perpetual motion

[david lambright]

jesus....OK, so give me a little while and i will send you a device!.....it does not weigh much, so shipping should not be a problem....thanks for your interest...david

[nievesoliveras]

jesus....OK, so give me a little while and i will send you a device!.....it does not weigh much, so shipping should not be a problem....thanks for your interest...david

Thank you, I will wait.

Jesus

[Rosemary Ainslie]

This gets to the very heart of the matter, the fact that many people have confused the context and terminology relating to perpetual motion. Physics states catagorically that everything is in perpetual motion--period, but this does not mean anything has gained energy in any way, the conservation of energy will continue to hold true as it should.
Regards
AC

Hi AC.  I've just seen this thread.  I thought Dave started it and then saw that I was looking at page 2.  Very interesting topic.

Just out of interest - say something knocked our planet out of its orbit that it moved closer to the sun.  Then it also described a tighter faster orbit around the sun due to it's greater proximity to the sun's mass.  Then what?  Is the increased orbital velocity a result of a gravitational pull from the sun?  Or is that velocity determined by the strength of the impact that first knocked it out of orbit?

As I'm arguing it here - the force of the impact is entirely dissipated in repositioning it nearer the sun.  Yet it develops a greater velocity.  And in a second example - the force of impact is NOT entirely dissipated in repositioning it.   And yet its velocity is determined by that gravitational proximity that overrides the energy that first repositioned it.

Which means that theoretically, the energy added to the object from the force of impact can be overridden by the force of gravity.  What's happened to all that energy that has not yet been dissipated or expressed in that velocity from that early impact?

It is the same in an electric current from an AC supply source.  If the electron 'gives up its energy' to, let us say 'heat' in a resistor - then that same electron still returns to its source with the same energy quotient that it had when it first left the source. 

Then - using fire as an example.  It takes the smallest effort to generate the smallest spark that can generate a conflagration that can entirely consume a whole forest.  Yet the energy input to generate that spark required almost no effort at all.

In my opinion there are many, many examples where energy seems to exceed the laws of conservation. I'm sure they can be argued either way.  But it may give some pause for thought?

Regards,
Rosemary

[mscoffman]

Hi AC.  I've just seen this thread.  I thought Dave started it and then saw that I was looking at page 2.  Very interesting topic.

Just out of interest - say something knocked our planet out of its orbit that it moved closer to the sun.  Then it also described a tighter faster orbit around the sun due to it's greater proximity to the sun's mass.  Then what?  Is the increased orbital velocity a result of a gravitational pull from the sun?  Or is that velocity determined by the strength of the impact that first knocked it out of orbit?
...

Rosemary;

It turns out that the tighter the orbit the *higher* the systems energy.
So to get to the surface of the sun from orbit around it takes quite a bit
of energy. (this is opposed to a collision course where there is no orbiting).

So spacecraft use retrorockets to add energy until atmospheric drag
adds enough to have the earth and the spacecraft be in the same inertial
frame.

The opposite of course is true of an increasing orbit. The earth/moon
system looses orbital momentum due to tidal interaction, and the moon
moves away from the earth because of it.

There was an interesting article in an Aviation Magazine on spacecraft
orbital rendezvous techniques that they do in phases because of the
counter intuitive energetic processes of an orbiting spacecraft.

:S:MarkSCoffman

[BobTEW]

Oh Mr. Tesla what if energy is both static and kinetic.  Dave love your work on magnetics.  I working on an idea a magnet attraction {static and negative]/ repel {kinetic x2 positive} forces or fields.  Rosemary I give you "d' orbital electron". The top tear drop sphere spins c.w. to dominate over the lower sphere spinning c.c.w.
More come later,      BobTEW