Difference between revisions of "Talk:Random junkfood"
(perpetual motion notion) |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
--[[User:Nybble|Nybble]] 10:38, 1 Feb 2006 (EST) | --[[User:Nybble|Nybble]] 10:38, 1 Feb 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | I ''knew'' someone was going to geek out over this one. So should it be "I say fuck the man, and his little entropy too!"? | ||
| + | |||
| + | --[[User:Aurora|Aurora]] 10:47, 1 Feb 2006 (EST) | ||
---- | ---- | ||
Latest revision as of 11:47, 1 February 2006
"Pfffhssh. I say Fuck the man and his conservation of energy."
It may be better to use entropy instead of conservation of energy when talking about a perpetual motion machine. According to conservation of energy alone, a perpetual motion machine could exist. It is simply friction that causes rising entropy which disallows the perpetual motion machine.
Now if the perpetual motion machine was performing work instead of simply acting as energy storage, then it would be violating the conservation of energy. But that isn't what the principle of a perpetual motion machine is. It is an ideal energy storage system, not a free energy generator.
--Nybble 10:38, 1 Feb 2006 (EST)
I knew someone was going to geek out over this one. So should it be "I say fuck the man, and his little entropy too!"?
--Aurora 10:47, 1 Feb 2006 (EST)
