Skip to main content

An advertisement states that a machine with moving parts will continue moving forever without having to add any energy. Can this be correct? Explain.

Your question is asking about complete conservation of energy within a machine. Whenever there are moving parts in a machine, this is an impossibility.


Although the First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system, a machine isn't capable of retaining this energy (at least not with today's technology).  The problem lies with non-conservative forces--those that are path-dependent.  A common example of this is friction.  The amount of work done by a non-conservative force depends on what pathway it takes.  Think of rubbing your hands together.  The more you rub them, the more work it takes, and the greater amount of energy lost you will experience as heat.  


It is important to understand that work and energy can be looked at as very similar ideas.  Doing work to an object (applying a force resulting in movement in that direction) will result in a change in the energy that object has.  


In a machine, work is achieved from something like a battery, a spring you wind up, or something along those lines.  The machine is only capable of doing what it was designed to do with the work that was input.  As soon as materials come in contact, friction will result.  You hear this as sound.  Sound takes energy to create, and that energy is effectively "stolen" from the machine, never to return.  And this is only one example of the wasteful energy that machines must contend with.


So, unless the technology has some nifty way of recuperating that energy (and engineers work every day to do this!), the advertisement cannot be correct.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.