Why don’t perpetual motion machines ever work? – Netta Schramm

Why don’t perpetual motion machines ever work? – Netta Schramm


Around 1159 A.D., a mathematician called
Bhaskara the Learned sketched a design for a wheel
containing curved reservoirs of mercury. He reasoned that as the wheels spun, the mercury would flow to the bottom
of each reservoir, leaving one side of the wheel
perpetually heavier than the other. The imbalance would keep
the wheel turning forever. Bhaskara’s drawing was one of
the earliest designs for a perpetual motion machine, a device that can do work indefinitely
without any external energy source. Imagine a windmill that produced
the breeze it needed to keep rotating. Or a lightbulb whose glow provided
its own electricity. These devices have captured many
inventors’ imaginations because they could transform
our relationship with energy. For example, if you could build
a perpetual motion machine that included humans as part of its
perfectly efficient system, it could sustain life indefinitely. There’s just one problem. They don’t work. Ideas for perpetual motion machines all violate one or more
fundamental laws of thermodynamics, the branch of physics that describes
the relationship between different forms of energy. The first law of thermodynamics says
that energy can’t be created or destroyed. You can’t get out more energy
than you put in. That rules out a useful
perpetual motion machine right away because a machine could only ever
produce as much energy as it consumed. There wouldn’t be any left over
to power a car or charge a phone. But what if you just wanted the machine
to keep itself moving? Inventors have proposed plenty of ideas. Several of these have been variations
on Bhaskara’s over-balanced wheel with rolling balls
or weights on swinging arms. None of them work. The moving parts that make one
side of the wheel heavier also shift its center of mass downward
below the axle. With a low center of mass, the wheel just swings back and forth
like a pendulum, then stops. What about a different approach? In the 17th century, Robert Boyle
came up with an idea for a self-watering pot. He theorized that capillary action, the attraction
between liquids and surfaces that pulls water through thin tubes, might keep the water cycling
around the bowl. But if the capillary action is strong
enough to overcome gravity and draw the water up, it would also prevent it from falling
back into the bowl. Then there are versions with magnets,
like this set of ramps. The ball is supposed to be pulled
upwards by the magnet at the top, fall back down through the hole, and repeat the cycle. This one fails because like
the self-watering pot, the magnet would simply hold
the ball at the top. Even if it somehow did keep moving, the magnet’s strength
would degrade over time and eventually stop working. For each of these machines to keep moving, they’d have to create some extra energy to nudge the system
past its stopping point, breaking the first law of thermodynamics. There are ones that seem to keep going, but in reality, they invariably turn out
to be drawing energy from some external source. Even if engineers could
somehow design a machine that didn’t violate the first law
of thermodynamics, it still wouldn’t work in the real world
because of the second law. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that energy tends to spread out
through processes like friction. Any real machine would have moving parts or interactions with air
or liquid molecules that would generate tiny amounts
of friction and heat, even in a vacuum. That heat is energy escaping, and it would keep leeching out, reducing the energy available
to move the system itself until the machine inevitably stopped. So far, these two laws of thermodynamics have stymied every idea
for perpetual motion and the dreams of perfectly efficient
energy generation they imply. Yet it’s hard to conclusively say we’ll
never discover a perpetual motion machine because there’s still so much we don’t
understand about the universe. Perhaps we’ll find
new exotic forms of matter that’ll force us to revisit the laws
of thermodynamics. Or maybe there’s perpetual motion
on tiny quantum scales. What we can be reasonably sure about
is that we’ll never stop looking. For now, the one thing that seems
truly perpetual is our search.

100 thoughts on “Why don’t perpetual motion machines ever work? – Netta Schramm

  1. In the philippines a old simple person actually created an electricfan that does stop once you started
    People were shocked and is still being studied today

  2. Can this concept of perpetual machines be applied in society? Like can this concept be related on why there are rich and poor people in a community?

  3. Bhaskara wheel did worked ! The wheel consisted of curved or tilted test tubes partially filled with mercury. Once in motion, the mercury would flow from one side of the tubes to the another. Thus forcing the wheel to continue the motion. This video is another example of how to make something not believable so you would keep paying money for something that you can have for free… and that's energy. This video is fake.

  4. What if I threw a stone in space ?
    According to Thermodynamics , it should loose it's energy . But in space there's no gravity & no drag.
    So …
    Did I broke the second law of thermodynamics ?

  5. đức phật đã nói rồi , không có gì là vĩnh cửu, mọi thứ đều chỉ là vô thường, có sinh ra , ắt có diệt tôi tim phật giáo vì những điều khoa học đạt được đức thích ca đã ghi lại hơn 2500 trước rồi

  6. I still don't understand how informative videos get dislikes… It's just information! Lmao if you don't like it don't watch it.

  7. What about consciousness?
    It makes us move around, gather resources, procreate, ruin things, and generally increase the entropy in our universe.

  8. To answer if perpetual motion it’s just like saying you can continue living if you just keep eating your own waste (output of your food).

  9. But what if in one variation of bhaskara's wheel instead of making all the weights the same they simply make some heavier then stragitegicly place them (e.g evry 3rd is hevigher) to keep the center of mass intact.
    Just my theory tho, could be wrong.

  10. the spinning of the earth? What if humans created a giant copper coil around the world and because of induction the coil would gain a current. Is that perpetual or am i overlooking something?

  11. 4rt law of Thermodynamicss :
    E nut equals too yuuuumm c sqayare. E equals to yuuuuuuuuum ceeee. _ Swami Nithyananda.

  12. uphill roller series works forever and using only gravity as a driving force so we don't need any fuel, if all the scientist world wide come with me then it's become a dream come true and all the world become benefitted by it

  13. physics are the math teacher that make everything hard

    we are students who belive nothing is easy

    facts are sruff that seem cool but sometimes are'nt

  14. We don't need unlimited perpetual motion. Jus motion that lasts a long time. Like a wheel that spins for 100 years before it stops when you spin it. It's not perpetual but it's good enough. When you spin a skateboard wheel depending on the bearings it will spin for shorter or longer time before it stops on it's own. We need to increase that time, not make it last for eternity. 120 years should be good enough

  15. i have a friend who's trying to do stuff like these. I know it won't work at all but I'm a good friend so I just keep my mouth shut and watch him fail

  16. Harnessing the energy of zero point quantum fluctuations might become a thing someday. (The sub atomic particles that mysteriously pop in and out of existence in a vacuum.) Considering the amount of energy contained in very tiny amounts of mass.

  17. I left the video at the first law like 20 mins ago and watch it again cause i knew the three rules is just saying that we cant make energy

  18. The reason they don't work is because of a factor that affects everyone and everything. That factor is entropy. There is no way around it. It's eventually going to destroy everything and everyone we know.

  19. So I dont know if anyone will read this and I couldnt find anything online but could torque be the answer? the ammount of energy created from torque is greater via distance, just how bold cutters work, you're able to break steel from a padlock with just two wrenches exerting force on eachother with barely any effort. Perhaps we could find a way to allow torque to lift a great ammount of weight (water for example) to create kinetic, thoughts?

  20. That's weird, could have sworn the earth keeps rotating. Would have made more sense to state it doesn't work where friction exists.

  21. Till watching this video I was always thinking why couldn't the scientists use this kind of machines for infinite energy supply for us

  22. I don't get anyway why English speakers can't utter an Indian or a Bangladeshi name, though they can pronounce the French, Latin or Greek name well!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *