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

[Zacharine]

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

And forever crush whatever economy there might ever be. After all, all that is required to amass an infinity minus one amount of power generators and whatever valuables, tools and utilities you want is finite.

In fact, forget tools and replacement parts - just replicate a new machine entirely.

Also, OT: As has been pointed out, the laws of physics and chemistry make the existance of a perpetual motion machine impossible. These laws will not change - any new law would simply incorporate them or explain the fact of entropy in another way. Entropy itself, whatever it would be called, would still be alive and kicking and reducing efficiency of any machine of any type to below 1.

 

[ReverendJ]

And forever crush whatever economy there might ever be.

Of what need is an economy if everyone's needs are met thanks to handy dandy replicators?

 

[Cyanin]

Hey everyone!

Snip

See i considered the perpetual motion machine with a magnet and wondered why they haven't used one of those yet. I think it's something to do with the magnet's regulating their fields after a while, though you could still use something to move them slightly, so it's incredibly efficient, right?

GAH, science..

In more hopeful news, we've still got ridiculous futuristic stuff such as....

MAG-LEV!

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS_NSD-9B_KmajcgMV5mLwe1cnY8GRXrMsIG1glk8HofoBMJpRY

 

[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.

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.

I'm not saying we shouldn't look for more effiecient energy means, but perpetual motion defies the laws of physics. Maybe we should put these resources towards things that have a decent chance of working out. To me chasing after a perpetual motion device is like chasing after El Dorado, or the fountain of youth. You can't prove they don't exist, but it doesn't seem likely that they do.

 

[muckinscavitch]

To answer your question: No, we will not defy the laws of thermodynamics this century... or ever.

 

[lacktheknack]

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

We've been trying to break those laws for years. Definition of a scientific law: widespread phenomenon with no known exceptions.

These laws will never be broken, there's virtually no chance. It's a nice thought, but we can not - again, NOT - base our future research around it. That's a set up for catastrophic failure.

 

[Abengoshis]

No because its impossible.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

Obviously haven't learned about this in physics class yet. Essentially, it makes perpetual motion absolutely impossible under the laws of physics in our universe. You can't create energy out of nowhere, and there will always be friction or heat or something that takes energy away from the system.

This.

That said, while trying to invent such a thing, we might accidentally make something useful. Plus, many of the attempts or entertaining or interesting.

So shine on, you crazy diamonds.

 

[DanDeFool]

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.

Crab, this may be true, but is extremely unlikely.

First off, there's a reason why the laws of thermodynamics are called laws; they have been validated by every single experiment conducted since they were postulated. If there were even a single exception, they would be called the theoretical principles of thermodynamics (or something like that).

But there hasn't been, so they're laws.

Second, even if we do begin to understand the machinery of the cosmos at a deeper level, perpetual motion (at the macroscopic scale, at least) will still probably be impossible. It's like time travel, or going faster than the speed of light. The mathematical theories concocted by theoretical physicists, like Einstein, can be solved in ways that allow these things, but they only happen in truly exceptional circumstances, like inside black holes (maybe).

Third, there's no reason to build a true perpetual motion machine, other than that it looks cool. You couldn't use it for energy generation, because harvesting energy from the motion of the device would cause it to slow down and eventually stop. And if the device subsequently speeds back up again, it's probably getting its energy from something else that you're not immediately aware of. That would be cool and potentially useful, but then it's not a perpetual motion machine, it's just an engine.

Still, there's no reason to reach for those crab-crackers and put them around your chitinous little head; it took some of the greatest human minds decades to come to grips with these principles, and some of the greatest human science fiction authors have spent decades breaking all their diligently-constructed rules. It's natural to think that there are exceptions to these rules somewhere out there, but even if those exceptions are found, it's still no guarantee that we can make use of the exceptions in a way that is useful to us.

 

[David Barrow]

yes it is impossible based on science "So Far". But let's look at this. Here is the simplest idea of a perpetual motion machine. And since simpler always works better, we're going to go with that.

The Idea is that you take something, say a fly wheel (that's a weight that spins for you nonengineering types), apply energy to it ONCE and will forever more be able to get energy back from it with no outside input of additional energy. It will just keep spinning, forever, no matter the conditions of wheel. Okay, so we put it in a vacuum, remove air resistance. Place it in Zero gravity to remove the pull of other masses(obviously in space). We place it in a dark sealed environment, gotcha no light or radiation to act upon it and cause decay or solar wind interaction, etc. Now comes the problem of tapping that energy. If you set up any kind of system that touches it or is connected to the fly wheel, the friction of the drive train will cause the flywheel to stop. Maybe not right away, but eventually. Which defeats the purpose.

It's just bad science to think of a mechanical solution. Okay maybe something with energy waves and string theory, or worm holes. The closest to that we could possibly come is the Zero Point Energy Theory. Look it up, it appears that space isn't empty after all, and that a Vacuum is actually full of something amazing. But I doubt I'll see it in my lifetime.

 

[subject_87]

There's the whole 'violating the laws of thermodynamics' thing, but also the basic fact that people will always create scarcity, often artificially, to drive up demand. A prime example (This is all true, as far as I know): A plant called Jameson Weed can render nuclear waste completely inert, the radiation in the plant will never be released, all is well. However, since it is, in fact, a weed, there's no money to be made in selling it and as such it'll probably never be used. Sigh...

 

[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.

Crab, this may be true, but is extremely unlikely.

First off, there's a reason why the laws of thermodynamics are called laws; they have been validated by every single experiment conducted since they were postulated. If there were even a single exception, they would be called the theoretical principles of thermodynamics (or something like that).

