Poll: Perpetual Motion. Will we obtain this technology in this century?

[Heart of Darkness]

Nope. Don't think we're going to ever achieve it ever. We'll be able to create some very efficient machines. This is pretty much based on the very simplified laws of theromodynamics (or something. It's been a while since I took a real science class):

1: You can't win (can't get above 100% efficiency).
2: You can't break even (can't get 100% efficiency).
3: Don't even try. (Hence no perpetual motion).

 

[Rossiar]

It is fairly obvious that we are going to make a big leap soon, we are going to have to make something along these lines; DEFINITELY in the next century if we want to survive as most of the fossil fuels will run out. Most renewable's have their own problems and a free energy device is just what we need.

There are a lot of people posting up that this is "impossible" because there are these "energy laws" that govern the way things work. To be perfectly honest I don't think many things are "impossible" because science is still learning, I believe that just as we can look back on our ancestors and say things like "oh what stupid people why did they think the world was flat?" our descendants can look back on us and say "perpetual motion! they really thought that energy can't be created!".

 

[kane.malakos]

Got to agree with all the other naysayers here. A true perpetual motion machine is simply impossible according to the laws of thermodynamics.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Laws of Thermodynamics, people. Learn them.

 

[Squilookle]

To be honest, designing a perpetual motion machine would be peanuts compared to getting it out there for people to see without being ridiculed, lynched, or worst case scenario offed by an oil company hired hitman.

um, perpetual motion, for all intents and purposes, impossible.

Only based on everything we know thus far.

 

[kane.malakos]

It is fairly obvious that we are going to make a big leap soon, we are going to have to make something along these lines; DEFINITELY in the next century if we want to survive as most of the fossil fuels will run out. Most renewable's have their own problems and a free energy device is just what we need.

There are a lot of people posting up that this is "impossible" because there are these "energy laws" that govern the way things work. To be perfectly honest I don't think many things are "impossible" because science is still learning, I believe that just as we can look back on our ancestors and say things like "oh what stupid people why did they think the world was flat?" our descendants can look back on us and say "perpetual motion! they really thought that energy can't be created!".

The laws of thermodynamics work. Plain and simple. They describe the universe as we know it, and there is no indication that the universe works differently. While it is true that science is incomplete and always growing and changing, in order for the laws of thermodynamics to be invalid we would need to observe some instance where they did not apply, and all of our observation of the universe has confirmed these laws. It would be nice if perpetual motion was possible, but it is not.

 

[Geekosaurus]

I have no evidence to support this, but no. Whilst there's still oil to be sold, it will be sold.

 

[King Crab]

the laws of thermodynamics and entropy are greatly overrated. they are by no means absoloutes.
perpetual motion is a misnomer, it already exists, but in a different sense. I mean, it is impossible if you believe in the big bang or gravity, but only by current definitions.
gah, a simple example of a perpetual motion 'machine' would be a waterfall as part of a river as part of a weather system, I know, I know, not in the strictest sense true, but more as a metaphor.

I don't think it has anything to do with efficiancy so much as the ways in which we see and understand the universe. both thermodynamics and entropy are based on our limited observation of the world and universe. I'm not saying they are wrong, just very limited. most of the processes behind what we see is still hidden and our current scientific understanding amounts to presumption of how things work.

In other words, science needs to progress, but we are on the right path. I hope. I think.

gah, what do I know, I'm just a crab.

 

[DTWolfwood]

physics doesn't allow it.

 

[Nocta-Aeterna]

No, and even though it has been said enough times already, I will still reitterate it: Thermodynamics does not support perpetual motion.
An efficiency > 1 violates conservation of energy.
Efficiency = 1 is impossible because you will always lose energy in the form of heat loss or friction.

I see more future in nuclear fusion though.

-our descendants can look back on us and say "perpetual motion! they really thought that energy can't be created!".

Let's have us a little thought experiment. Propose to me a perpetual motion device.

the laws of thermodynamics and entropy are greatly overrated. they are by no means absoloutes.
perpetual motion is a misnomer, it already exists, but in a different sense. I mean, it is impossible if you believe in the big bang or gravity, but only by current definitions.
gah, a simple example of a perpetual motion 'machine' would be a waterfall as part of a river as part of a weather system, I know, I know, not in the strictest sense true, but more as a metaphor.

I don't think it has anything to do with efficiancy so much as the ways in which we see and understand the universe. both thermodynamics and entropy are based on our limited observation of the world and universe. I'm not saying they are wrong, just very limited. most of the processes behind what we see is still hidden and our current scientific understanding amounts to presumption of how things work.

In other words, science needs to progress, but we are on the right path. I hope. I think.

gah, what do I know, I'm just a crab.

By your definition, a perpetual motion device would be little more than a regular engine. A perpetual motion device is only interesting because it can move indefinitly on a finite amount of energy. Even there is something that could, it would be impossible to do anything with it as it can only deliver only as much work as energy it contains. The river-cloud-glacier-river cycle only works because it derives power from the sun. If the sun dies (and doesn't swallow us in the proces), the whole cycle would come to a grinding halt.

