Could an atom be described as being a perpetual motion machine.

No. For a start, the protons will gradually decay.

What about the entire universe?

It depends what you mean by perpetual motion, because if you count light, then (for example) an atom bomb could count as a perpetual motion device.

 

See: Heat death of the universe.

Well, 'heat death' is the sticky wicket isn't it?

 

That's why I asked, not what I was asking.

well at the risk of sounding Cynical again on yer another Thread, there`s no such thing as a "free lunch"

 

however at a stretch, one of thermodynamic laws states that matter/enenrgy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed.

and so in one respect by default, everything`s in perpetual motion. thats how I see it anyway not sure if it can be tapped into so to speak though?

"however"?

 

No such thing as free lunch == energy cannot be created or destroyed.

 

Hence "does light count?", and "is the heat death of the universe indicative of no attributable perpetual existence?"

Personally, I wouldn't class light as a machine as it has no direct physical form.

well it`s not a machine per se, but neither is petrol. if anything no matter how insignificant could seen as perpetual, then surely it`s only 1 step closer to employing into a workable machine?

If you would accept an atom as a machine for the purposes of the original question, why start discriminating against components of the machine if we scale it up to "the entire universe", which by definition includes all light energy?

What has petrol got to do with anything?

petrol/light or whatever... it`s a fuel (potential)

 

and so, if a "fuel" exhibits perpetual motion properties then like petrol is could be employed within a machine as a fuel/ prime mover.

Is it possible to say electrons orbiting the nucleus of an atom is a perpetual machine

All atoms eventually decay, though the process could take an exponential number of years.

A photon may also decay over an amount of time. Since matter has been seen to pop in and out of existance there may be a threshold of energy needed for a photon to retain its form. Entropy over time may require energy to be used just to continue existing. Just my thoughts.

Just aman

Is perpetual motion possible?

 

I heard that it's impossible to make a machine that would start itself, generate power and continue working for as long as required, without any external energy.

 

I heard that it has something to do with Newton's 3rd law and the fact that we can't generate anymore energy that we have.

 

What is the function of perpetual motion anyway? And why is it impossible (/possible?) ?

The closest thing to perpetual motion in nature is the current that goes around a superconducting loop. Due to their being no resistance the current can exist for as long as it wants, this implies the loop is kept below its superconducting transition temperature however.

neo_maya said in post #16 :

Is perpetual motion possible?

 

I heard that it's impossible to make a machine that would start itself, generate power and continue working for as long as required, without any external energy.

 

I heard that it has something to do with Newton's 3rd law and the fact that we can't generate anymore energy that we have.

 

What is the function of perpetual motion anyway? And why is it impossible (/possible?) ?

 

It's the second law of thermodynamics (entropy always increases in a closed system) combined with another thermodynamic law, the law of the conservation of energy.

 

There cannot be perpetual motion machines because:

 

a. The sum total energy of them remains the same.

b. The amount of 'waste energy' (if you will) in the system is certain to increase

 

These two combined mean that the energy used to run the machine will always decrease over time, and thus eventually stop. Hence, no perpetual motion machines.

 

ps.

 

Bonus simpsons quote!

Thanks.

 

 

http://www.geocities.com/mercutio78_99/c.html

 

Check this out - A simple site (...I think) but I liked it - though didn't understand two of the machines' mechanisms.

 

[ If perpetual motion is impossible - then why were so many attempts made? And I heard that people r still trying to invent such a machine. ]

The water pressure exerted from the tank should force water up into the tube and down again, turning the wheel on its way down.

What really happens, is the tank can't provide enough force to make the water go up into the tube.

And why would it?

neo_maya said in post #19 :

If perpetual motion is impossible - then why were so many attempts made?

 

 

Who, who's doing that? Is it you? It's not me, I'll tell you that.

greg1917 said in post #17 :

The closest thing to perpetual motion in nature is the current that goes around a superconducting loop. Due to their being no resistance the current can exist for as long as it wants, this implies the loop is kept below its superconducting transition temperature however.

 

A very good and interesting point, could it be possible that for any "motion" to be "perpetual" is must remain in a static form or closed system?

such as a magnet (un-tappable granted) but there non the less

Attempts are made because people are desperate to disprove the laws of thermodynamics and get something for nothing. A mechanical machine like the one in that post is an example of the types of machine thought of over the centuries. Most are due to scientists not yet being aware of the nature of energy and, as mentioned, the laws of thermodynamics.

There have been a lot of psuedoscience theories put forward about the properties of element 114 and it's abilities to create more energy in a device than it uses. If there is perpetual motion, it can only come from some source like this which is unavailable to us at the moment. We can't do perpetual motion with the things we have now.

Just aman

element 114 as in uniplentium?