Poll: Perpetual Motion. Will we obtain this technology in this century?
- Thread starter rvbnut
- Start date
Looks like someone built a funny-looking machine out of spare parts and told jounalists it was a perpetual motion machine. They didn't even try to show it making energy!Greyfox105 said:
Yes they are.King Crab said:
Squilookle said:
It annoys me when people say that some future discovery or invention is going to invalidate centuries of science.Rossiar said:
That's not how science works.
People think that because, say, classical physics got suddenly proven wrong and relativity/quantum emerged, science is temporary. It's not. Science is a constructive process, constantly building on itself towards the truth. In fact classical physics wasn't proven wrong, only imprecise. They still teach classical physics in high schools, they still use it in labs, even the LHC is built on a towering heap of classical physics, because it still works.
There's plenty of holes in our knowledge, and it's plausible that a new revolution will happen soon. But it won't invalidate our current laws. After all, if that's not how the universe works, how did we make the observations that led us to these laws?
Besides, if it were possible to produce infinite energy, you can bet it would have already happened somewhere in nature and vaporised the universe.
(Luckily we don't need infinite energy. Fusion will be enough, and we can already do that, though it'll be decades before it's ready for implementation.)
I think it could be possible but it would be highly inefficient or would require outside impetus in order for it to work (thus not being a true perpetual motion device).I doubt anything that claims to be such a device worthwhile for any amount of substantial or sustained use (for reasons already mentioned in many other replies in this topic).
Nope. Impossible things tend not to happen that quickly. Or ever.
Although, if there were some sort of epic discovery that changed what we thought we knew about physics and allowed for this sort of thing, then maybe. But we're talking REALLY epic here, so don't hold your breath.
Although, if there were some sort of epic discovery that changed what we thought we knew about physics and allowed for this sort of thing, then maybe. But we're talking REALLY epic here, so don't hold your breath.
You'd need some HUGE changes to modern physics before a true perpetual motion machine could be entertained, something that basically invalidated everything we've learned over the last thousand years. You can make machines that last for a very long time, but they will still be consuming and emitting energy, which voids both the purposes of such a thing.
So far the only perpetual motion machine that can be theorized is extraction of zero point energy, however there are two proplems with that:
1. We don't know how to extract it, not even in pure math.
2. To run a 60 W light bulb requires an array the size of earth.
And even then we don't know if it would run out eventually or have strange effects on the universer if we diluted the total background of Z.P.E.
1. We don't know how to extract it, not even in pure math.
2. To run a 60 W light bulb requires an array the size of earth.
And even then we don't know if it would run out eventually or have strange effects on the universer if we diluted the total background of Z.P.E.
Rotating superfluids as well as super conductors are the closest thing humanity has ever made to perpetual motion. However you can't use them to generate energy, they can simply sustain kinetic energy without losses to other forms of energy (i.e. slowing down).
Perpetual motion cannot be used to generate energy.
/thread.
Perpetual motion cannot be used to generate energy.
/thread.
I'd be pretty impressed too. There's no denying the slm chances of getting something like that right. Especially when the status quo says it can't be done at all.khiliani said:
Nobody said it would invalidate past science. New discoveries are happening all the time that increase our understanding of everyday occurrences and happenings. You are right that science is a constructive process, but who are any of us to say how close to the finish we are, or even if we're on the right track?Naleh said:
no you can't create energy let me expand:Dana22 said:
their are 6 different types of energy (I think I am missing one)
chemical: don't know enough about this one to explain it but an example is a battery.
kinetic: i.e. movement this is very self explanatory
stored: energy that is stored because every atom has enough energy to run a city for a week at least (energy = mass x the speed of light squared)
electric: what's running your computer
heat: you know this one
light: you know this one
sound: you know this one
ok you can't make or destroy energy but you can convert energy I'll use and example your phone converts chemical/stored energy into electric energy which is then turned into light sound and even a little bit of heat energy but you don't need heat energy from your phone so that's normally referred to as loosed energy. lets say your battery had 100 energy the chances are you only while get about 90 electric energy as some of the energy is loosed then you will get about 40 light and 30 heat energy as more of the energy is loosed so you started with 100 and ended with 70 as 30 of it turned into unneeded heat energy but a perpetual motion machine is saying you can start with 100 and end with 999999... without adding any energy which is impossible. in fact it's impossible to make something that starts with 100 and ends with 100 without adding energy you can get 99.9999... but not 100.
We have already obtained it, centuries ago.
It is called stupidity. And it is endless. Though, we don't get much energy from it.
It is called stupidity. And it is endless. Though, we don't get much energy from it.
Well I hope that the end of our universe will look cool, because even the tiniest tweak will change it beyond recognition.Dexiro said: