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

[Lord Kloo]

This thread should have ended long ago but I'll add some input:

It can't work, general physics just shows it can't work.
EDIT: my mistake, I was thinking about the 1st law of thermodynamics when I sprouted some nonsense about the 2nd law, if you've quoted me already then please drop it..

Sorry to burst your bubble but thats the truth, I spent hours of my time investigating why we couldn't harness gravity as a perpetual motion system and in the end found that you can't add to it otherwise there is friction and it stops..
I'd love it to be for real but the truth is that it just can't work in our world..

However I do have a question, could you create perpetual motion in a virtual world in which it could sustain and create more virtual energy than physical electricity was put into the computer system running the program. Basically creating virtual mass and energy without an increase in power from 'real world' sources?

EDIT Mk. 2 - Who cares about perpetual motion anyways, humans should be trying to create a global united race of humans before this, otherwise some one will do something akin to some kind of never-ending bomb..
A bit like in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n6OX2IPtdM&feature=related
It gets to the point about 1.25, a bomb that continues to go off rather than converting the stored energy of its payload to kinetic energy..

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

There is the very small, impossibly improbable possibility that it could be achieved. But, it's the longest shot any of us or any of our descendants will ever know of.

The laws of thermodynamics are laws because everything we know of fits to them. But if any of you will remember reading this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.248450-NASA-Discovers-New-Life?page=1] then you'll know that our laws of biology were broken by one life form discovered in a lake.

Our laws of science are only laws because everything we know follows them, not because they have to follow them. Like I said, it's a long shot and is more than likely impossible. But, we don't know everything about physics our how everything works so there is that small chance it is possible.

 

[YouBecame]

I fell asleep in that physics lesson

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

That's the kind of thinking that leads to far too much pseudo science. The Laws of Physics govern our universe. Independently of whether we understand them properly, the laws of physics are present and being laws as we speak. Before gravity was discovered we still were attracted gravitationally to the Earth. Before we understood thermodynamics, our bath water still got cold if we left it for long enough.

We now are at a stage where we understand more about the laws of Physics. One of those is the aft mentioned first law of Thermodynamics. Irrespective of how much we understand this law, quite why it is manifest or anything like that, technology cannot break the laws of Physics. And anyone saying otherwise is a carefully aiming sniper using bollocks for ammunition.

 

[Nocta-Aeterna]

I'm just loving how everyone is quoting entropy and thermodynamics as gospel....

It may be for this time in our development, but it's by no means the be all and end all.... given some time (be it a decade or a century) those laws will be smashed all to hell, or at the very least found to be wildly inaccurate.

An terms of our development at the moment, compared to the knowledge we will have when we've evolved past what we are now... we are all still BABOONS scratching in the dirt.

Jeez people.. grow some perspective.

Your statements are bold, yet there is one thing wrong. You call them, laws, yet speak of them like theories. The laws of thermodynamics have been battered with experimentation for almost 190 years now, repeat after me 190 years, and yet there has not been a single observation to refute them. We do not lightly give out the title of "law of nature", you know.

Newtonian Mechanics, Relativity and Quantum Physics are somewhat troublesome in this regard, but that's why people work on the Grand Unified Theory.

 

[FalloutJack]

The truth is that perpetual motion itself exists. We are on this planet as proof, and would be unable to stay on it alive if it weren't hurtling through the void of space like everything else. So, the question is...will anything harness this motion for power by any means? Maybe. It would take quite a feat of technology just to make it possible. And whether or not the energy collected was worth it? I cannot say.

 

[Nimcha]

The truth is that perpetual motion itself exists. We are on this planet as proof, and would be unable to stay on it alive if it weren't hurtling through the void of space like everything else. So, the question is...will anything harness this motion for power by any means? Maybe. It would take quite a feat of technology just to make it possible. And whether or not the energy collected was worth it? I cannot say.

Uhh, we get energy from the sun. It's not endless.

 

[YawningAngel]

The truth is that perpetual motion itself exists. We are on this planet as proof, and would be unable to stay on it alive if it weren't hurtling through the void of space like everything else. So, the question is...will anything harness this motion for power by any means? Maybe. It would take quite a feat of technology just to make it possible. And whether or not the energy collected was worth it? I cannot say.

This contains an obvious fallacy. The fact that the earth is still hurtling through space in no way implies that perpetual motion is true.

On topic, given that nobody has ever observed any example of perpetual motion, large tracts of apparently solid physics preclude it, and no mechanism by which it can occur is known, I very much doubt we'll see it. Rather more likely is the capacity to generate arbitrary amounts of power through finite means.

