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

[lAljax]

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.

this would be so incredible that would split human history... think about it, energy would be so abundant, so cheap that it could be free, would be a water in the ocean, combine this with the developing technology of wirelessly transmiting power and we would live in a new world, plus.... oil would plummet, that would be a problem, think about where all major oil fields are... on top of a major oil field you usually find a tyrant or corrupt leader (not always of course but think about it), and it is said that 1/5 of global commerce is related to the oil & gas industry.

i can't even imagine such a world, but about perpetual motion, that's a big no no, it violates thermodinamics LAWS, not theory, LAWS, you'd have better chance breaking gravity laws then this

 

[sinsfire]

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).

That was almost exactly how my physics professor broke down the rules, except Rule 3 was "you can't quit the game" because all action and inaction must follow these rules.

While it is fun to dream and think of Sci-Fi or warp speed, it seems very improbably that we will be able to move beyond these three natural laws given what we know about the universe.

But we are the dreamers, shapers, singers, and makers, so there is always hope

 

[kane.malakos]

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?

In order for new physical laws to replace the laws of thermodynamics they would need to not only provide a better explanation of how the universe works, but also explain the phenomena that the laws of thermodynamics provide for. Even if we discover that the laws of thermodynamics are wrong, all of our observation of the universe has shown that they are right, so the new laws would need to include explanations for why the universe works that way. We have never seen a perpetual motion machine. We have never seen anything even come close. Please realize that in order for the laws to be invalidated we have to observe some process that does not follow the laws of thermodynamics, and we have not seen one, ever. That's why they are called laws, because they don't explain why the universe works a certain way, they just say "Here's the way the universe works, according to all of our observations".

 

[Squilookle]

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?

In order for new physical laws to replace the laws of thermodynamics they would need to not only provide a better explanation of how the universe works, but also explain the phenomena that the laws of thermodynamics provide for. Even if we discover that the laws of thermodynamics are wrong, all of our observation of the universe has shown that they are right, so the new laws would need to include explanations for why the universe works that way. We have never seen a perpetual motion machine. We have never seen anything even come close. Please realize that in order for the laws to be invalidated we have to observe some process that does not follow the laws of thermodynamics, and we have not seen one, ever. That's why they are called laws, because they don't explain why the universe works a certain way, they just say "Here's the way the universe works, according to all of our observations".

What's your point? I agree with all that- we are both saying the chances of an event changing our perception of current laws are miniscule and that the current system is the absolute very best we have in exxplaining the way we see the universe work. I think maybe the only difference is that you have decided that the current laws are the be all end all, while I am open to a perspective change in the future?

 

[Rossiar]

@Naleh. I never said anything about it invalidating the laws of physics. It's not centuries of rock solid physics anyway, it's been built on gradually. I completely agree with what you say about science evolving because you are just reiterating my point.

Now, about

if that's not how the universe works, how did we make the observations that led us to these laws?

Based on all reasonable evidence provided to us mankind once thought that the world was flat. We made this observation because there was no curve to the horizon. That was a scientific principle that got proven really wrong - actually wrong this time instead of "imprecise". The energy laws may at this time be imprecise which is why I think that soon we will be necessitated to research into alternate forms of energy.

At this point some nutty professor will decide he is going to ignore the "definite laws of physics" and go for it. Maybe something will come of that. I'm not saying it's going to, just that people should be more open minded about the future and how we have almost no idea what is going to happen from one day to another, let alone in a century.

 

[theComposer]

But those laws are only bound to what we know of. There could be some technology that has yet to be discovered or invented. I found by reading Flatland, epic book by the way, that it is extremely hard for someone to try to even think about let alone comprehend something that is completely foreign to them. So we may stumble our way across this technology or something that breaks our current laws of physics

A law in any science is something which has not only stood up to all testing, but also forms our fundamental knowledge of a subject. It's not that the idea of a perpetual motion machine is somehow foreign, but instead that all analyses of chemical and physical reactions have conformed to the laws of thermodynamics.

He has a point though. People said the same thing about the Law of Gravity until Einstein came along and came up with Relativity, which has since caused Newton's laws to be demoted to the Theory of Gravity.

 

[Levi93]

Sadly the second law of thermo dynamics makes it impossable, although if we had one anyway I don't think we could harness their usefulness as the energy they produce is the energy they would use to keep them working, so if you remove their created energy you will essential just stop the machine from working.

Although I do wish it were possable because it would solve all the world energy problems.

 

[BlindTom]

Perpetual motion is not a technology any more than semiconductivity or aerodynamics is a technology.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

No. Since it is impossible. So it doesn't look likely. My money's on Fusion power plants to provide the next energy source.

 

[Daverson]

Perpetual motion is impossible due to the 3 laws of thermodynamics, which, in laymans terms state:

1. You can't put energy into an enclosed system, and get more out than you put in (so, you couldn't use a perpetual motion device to power another system)
2. You can't put energy into an enclosed system, and get an equal amount of energy out of the system, unless the system is at absolute zero (0 Kelvin, about -273 degree Celsius, or -460 degrees Fahrenheit).
3. By definition, you can't have a system operating at absolute zero.

