Off the top of my head I'd say the traction force is proportional to the contact patch area, but widening the tire won't increase that because that area is proportional to the weight on the tire. Elecrical impedance is another. So what's the charge/discharge efficiency of the batteries?
To start with, there are frictional losses. You'd have to recover 100% of the heat generated and reintroduce it into the system. Then, there are the electrical inefficiencies. An electric motor is also a generator. While it is spinning, it generates a current in the opposite direction. You would have to harness 100% of that generated current and feed it back into the system. Even it you could design a system with 100% efficiency, all it could do is keep itself running. No useful work could be extracted from the system. That would require a greater than 100% efficiency.
It looks like the OP abandoned ship and didn't want to discuss how intelligent they where compared to us deplorables.. *shrugs* I was interested in a debate
Its the four laws of thermodynamics, but you get it with out realizing it. The 4 Laws First law of thermodynamics – Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. In any process, the total energy of the universe remains the same. ... Third law of thermodynamics – As temperature approaches absolute zero, the entropy of a system approaches a constant minimum. Physics for Idiots › physics › therm... Thermodynamics | Physics For Idiots
It's enough of a variable to account for why the generator/motor perpetual motion machine can't work. (in addition, there are energy losses whenever energy is changed from one form to another, in this case, electric to mechanical back to electric.)
Yep, but also resistance in the wires, the efficiency of the inductive coupling, and if the current is alternating, the phase angle, and inductive and capacitive reactance. It is fun to try to consider all losses in something simple like this. It is often surprising how complicated it can get.
If a rocket is moving at 99% of the speed of light as seen by an observer on earth, and an astronaut on the rocket launches a missile forward that he or she measures to be moving at 10% of the speed of light with respect to the rocket, an observer on the earth sees the missile moving at 109% of the speed of light. Why does this fail?
I'm guessing that you're referring to the generation of eddy current. That is lost energy. It's not eliminated, but that loss can be reduced. That is why armatures are constructed in layers.
Just speculating... One thing that I remember reading, is that tires can be designed with a coefficient of friction equaling greater than 1. Here comes the guessing: However, in order to achieve that degree of 'grip' they must be made from relatively soft compounds. Therefore, the width is merely a technique used to spread out the load, in order to obtain a practical service life.
Because the missile can't move faster than light. Because the faster something moves the more mass it acquires. And as it approaches the speed of light it takes an infinite amount of force to push it. But not to worry the mass of a spaceship will not allow it to travel at the speed of light and probably not close.Unless we have a spaceship with no... or negative mass. Or missle with no or negative mass. Just drop a baseball on a scale.
Uh.. what's the 3rd and 4th?. I only though there were two, but then I am a physicscal idiot. If your perpetual motion machine violates the 1st law (creating energy from nothing), then It's called a Perpetual Motion Machine of the First Kind, if it violates the 2nd, (entropy) then it's a Perpetual Motion Machine of the Second Kind. In either case these are the only inventions the US Patent Office refuses to patent as a matter of law. They. Are. Impossible.
Hey, Riddle me this You have 2 parents, yes? And 4 grandparents, right? 8 great-grands Then 16, 32 64 128 and by the time you've gone 64 generations back it's 2 to the 64th, or something like a thousand times the population of the Earth back then Explain that
I think a better example of a perpetual motion machine is the earth itself: it goes or for ever doing what it does....the sun rises and sets for ever. Waves crash on the shore forever. The moon keeps doing its thing forever. of course some pesky scientists think all this will not continue forever.... but what proof do they have?
Correct. So at what speed does an observer on earth measure the missile to be moving [earth frame of reference]? The astronauts measure the missile to be moving at 10% of the speed of light.
And in the example, the 2nd Law is what comes into play. “The second law of thermodynamics holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the Universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations - then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation - well, those experimentalists do bungle things up sometimes. but if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing to do but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”-------- Arthur S. Eddington (British Astrophysicist, 1882-1944) in The nature of the Physical World, 1928 So we always know from the 2nd law that the first example will not work. But it is always interesting to see how the 2nd law will manifest - the specific losses.
