FACTS ON PERPETUAL ENERGY AND MOTIONS

Perpetual energy is energy derived without any energy being expended. The sun is a burning gas ball,this is expended energy to create heat and light. The rotation of the planets is caused by pressure expended to force them to follow a path. Gravity is force created by the spinning of the planet, this causes wear on the planet. Rain is a reaction to forces in the atmosphere. Evaporation is caused by temperature variations, energy from the sun again.

As these all seem to be perpetual, they all do have an energy expenditure of a sort to make them occur. Just because we can not see or directly feel it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Perpetual motion is still a myth. If it takes something to make it happen then it is not perpetual.

Sorry, gravity is not due to the spinning of a planetary body. Gravity is totally unrelated to rotation, or the lack thereof. Gravity is a warping of the space-time fabric of the universe. This is analogous to the depression in a trampoline when you stand on it.

One can't say for sure, but the rotation of the planets is likely a remnant of the primeval solar system, which was a large somewhat distributed mass which then coalesced into discrete parts, the sun, the planets and the various flotsam and jetsam floating around in it. Jupiter is said to be a failed star; had a little more mass coalesced there, we would be a double star system, like many others. The amount of mass determines the gravitational pressure internally, also what kinds of materials are retained or lost. The Earth lost all of its gaseous hydrogen because it didn't have the gravity to retain it; whereas the sun is fusing hydrogen into helium (not burning it) at a prodigious rate, and it is precisely the energy released by that process, impinging on the Earth, that is the motive power behind everything that happens here. The Sun is not perpetual, it will eventually deplete its fuel and burn out, and at that point Earth will be a lifeless cinder.

That's the theory, anyway, and it is billions of years in the future, so for all practical human purposes, it is indeed perpetual.

SUN's energy is perpetual,

No Sun is continuously fusing H into He and within a few million years, when the stock is finished, it is going to end up in a red giant. devour the fiirst couple (or may be more planets, clean up the planetary system of most of the debri)

revolving of planets are perpetual Upto a certain degree however the orbit of the planets (as well as moon) are continuousely expanding. The question is between the escape and eaten up when sun becomes red giant.

The energy itself (+mass of course) can not be created or destroyed as per the current status understanding of natural laws.

Perpetual means : Neverceasing; continuing forever, everlasting.

As per Wiki

The term perpetual motion, taken literally, refers to movement that goes on forever. However, the term more generally refers to any closed system that produces more energy than it consumes. Such a device or system would be in violation of the law of conservation of energy, which states that energy can never be created or destroyed. The most conventional type of perpetual motion machine is a mechanical system which (supposedly) sustains motion despite losing energy to friction and air resistance, or while avoiding losing energy to friction and air resistance.

Any of the systems as you have covered do not make energy more than it produces. Now the above definition must be corrected taking mass+energy entity.

The perpetuality basically violates the basics of nature - ie you create energy (+mass) out of no-where.

In case you are aware of gas Turbines, You start it with an Engine/Motor when it picks up a certain speed then the compressor in the turbine (on the same shaft as the Turbine stage) compresses air, when the compressed air reaches a particular pressure, the fule is injected and burnt (Same thing as the car where you need a start mechanism) Now the GT is self sufficient on the way, the generated energy of the turbine drives the compressor (say out of 100MW gen in the turbine, 70 MW is used to drive the compressor and 30 MW is available at the shaft to drive the generator)

Hence there is a nett energy output ? No since if you take the fuel system, then there is an energy input from there (chemical energy)

So end of the day you have fed more energy (+ mass eg nuclear reactors) than you have taken out from the system.

This is why it is said the PMMs are not possible.

The perpetual : it is always there since energy+mass can not be created or destroyed but can you keep on drawing infinitely from it? No.

Well gentlemen,

Not so smart, Emc c,Sb, Langyaw- thank you all for your valuable views and shared knowledge. Like two faces of a coin exist, I would like to remain non committal on the fact if perpetual motions are feasible or not, Whereas it is a fact that we are almost living on a perpetually revolving planet getting perpetual solar energy at least to our obvious truth and not by so called laws. I do agree,that the output of energy from a system can not be more than the input energy and closed loop perpetual motions are not possible. However I would like add a point that, continuous motions are possible without challenging laws of conservation of energy . Many critics simply jump into premature conclusions and post denials. Common sense can lead to open views not being restricted by books and theory values ,still holding value of natural laws

Hi,

I have a healthy respect for querying minds that continually ask, "Is that so?".

From such minds the status quo is challenged, and when done in a credible manner, forces the status quo to put up a good defense.

The laws of physics, however, have becomes exactly what they're called - LAWS, because they've been scientifically proven with methodical procedures that are reproducible, and consistently yields the same results. The laws of gravity, conservation of matter, inertia, conservation of energy, entropy, etc., are incontrovertible and irrefutable truths that make up the fabric of the universe.

One needs only apply the same methods used by Isaac Newton, et. al., to confirm these laws. Thus, when a new thought or theory is not supported by these laws, the clear conclusion that can be made is that such a theory is false.

"How to practically ascertain concepts on perpetual motions?"

The question, therefore, can be simply answered as: "No such method exists."