96
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 240:
Line 240: + + + +
Talk:Second Law of Thermodynamics (view source)
Revision as of 20:52, October 11, 2012
, 20:52, October 11, 2012→Perpetual Motion Machine
Mr. Schlafly recently reverted a change I made explaining the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine. I believe saying that "entropy will inevitably reduce the amount of energy available to keep the machine in motion" is a more precise explanation than saying that "entropy will inevitably derail the machine." The reason given for the reversion is "energy issues are not the only reason a perpetual motion machine is impossible." So I am wondering, what are the other issues? --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 11:06, 29 September 2012 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafly recently reverted a change I made explaining the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine. I believe saying that "entropy will inevitably reduce the amount of energy available to keep the machine in motion" is a more precise explanation than saying that "entropy will inevitably derail the machine." The reason given for the reversion is "energy issues are not the only reason a perpetual motion machine is impossible." So I am wondering, what are the other issues? --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 11:06, 29 September 2012 (EDT)
:Mr. Schlafly, for many days I got no response from you here or on your talk page, so I decided to make some further improvements to the explanation of the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine. Now I see that these changes have been overwritten within hours. Setting aside the other changes you have made to the article, I fail to see how the current sentence about a perpetual motion machine is an improvement. It is so vague and imprecisely worded that it is almost useless in an encyclopedia article.
:*Why do you insist on using the word "derail" instead of describing what actually happens from a thermodynamic standpoint? (Increasing entropy decreases energy available to keep the machine in motion.)
:*The phrase "even if energy remains constant" is too vague. What energy? I believe you are referring to the total energy of the machine's system, implying that the system is isolated and the First Law of Thermodynamics holds true, but this is not very clear. Keep in mind that true hypothetical perpetual motion machines are isolated systems by definition.
:--[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 16:52, 11 October 2012 (EDT)