But there hasn't been, so they're laws.

Second, even if we do begin to understand the machinery of the cosmos at a deeper level, perpetual motion (at the macroscopic scale, at least) will still probably be impossible. It's like time travel, or going faster than the speed of light. The mathematical theories concocted by theoretical physicists, like Einstein, can be solved in ways that allow these things, but they only happen in truly exceptional circumstances, like inside black holes (maybe).

Third, there's no reason to build a true perpetual motion machine, other than that it looks cool. You couldn't use it for energy generation, because harvesting energy from the motion of the device would cause it to slow down and eventually stop. And if the device subsequently speeds back up again, it's probably getting its energy from something else that you're not immediately aware of. That would be cool and potentially useful, but then it's not a perpetual motion machine, it's just an engine.

Still, there's no reason to reach for those crab-crackers and put them around your chitinous little head; it took some of the greatest human minds decades to come to grips with these principles, and some of the greatest human science fiction authors have spent decades breaking all their diligently-constructed rules. It's natural to think that there are exceptions to these rules somewhere out there, but even if those exceptions are found, it's still no guarantee that we can make use of the exceptions in a way that is useful to us.

being useful or not does not really matter. I mean, that fact that it can exist and that it is an exception to the rule, kinda rules the rule moot. -- if there is an execption to the law, isn't the law wrong?

I am not trying to be faectious, but you're right about the greatest minds and sci fi authors, the thing is, they ain't stopped yet; we still have decades and decades of squishy great minds to lob at the mountian of the unknowing and scratch off a little more debris of understanding each time.

my understanding of a perpetual motion machine is something that creates energy, but I never thought it would be energy from nowhere. it's got more to do with the cyclic nature of everything - energy, when used just doesn't disapear. it ain't a matter of efficency, however thats spelt, it's more a way of changing how we see things.

thank you for not cracking my head open just yet, I keep important people in there!

 

[Zacharine]

And forever crush whatever economy there might ever be.

Of what need is an economy if everyone's needs are met thanks to handy dandy replicators?

Just pointing it out - people might find the worldview, quite frankly, alien. There has been at every point of human history a shortage of resources. Many people have little real idea of what not just zero economy, but nonexitent economy, would mean for their lifestyle and society as such matters aren't often considered or thought of.

 

[mb16]

no. never... physics says no
Perpetual Motion = 100% efficiency which is in practice is impossible

 

[Bob_F_It]

If you knew anything about thermo-dynamics, you'd know that perpetual motion is A: impossible, and B: useless if it were possible.
Alternatively, you could argue that the entire universe is one huge perpetual motion system, but that also fails when you realise that energy is leaked through radiation to infinite distances.

 

[ApeShapeDeity]

Not gonna happen.

1) You can't create energy
2) No system of movement outside a perfect vacum with no gravitational or electromagnetic effect is free from some form of resistance.

Now a joke:
Did you hear Stephen Hawking has made a perpetual motion machine? It's how he rolls.

 

[thylasos]

It's impossible. Energy doesn't just come from nowhere, it needs to be transferred from stored enrgy to kinetic, to power we can use.

 

[CrystalShadow]

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.

Ahem. Might want to reconsider your definitions here.

A 'true' perpetual motion device is quite literally impossible unless the laws of physics are wrong.

What you're thinking of sounds more like a form of transport that doesn't require any refuelling or power feed.

Solar power is about as close as I can come up with, but that's probably not what you were thinking.

 

[escapistrules]

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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics



Obviously haven't learned about this in physics class yet. Essentially, it makes perpetual motion absolutely impossible under the laws of physics in our universe. You can't create energy out of nowhere, and there will always be friction or heat or something that takes energy away from the system.

what if one were to do use a perpetual motion device in a vacuum. that would eliminate friction from air contact. i do see where you are coming from and that it is impossible to create energy. but, what if one were to constantly change the energy lost back into the energy needed to power the device. if i learned anything from my science classes, its that there are rare exceptions to the rules. (an example of an exception is like how sulfur requires 10 valance electrons rather than the normal 8 valance electrons other elements need.)

 

[Jowe]

1. Learn what entropy is.
2. Stop being silly
3.

Seconded.

I want to Third this, then say that there are many ways of producing vast (compared to current worldwide energy production) amounts of energy, from little or no human input (although most are hypothetical, and they get more ridiculous down the list), such as:

-efficient, cheap solar technology, (Im talking 50%+ here, and maybe in space, to maximise efficiency) the amount of accessible solar energy that hits the earth each year easily surpasses our energy usage by something like a factor of 100ish

-Nuclear Fusion
-NB Cold fusion is NOT as ridiculous as you might think, and could still be possible (in theory, but its nearly impossible to get funding)

-A source of antimatter (unknown why, since equal amounts of matter and antimatter where created in the big bang, there is scarcely any around today (regions of the universe, perhaps?).

-you could slow down a planet, or something large's orbit (the bigger the better)-lots of energy there, if you want to take the risks of causing a crash with earth, should you pick one like jupiter, and cause it to displace a load of asteroids or something.

-energy from the vacuum, as I'm sure many of you know, the "vacuum" is not really a vacuum, but a teeming mass of spontaneous pair production and annihilation, it has been calculated that "the vacuum energy contained in a lightbulb is enough to boil all of the earths oceans"...wow, something like the Casimir plate experiment could do it


Also

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.

You forgot the zeroth law, which states that when two objects are put beside each other, there will be an overall change of heat between them until they are the same temperature.