 

[Romidude]

Reminds me of the weird desk ornament from Iron Man 2.

In theory, and from what I remember from science class (admittedly, that was long ago), perpetual motion is impossible due to energy laws.

Forget science! Just wonder in the mystery ;-;

 

[FalloutJack]

Uhh, we get energy from the sun. It's not endless.

This contains an obvious fallacy. The fact that the earth is still hurtling through space in no way implies that perpetual motion is true.

I'm going to have to disagree with you both. Take no offense from it.

The sun is not endless, that is true, but will things in the universe, once put into motion by a force, actually stop? There may be no technical proof, but scientists theorize alot about the cosmos, so you'll allow me to have mine. To whit, I don't think anything could even stop the motion of a dead universe. It was already put into motion and no force ever seems to be exerted to make it stop, so perpetual motion must exist in the universe until things that CAN move no longer exist. That is something that will out-live suns. To what extent is truly unknown, but the truth is that there is nothing in the universe known which draws anything in it to a dead stop for even a second, so that motion is perpetual.

 

[Nimcha]

Uhh, we get energy from the sun. It's not endless.

This contains an obvious fallacy. The fact that the earth is still hurtling through space in no way implies that perpetual motion is true.

I'm going to have to disagree with you both. Take no offense from it.

The sun is not endless, that is true, but will things in the universe, once put into motion by a force, actually stop? There may be no technical proof, but scientists theorize alot about the cosmos, so you'll allow me to have mine. To whit, I don't think anything could even stop the motion of a dead universe. It was already put into motion and no force ever seems to be exerted to make it stop, so perpetual motion must exist in the universe until things that CAN move no longer exist. That is something that will out-live suns. To what extent is truly unknown, but the truth is that there is nothing in the universe known which draws anything in it to a dead stop for even a second, so that motion is perpetual.

You are aware of the fact the universe is expanding, and as such will end at some point? Scientists do not know how, but it will end in some way or another. And so, no, not perpetual. Just on a veeeeery large timescale.

 

[BENZOOKA]

http://v11.finalprototype.com/images/farnsworth.jpg
Good news everyone!

It's impossibles

 

[FalloutJack]

Uhh, we get energy from the sun. It's not endless.

This contains an obvious fallacy. The fact that the earth is still hurtling through space in no way implies that perpetual motion is true.

I'm going to have to disagree with you both. Take no offense from it.

The sun is not endless, that is true, but will things in the universe, once put into motion by a force, actually stop? There may be no technical proof, but scientists theorize alot about the cosmos, so you'll allow me to have mine. To whit, I don't think anything could even stop the motion of a dead universe. It was already put into motion and no force ever seems to be exerted to make it stop, so perpetual motion must exist in the universe until things that CAN move no longer exist. That is something that will out-live suns. To what extent is truly unknown, but the truth is that there is nothing in the universe known which draws anything in it to a dead stop for even a second, so that motion is perpetual.

You are aware of the fact the universe is expanding, and as such will end at some point? Scientists do not know how, but it will end in some way or another. And so, no, not perpetual. Just on a veeeeery large timescale.

I feel that the nature of universal expansion is not actually the point here. Since nobody knows how the universe (as defined by man alone) will end, the thing I was speaking of was that motion will not cease until the very last particle in the universe expires. Even if that is merely a long time-scale - which we don't actually know the truth of at all - the fact is that there is no need to argue over perpetual motion on that scale. It will outlast the ability of any being to live in this existence we call the universe. If it lasts longer than all life that can be, it may as well be forever. At least...that's how I view it.

 

[YawningAngel]

Momentum is, in general, conserved. As a consequence, the total momentum in the universe should sum to zero. On the other hand, I can't KNOW that this is the case. Consider the three end cases for this universe, and their possibilities:

1. Big Crunch
The universe compresses to a singularity. Insofar as a singularity can be said to have momentum (I have no idea if the concept even applies), any momentum imbalance in the universe still exists. If there is no imbalance, it will have no momentum and be stationary.

2. Big Freeze
The universe expands indefinitely, all particles carry on pretty much as they are, the universe keeps moving.

3. Big Rip
I have no idea, and since nothing can be observed the question becomes moot.

So yes, it is possible that the Universe could move perpetually considered as a whole. However, you've gone outside the bounds of what we consider perpetual motion: the ability to construct a meaningful mechanical device that keeps moving indefinitely.

