Sort of funny thought

[Doug1]

I was in the shower and had this funny skit in my head which resulted from thinking about the argument of perpetual motion. Personally I think the idea of perpetual motion is silly because no one will live for eternity to see or benefit from it. I was thinking it would be as non productive as wondering if Micheal Jackson went into the great beyond as a skinny tall african american or if he still looks like an ugly white chick with messed up hair in the ever after.
   But that lead to thinking about the law of conservation and if energy can be neither be created or destroyed and only detected or measure by it's movement to one form into another, does that not fit the description of perpetual motion? If so then we can all spend stupid amounts of time thinking about Micheal instead of perpetual motion.
   Yup that's ignorant.

[mscoffman]

Thinking of the phrase; "Perpetual motion machine".
A Perpetual motion machine is still a machine. Machines
wear out and break down. So Perpetual Motion is about
generating more excess energy out then what was put into it.
Over time the net excess energy should be able to grow
arbitrarily large.

:S:MarkSCoffman

[Doug1]

 I guess I am stuck for the moment on what it is that is to be measured. Work done or energy transformed. Yesterday I spent a lot of thought on it. If your measuring energy as it moves from one frame of reference to another how do you exclude the fact that everything is moving all the time anyway form a larger point of view. Like the bird on a wire. If you only measure what passes between it's feet then there is nearly nothing to be measured. If the bird does not know to what extent the energy reaches past his own frame of reference how would he be able to realize the potential of what he is sitting on. From the birds point of view it is just a flimsy stick laying across or between elevated objects.
    Work expended compared to work done would allow for efficient improvements maybe when they become efficient enough it could become self acting. Then you are using the same force repeatedly with out applying more to do the same work over and over. The amount of force is still the same to start the action and the amount of force spent to do the work is still the same. Even if you look at each block of time where the work is done and then repeated it is still the same quantities just repeated over again.
  In order for it to be OU are you measuring the work done compared to energy expended for each time the work is done in a single frame of time.Or the amount of work done from a single action to cause the energy to move in the first moment until it is exhausted?
 

[Comassion]

I guess I am stuck for the moment on what it is that is to be measured. Work done or energy transformed. Yesterday I spent a lot of thought on it. If your measuring energy as it moves from one frame of reference to another how do you exclude the fact that everything is moving all the time anyway form a larger point of view.

You should be using the same frame of reference to compare measured energy - otherwise the comparison is likely to be misleading and meaningless.


As for exactly what you measure, total energy is what's important.  Many devices can generate far more work than is put into them, but all such devices take advantage of converting other types of energy to work.

[Doug1]

 So in a model of ou. The energy your working with would have to be a limited supply and show a growth or gain like an expanding displacement while it is performing work? If it was powered by a full charge battery it would have to >remain fully charged< while charging a second dead battery while doing work such as running a motor or a heater?
   I would imagine a person would just run a bigger heater that could use up all the power and just end up with a lot of heat from one battery and dispense with the second one in practical use. In that event would'nt you be back to fighting the argument that it is just more efficient because you did not store the excess but put it to use instead?