 

[Serioli]

Weather system + waterfall + generator isn't perpetual motion as there is massive wastage in the stages of the weather system. (I.E. the amount of energy required to evaporate the water is far greater than the usable energy you get out of the turbine, even if you had a (magic) 100% efficient turbine/generator.

 

[The_Graff]

not with physics as we currently understand it. so until someone finds the Necronomicon (or whatever) no.

 

[khiliani]

To be honest, designing a perpetual motion machine would be peanuts compared to getting it out there for people to see without being ridiculed, lynched, or worst case scenario offed by an oil company hired hitman.

um, perpetual motion, for all intents and purposes, impossible.

Only based on everything we know thus far.

I would be very impressed if some scientist happened to turn over some perpetual motion machine under a rock. The closest we have are those mag lev trains, and they take up so much power it?s not funny. For something to be a truly perpetual motion machine, it cannot exert any other energy, no noise, no friction, no heat, no nothing. It would need to be in a vacuum, and it would need to have components that don?t touch. Good luck making that.

Also, NASA has an open competition for perpetual motion machines with a rather sizeable reward. Getting it out there isn?t really a problem.

 

[XShrike]

Perpetual motion is impossible in this universe. Anything that appears to be a perpetual motion machine just has some unaccounted energy entering the system. So called perpetual motion machines also generate almost useless amounts of energy.

Anything used to generate power has to be built and the resources used to build it are calculated. The cost of running the generator is also calculated. These two numbers are added together and compared to how much power the plant will generate in its life time. This usually is used to determine how much to charge the consumers. Fossil fuel power plants tend to be cheaper while the "renewable energy" plants tend to be more expensive.

Want to know what is going to answer most of our energy problems? Fusion reactors.

Assuming a fusion energy output equal to the 1995 global power output of about 100 EJ/yr (= 1 x 1020 J/yr) and that this does not increase in the future, then the known current lithium reserves would last 3000 years, lithium from sea water would last 60 million years, and a more complicated fusion process using only deuterium from sea water would have fuel for 150 billion years. To put this in context, 150 billion years is over ten times the currently measured age of the universe, and is close to 30 times the remaining lifespan of the sun.

I want to repeat that last part, "30 times the remaining lifespan of the sun." We would be worrying about finding a new planet to live on before we even have to consider worrying about finding more fusionable material.

 

[nuba km]

no because you can't create energy.

 

[Calatar]

There are a lot of people posting up that this is "impossible" because there are these "energy laws" that govern the way things work. To be perfectly honest I don't think many things are "impossible" because science is still learning, I believe that just as we can look back on our ancestors and say things like "oh what stupid people why did they think the world was flat?" our descendants can look back on us and say "perpetual motion! they really thought that energy can't be created!".

If unlimited energy is created from excessive use of "quotation marks," you may be right.

Our "energy laws" are founded on decades of observation, experimentation and refinement. The flat world hypothesis is foiled by the horizon and basic geometry.

While it isn't impossible for science to change over time, I'm more inclined to believe in those few solid laws which preclude the universe turning into pure energy.

Just had to search through my bookmarks, but you might find this interesting > http://www.infoniac.com/hi-tech/latest-invention-perpetual-motion-device-that-produces-power-from-gravity.html

Protip: When a device needs to break the laws of physics in order to work, it's a scam.

You can't make energy through gravity. You can only retrieve energy from gravity that you've stored. If it worked, power companies would already be using it.

 

[Nocta-Aeterna]

Want to know what is going to answer most of our energy problems? Fusion reactors.

Assuming a fusion energy output equal to the 1995 global power output of about 100 EJ/yr (= 1 x 1020 J/yr) and that this does not increase in the future, then the known current lithium reserves would last 3000 years, lithium from sea water would last 60 million years, and a more complicated fusion process using only deuterium from sea water would have fuel for 150 billion years. To put this in context, 150 billion years is over ten times the currently measured age of the universe, and is close to 30 times the remaining lifespan of the sun.

I want to repeat that last part, "30 times the remaining lifespan of the sun." We would be worrying about finding a new planet to live on before we even have to consider worrying about find more fusionable material.

^This here. And know what else? Nuclear fusion has already been in development for some time, the tokamak approach since the fifthies. There already have been functional (if short running) test reactors. If the ITER project is finished succesfully and on schedule, many engineering problems of Tokamak reactors will be solved. This branch of research has potential ánd tangible progress.

 

[aldt]

Not unless you redefine 'perpetual', 'motion' or both. You could postulate that there are physical laws that transcend current theories, but such claims are almost entirely baseless speculation.

Our current understanding of the universe - and one that is unlikely to change, due to the unanimous conformity of evidence - tells us that perpetual motion cannot exist.
If you want to get cute, you could invent a new spatial coordinate system that moved arbitrarily, and claim that all objects are now in perpetual motion, but it would be completely useless.

Oh, and another problem: claiming that, because something has not been discovered yet, it is a theoretical possibility is not as powerful a claim as you think. If the evidence is already overwhelmingly against the discovery, it's far more likely that we never make it, rather than getting there eventually. You might say that it's because we continually fail, but in the case of perpetual motion, it's more likely that it's because it's 100% impossible.