 

[Singularly Datarific]

Simplified laws of thermodynamics:
You can't win, you can only break even.
You can only break even at absolute zero.
You cannot get to absolute zero.

So not this century, not ANY century. Perpetual motion is only ever a publicity stunt for people with spare time and no grasp of entropy to get attention and make them happy.

 

[Singularly Datarific]

Simplified laws of thermodynamics:
You can't win, you can only break even.
You can only break even at absolute zero.
You cannot get to absolute zero.

So not this century, not ANY century. Perpetual motion is only ever a publicity stunt for people with spare time and no grasp of entropy to get attention and make them happy.

 

[Nimcha]

Uhh, we get energy from the sun. It's not endless.

This contains an obvious fallacy. The fact that the earth is still hurtling through space in no way implies that perpetual motion is true.

I'm going to have to disagree with you both. Take no offense from it.

The sun is not endless, that is true, but will things in the universe, once put into motion by a force, actually stop? There may be no technical proof, but scientists theorize alot about the cosmos, so you'll allow me to have mine. To whit, I don't think anything could even stop the motion of a dead universe. It was already put into motion and no force ever seems to be exerted to make it stop, so perpetual motion must exist in the universe until things that CAN move no longer exist. That is something that will out-live suns. To what extent is truly unknown, but the truth is that there is nothing in the universe known which draws anything in it to a dead stop for even a second, so that motion is perpetual.

You are aware of the fact the universe is expanding, and as such will end at some point? Scientists do not know how, but it will end in some way or another. And so, no, not perpetual. Just on a veeeeery large timescale.

I feel that the nature of universal expansion is not actually the point here. Since nobody knows how the universe (as defined by man alone) will end, the thing I was speaking of was that motion will not cease until the very last particle in the universe expires. Even if that is merely a long time-scale - which we don't actually know the truth of at all - the fact is that there is no need to argue over perpetual motion on that scale. It will outlast the ability of any being to live in this existence we call the universe. If it lasts longer than all life that can be, it may as well be forever. At least...that's how I view it.

It's still not perpetual motion, no matter how you view it. It's just a LOT of energy over a very long time. Now, the only way to create this much energy is by way of big bang. Are you suggesting we should try to create such an event ourselves?

 

[FalloutJack]

Big Crunch of quotes.

You're taking this a bit far, I think. Exactly why should I wish to make a big bang at all? As far as us tiny humans are concerned, the universe will be quite sufficient for our needs. Why should I want to be greedy just to prove a point? What you're arguing now has no meaning for us, because we're already so far dead by the 'end' of the universe that nobody even knows what a human being is. To that effect, since we don't even know what WILL happen to the universe beyond us, the debate on this scale has no meaning. For all we know, the universe packs into black holes and explodes into more universes. There is nothing further to say here.

 

[Nimcha]

Big Crunch of quotes.

You're taking this a bit far, I think. Exactly why should I wish to make a big bang at all? As far as us tiny humans are concerned, the universe will be quite sufficient for our needs. Why should I want to be greedy just to prove a point? What you're arguing now has no meaning for us, because we're already so far dead by the 'end' of the universe that nobody even knows what a human being is. To that effect, since we don't even know what WILL happen to the universe beyond us, the debate on this scale has no meaning. For all we know, the universe packs into black holes and explodes into more universes. There is nothing further to say here.

Then why are you intent on trying to prove it's perpetual?

 

[nin_ninja]

Hey everyone!

Driving home from work today I was thinking to myself about the rising petrol prices in Australia (land I call home. Love the beaches!!! We need an R18+ rating for video games :-( grrr). Sorry. Anyway.

I was thinking about perpetual motion and if we will ever find a way to invent this technology in this century. If so, what do you think it might be based around? I think that in this day and age, we should be able to invent this technology. I mean, come on, if some regular, ordinary people can invent a motor that runs off old vegetables, grass, beer (although why would you want to use beer I don't know); surely our smart, intelligent scientists can come up with a motor that is run by, say a magnetic motor or something right?

So as you can see I think we will have a magnetic perpetual motor. I leave it up to my fellow escapists to see if they agree or disagree with me and to see what crazy inventions they might add to the table.

It would run off the love in the universe! Oh wait, that wouldn't last long.

OT: At the rate that technology is advancing, I wouldn't be surprised. It may not happen though if another, better form of transportation is discovered, or if the oil companies keep paying people off.

EDIT: What I mean by something better is a type of technology that we may not even have thought of yet, or a concept that we may not grasp yet. I find it so sad that people keep trying to limit humanity, just because it will make them a buck.