Working Model of Perpetual Motion

Hello Dilb,
I'd really like to apologize.
Dilb said:
I think you don't understand the limits of a simulation. You can't possibly get a simulation to show you that gravity is non conservative, because the simulation is built on the assumption that gravity is conservative.
Click to expand...

If I've led you to believe I think that I've tested the concepts I have with wm2d and have proof that gravity isn't a conservative force I was in error. I don't recall making that assertion but if I did then I was wrong.

I've used wm2d to study mass in motion over a very short duration of time. My questions could be summed, 'if I do this what will happen?' That's the extent of how I use wm2d. There are some things that can be done with a simulation that would cause it to more accurately portray reality. Someone a while ago mentioned the idea of using double digit precision. I don't think that's an option with wm2d. Another thing is to increase the steps. The model runs slower but it's more accurate. But for what I'm using it for it's more than adequate.

Well, I'm on my way to Dallas in search of turkey. I'm sure there's some there. If there isn't now there will be when I get there. Have a good Thanksgiving.

Gene
 
Brian Jackson said:
Well put. Simply moving would be "work," would it not?
Click to expand...

I don't think that is what "work" implies. I believe (could be wrong) that it is residual motion that can go towards not just making the device work, but to make something ELSE work as well, without wearing down the device.

But I suppose that alone, quantitatively, could be argued, because if someone came up with a wheel that could make it up over the top to repeat the cycle, and then the experimenter strapped on an atom to the wheel and it kept turning...I guess that indeed then would be "work". (Or would it?)
 
Iamme said:
Are you implying that since that religious scholars claim creation occured in 4004 B.C., that then the argument made would be totally faletious?
Click to expand...
Iamme you're a comedy genius.
 
Hello Iamme,

I think you hit on the distinction between work and 'useful' work. If the wheel only did the work of overcoming friction, air resistance and inertia (although it would be remarkable) it wouldn't be useful. I think if all the wheel could do would be to move an atom around that would be useful.

My office is about as organized as I think I'm going to get it. I should be building soon.

Gene
 
Hello Brian,

Brian Jackson said:
Well put. Simply moving would be "work," would it not? It's the idea of a repetitive cycle (like a wheel) that makes an idea easy to prove.
Click to expand...

That's true. If you dropped a brick on your foot it would do some work on it. The problem is getting the brick back in your hand so you can drop it again.

Gene
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom