Did I just figure out a possible perpetual motion solution?

Question

So I was watching a YouTube video, and paused it. I got an idea and decided to explore. Perpetual motion: a supposedly impossible idea that breaks the laws of engineering. To create perpetual motion you d have to make a device in which the output energy is greater than or equal to the input energy, so that, in theory, it could run itself forever. However, this has never been accomplished. I have an idea that may solve it, though it s a stretch. In space, there is hardly any gravity, and no air resistance. In space, there is almost nothing that could stop a small object from spinning. Could space be the solution to perpetual motion? Perhaps you could use a vacuum chamber to help, having the device inside to not have to go to space. Could anyone tell me if this breaks the rules for making perpetual motion? I would like to know if I just said a nice "**** you" to all the scientists and engineers who have tried and failed.

Answer 1

No

Answer 2

For one thing, it's impossible to create a total vacuum, so even in deep space there is gas...mostly hydrogen. So anything that moves in space will encounter friction, even if it is VERY small and will eventually stop. The earth has been spinning and circling the sum for 4.5 billion years, and it has slowed down a bit, and it will eventually stop.

Answer 3

That will not work. Even in a total vacuum (which does not exist, there are always a few atoms about) there is gravity. Gravity will act on your spinning object. It might speed it up or it might slow it down, but it will definitely be affected. The earth is being slowed by tidal forces of the moon. Nothing in this entire universe is perpetual except perhaps entropy

Answer 4

A perpetual motion machine must include All of the energy used to make it work, including the vacuum pump.

Already you are operating on a negative budget. Vacuum pumps require lots of energy. Take it into space?

The first seconds of the launch puts your power budget negative.

SORRY but, it was a good try.

Keep working on it.

Answer 5

No, you just do not understand what "perpetual motion" means.

Answer 6

The reason a perpetual motion machine is impossible, is because the machine is used to supply energy. Your idea doesn't include getting any extra energy out of the spin. Your spinning object idea is possible ... but it's not what scientists are talking about when they say that a perpetual motion machine is impossible.



Besides, there is no true vacuum. Even spinning galaxies will dissipate and stop spinning in less than 10^25 years. The last stars will stop shining in a mere 10^16 years (about a million times longer than the present age of the universe). These numbers are nothing compared to "perpetual".

Answer 7

You mean like planets and stars and all that which continue spinning for pretty well ever simply because the resistance to motion is tiny compared to the energy of motion that the object had at formation? That is basically what you just said. The earth is a perpetual motion machine in that way.



The entire idea of a perpetual motion machine (in a historic meaning) is a device that will continue to generate energy, have energy which would allow it to continue moving in a constant fashion despite any resistance to that movement which might exist, in effect meaning that it produces "new" energy to replace the energy that is lost to outside of itself. Thus, one could take energy from the machine and the machine would not change its behavior and would not have a net loss of energy.



There is no where in the universe where a particle can exist outside the influence of anything and everything else in the universe.

Answer 8

Putting a spinning object in vacuum and no gravity, in a perfect setup, will spin forever. But there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum. Even if you created one somehow, the material of the container will lose molecules into the vacuum, making it no longer perfect.



Same with zero gravity. Space is full of gravity fields, from the sun, planets, moons, etc. You would have to go out into intergalactic space to find something close to zero, but it would still be present, just diminished.



And, to cap it off, a perpetual motion machine has to produce useful work, not spin in a vacuum.

Answer 9

Hi so in space you have ruled out gravity between one planet and another. here on earth the moons gravity effects the tides twice a day. it would also bring forces to bare on any such device.

Answer 10

Ok, you've got a lump of something spinning in the (not quite) perfect vacuum of space.

You may argue that what follows is not a rebuttal of your idea, but...how can we put such a device to use? Make it turn a dynamo to light a bulb? That extracts energy from the system, and the spinning object will lose energy, slow down, and eventually stop.

Answer 11

No,you didn't. You gave the reasons in your own question.

"hardly any gravity". Hardly any is not zero. Perpetual motion means forever. Eventually the little gravity that there is will affect the motion. So it isn't perpetual.

Answer 12

To answer your question, let me just say this experiment has been done, it's called the earth, and 600 million years ago the day was 21 hours long.

Answer 13

Yes in the vacuum of space things move essentially forever. Similarly, at an atomic scale atoms continually vibrate.



However, when talking about perpetual motion, people are usually taking about human scale perpetual motion machines with moving parts subject to the general loses of all human scale machinery such as friction, but which somehow keep moving forever, without an external power source. Even more impossible are over unity devices, which actually produce power from nowhere.