 

[Fumbleumble]

Don't be silly.

Even if someone did discover it, it wouldn't get used.

Free energy? Who'd make a profit. It would be hidden or banned technology...
Tthere are already SEVERAL solutions for VERY, VERY cheap energy, they don't get used for exactly the same reasons.

 

[archvile93]

I'd just like to state for a moment that the French Academy of Science declaring that they would no longer entertain perpetual motion devices was absolutely no fun whatsoever. I vote for yes, if only because this crap is entertaining and we should encourage it.

Yes let's waste resources on impossible scientific endeavors, simply because watching scientists inevitably fail is fun. Sorry to ruin the fun, but perpetual motion is impossible.

 

[Tharwen]

No! No no no!

Please stop saying "we just haven't discovered the bit of physics that allows it yet". It means nothing and is roughly equivalent to trying to argue that a piece of cheese that everyone in the room can clearly see isn't actually there.

The laws of thermodynamics are the best we have, so please stop saying nasty things about them.

 

[Invader7]

According to the laws of thermodynamics, which every bit of matter and energy in our dimension follows, a machine with 100% efficiency is impossible. Like some who have already posted, I'd also like to point out that actually using such a machine for energy would require more than 100% efficiency, meaning you'd have to create energy. Energy is only "created" during a nuclear reaction, and that's because a little matter under extreme conditions is converted into energy.

As for the energy crisis to come, I think solar power would be our best bet. There's a lot of energy in the universe that is nothing but heat. We don't have the technology to harness random useless heat yet, but if something like that were invented it would improve the efficiency of most machines and allow us to pull energy from the universe around us. That's about as close as you'll get to "free energy."

 

[Thaluikhain]

A perpetual energy machine is possible. All we have to do is learn more about science and disprove the laws of thermodynamics. And then explain why all observations up until that point agreed with them.

(Personally, I'd be quite interested in the explanation for how my computer et al works, given that the people who designed and built it were wrong about certain fundamental aspects of science and never realised it)

On the other hand...you actually can make yourself a perpetual energy machine kinda, in theory.

The object due to thermodynamics only applies to a closed system, of course. And, if we were to assume for some reason that the many universes idea was more than just a vague hypothesis/science fiction, you could nick energy from way out there to keep your machine going. For all intents and purposes of this universe, it's a perpetual motion machine.

Yeah, it's cheating, I know, but the closest you are going to get.

 

[fenrizz]

Think of the progress we could make as a species, if we'd only unite under one banner.

One united earth, one united space program.

All the worlds brightest minds doing science.

But no.
We'd rather have conflict and war.

 

[Jadak]

Think of the progress we could make as a species, if we'd only unite under one banner.

One united earth, one united space program.

All the worlds brightest minds doing science.

But no.
We'd rather have conflict and war.

Hasn't conflict only promoted progress in the pass? If everyone was all friendly and happy, we'd just get lazy and accomplish even less.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Hasn't conflict only promoted progress in the pass? If everyone was all friendly and happy, we'd just get lazy and accomplish even less.

It promotes research into certain fields, but there is always masses of non-military research going on.

Look around you, wherever you are. Military researh will have played a part in developing much of what you see, but unless you're on an aircraft carrier or something, almost all of it will have been mostly developed by civilian industry, even if initial work was done by the military.

 

[fenrizz]

Think of the progress we could make as a species, if we'd only unite under one banner.

One united earth, one united space program.

All the worlds brightest minds doing science.

But no.
We'd rather have conflict and war.

Hasn't conflict only promoted progress in the pass? If everyone was all friendly and happy, we'd just get lazy and accomplish even less.

This is of course very true.

Had it not been for the cold war, we might never had set a man on the moon.
But if we had world peace, we could devote almost all our resources into further development of our technology.

Man, I want us to invent a Star Trek type "replicator".
That should solve most of our problems.

 

[ReverendJ]

I'd just like to state for a moment that the French Academy of Science declaring that they would no longer entertain perpetual motion devices was absolutely no fun whatsoever. I vote for yes, if only because this crap is entertaining and we should encourage it.

Yes let's waste resources on impossible scientific endeavors, simply because watching scientists inevitably fail is fun. Sorry to ruin the fun, but perpetual motion is impossible.

Lots of things were considered impossible according to the conventional wisdom of the day. For science to declare, unequivocally, that something is impossible smacks of hubris. While many of these devices are either flat out hoaxes or possess a flaw unseen by the creator, there is the occasional machine that stumps all initial observers... but is ignored by the scientific community at large simply because it claims perpetual motion. Perhaps, just perhaps, there may be something of some merit to one of these creations, if not perpetual motion than maybe a new means of energy production. Unfortunately, individuals out there view the search for more efficient energy a bigger waste of time than making sure the newest iPod is smaller than your thumbnail.