what does an orbiting electron have to do with thermodynamics? thermodynamics describes an ensemble of states, not an individual particle. I didn't use the word thermodynamics, that was you.

Nothing but it is what Brederbrothers said
I did not quote only you

Though, objects that continue to orbit forever without decelerating is not yet perpetual. When it allows generating energy it is. But that would cause a deceleration.

well it depends on what you mean for perpetuum mobile

Objects which continue to orbit forever are , in my opinion, an example of perpetuum mobile which by itself is not in conflict with the laws of physics
The direct opposite

The generation of energy is a further requirement
If so, the first and the second laws of thermodynamics prevent the system from moving forever

Finsrud's device does not supply energy, as far as I understand
Mr Finsrud admit that some maintance is needed
In principle it may work

It does. Moving masses create gravitation waves which, just like electromagnetic waves, have an energy flow. So no moving perpetuum mobile is possible at all, even if it does not generate energy by design.

Come on...gravitation waves ...It could keep moving for milion years

Finsrud's device sooner or later shall stop because of passive resistance
However Mr Finsrud himself admitted that some maintance is needed to clean the trails , to lubrificate the axis etc
If so, I would not be surprised if his device can keep moving for years
It is not in conflict with physical laws

uhm...dont get offended but you should take out your physics books from the shelf
too long time has elapsed

The Bohr model did not succesfully describe the energy lines of the hydrogen ( Quicksilver ? )
The model by itself does not provide any explanation for the energy levels
The quantization of the energy levels is an empirical input gained by the experience while the quantization of angular moment is a direct consequence of the quantization of the energy levels

The Schondringer's equation provided an explanation for the discrete energy levels but it has nothing to do with its probabilistic interpretation which Schondringer himself alwayes rejected

Schondringer thought that electrons were a sort of negative electicity clouds ( waves) wrapped around the nucleus
The solutions of his equation were supposed to be a measure of the density of such cloud ( waves)
However this assumption were refuted by the experience
Moreove it could not be extended to more complex atoms
Consequently Born proposed a probabilistic instead of a physical interpretation of the solution of the equation which is nowadays universally accepted

As far as our discussion was concerned
Electrons are actually particles in perpetual motion about the nucleaus even though they dont follow the Newtonian laws

with quicksilver he meant mercury i think.

hah, that's the price to pay for using remailers o.O. of course I meant mercury.


you might be right here... so where do you get your knowledge about quantum mechanics from? You seem to know very much about it. *hust*


It does.


I don't want to criticise you here, but when you're talking about scientific stuff you should try to not mix up stuff so much. While it might sound impressive for people who do not know much about it, I don't like to discuss with someone who can't express a clear idea.
It's true that the quantization is proven empirically. But it is not true that quantization of angular momentum is a direct consequence of the quantization of energy levels. In fact it has nothing to do with each other. In the Bohr model, though, you can derive either one from the other. Still, this does not make it a consequence.


Never heard of that.

Again.

Assuming you mean Schrödinger, it might be true that he rejected the probabilistic interpretation. Nevertheless, the state the equation acts on is the probability amplitude. If you say "it has nothing to do" - where do you get that from? I am curious.

Sorry for hijacking this thread. To add something to the discussion: one thing I always found fascinating is the following wheel:

Of course it doesn't work but I find it quite impressive, because its counter-intuitive that it doesn't work.

Since rojart explicitely stated the addition of work, I take that requirement as part of the perpetual machine definition, as well as the poll result. If people filled in without stated condition, then the poll is not accurate anymore .