Not a violation at all, similar to how a pendulum works.
- - - Updated - - -
How are the laws violated?
Even Adam Savage calls the machine bullshit:
https://twitter.com/donttrythis/stat...53230052589568
Not a violation at all, similar to how a pendulum works.
- - - Updated - - -
How are the laws violated?
Even Adam Savage calls the machine bullshit:
https://twitter.com/donttrythis/stat...53230052589568
Last edited by Random010203; 2016-04-08 at 11:45 AM.
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 the quote and what you replied to it, then read it again and think about it.
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.
Perpetual motion machines can't exist by definition of physics. True closed systems cannot exist in nature. Only on paper.
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.
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.
If you wanna nitpick, isn't every motion a perpetual motion until some external force interferes?
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 - - -
i did use the word nitpick.
Last edited by mmoc982b0e8df8; 2016-04-08 at 04:47 PM.