before he stopped it. If you watch closely, it is actually starting to slow down a bit and he stops it before it gets too slow.

Basically, this is a clever trick, but it certainly isn't perpetual motion.

[Random010203]

Perpetual motion machines can't exist by definition of physics. True closed systems cannot exist in nature. Only on paper.

[Orange Joe]

pls repports thsi thread so we can close it was made on a april fools joke pls report it

aprils fools or not, it's providing a good discussion so why close it?

[Ryme]

I feel this thread should be cross linked whenever someone dares to babble on about the EMDrive.

Whatever became of that EMDrive hubbub? Was a fascinating story to watch unfold, I just completely lost touch with it, which can't be a good sign I guess.

[Calfredd]

Whatever became of that EMDrive hubbub? Was a fascinating story to watch unfold, I just completely lost touch with it, which can't be a good sign I guess.

Apparently, it's now going under peer review.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1113413297/em-drive-032615/
Red Orbit is okay right? I don't frequent many science websites.

[Ghâzh]

None.
That construct shown in the video breaks neither the first nor the second law of thermodynamics.

I don't think anyone actually believes that laws of thermodynamics are broken here. I originally replied to you because I thought you didn't know which law was referred to by the original poster.

[Noradin]

I don't think anyone actually believes that laws of thermodynamics are broken here. I originally replied to you because I thought you didn't know which law was referred to by the original poster.

That is what I assumed, still, we cannot let an answer stand that implies that this construct does break any physical laws.
It pretends to break the laws of thermodynamics by assuming the name "perpetual motion machine", but it does not actually break any and never should we let it stand that it does.
Some people will read just on sentence in this whole thread and take away that "physics are wrong", because that is what they want to see.

[Daedius]

Pft, I prefer this method:

[Deleted]

If you wanna nitpick, isn't every motion a perpetual motion until some external force interferes?

[Calfredd]

If you wanna nitpick, isn't every motion a perpetual motion until some external force interferes?

No because perpetual motion is forever. If it stops for any reason, it isn't perpetual motion.

[Allarius]

No because perpetual motion is forever. If it stops for any reason, it isn't perpetual motion.

Right but he's saying that UNTIL that forces stops it, it's perpetual motion. Technically correct, but seems like a meaningless distinction.

[Deleted]

No because perpetual motion is forever. If it stops for any reason, it isn't perpetual motion.

if i am happily cozing along in a perfect vacuum, is my motion not perpetual just because someone else build a wall in my path that stops me?

what about a photon traveling through space, afaik they don't lose energy just from moving, only from external factors, is that not a perpetual motion?
maybe a electron in a circular room temperature superconductor too, maybe they do experience a little friction i dunno tbh.

- - - Updated - - -

Right but he's saying that UNTIL that forces stops it, it's perpetual motion. Technically correct, but seems like a meaningless distinction.

i did use the word nitpick.