Perpetual motion/"free energy"

  • 301 Replies
  • 41954 Views
*

sokarul

  • 18793
  • Extra Racist
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #180 on: September 18, 2008, 04:30:11 PM »
Water will not react with anything readily available on Earth.

Don't worry about it, it's not although you'll have a productive response to it anyway.

Who knew the original simple statement claimed so much. 
« Last Edit: September 18, 2008, 04:45:17 PM by sokarul »
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #181 on: September 18, 2008, 04:33:10 PM »
Water will not react with anything readily available on Earth.

Don't worry about it, it's not although you'll have a productive response to it anyway.
[/quοte]
Who knew the original simple statement claimed so much. 

Quotation fail.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

sokarul

  • 18793
  • Extra Racist
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #182 on: September 18, 2008, 04:44:59 PM »
Water will not react with anything readily available on Earth.

Don't worry about it, it's not although you'll have a productive response to it anyway.
[/quοte]
Who knew the original simple statement claimed so much. 

Quotation fail.

It's like my 8th one this week.  Congrats on finally noticing. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #183 on: September 18, 2008, 04:52:56 PM »
It's like my 8th one this week.  Congrats on finally noticing. 

I thought this one to be particularly profound as it helped to render your post completely unintelligible. Well, that combined with the fact that you wrote it.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

sokarul

  • 18793
  • Extra Racist
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #184 on: September 18, 2008, 05:07:02 PM »
It's like my 8th one this week.  Congrats on finally noticing. 

I thought this one to be particularly profound as it helped to render your post completely unintelligible. Well, that combined with the fact that you wrote it.

Einstein never said there could be acceleration with no force.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Dead Kangaroo

  • FES' Anchor Roo
  • The Elder Ones
  • 4551
  • K800 Model 101.
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #185 on: September 18, 2008, 08:05:58 PM »
Sokarul: Aiming to fail harder from one day to the next.

*

sokarul

  • 18793
  • Extra Racist
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #186 on: September 18, 2008, 11:45:46 PM »
Sokarul: Aiming to fail harder from one day to the next.

Not really. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #187 on: September 19, 2008, 10:22:13 AM »
Sokarul: Aiming to fail harder from one day to the next.

Not really. 
It comes naturally.

*

sokarul

  • 18793
  • Extra Racist
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #188 on: September 19, 2008, 10:28:10 AM »
Sokarul: Aiming to fail harder from one day to the next.

Not really. 
It comes naturally.

"Not really comes naturally".  That does not make sense. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Dead Kangaroo

  • FES' Anchor Roo
  • The Elder Ones
  • 4551
  • K800 Model 101.
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #189 on: September 19, 2008, 09:30:54 PM »
Sokarul: Aiming to fail harder from one day to the next.

Not really. 
It comes naturally.

"Not really comes naturally".  That does not make sense. 
I'm glad you have relised that one of your very own sentances doesn't make sense, it's a start.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #190 on: September 19, 2008, 09:38:48 PM »
So he changed what I said, then pointed out that it made no sense....

In 2 days you'll have to explain that one sok.

Not really, it comes naturally.

That would have made sense.

*

Dead Kangaroo

  • FES' Anchor Roo
  • The Elder Ones
  • 4551
  • K800 Model 101.
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #191 on: September 19, 2008, 09:48:51 PM »
You couldn't pay someone to fail that hard!

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #192 on: September 19, 2008, 10:19:25 PM »
You couldn't pay someone to fail that hard!
You could, as long as there is no kissing on the lips.

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #193 on: September 20, 2008, 08:40:12 AM »
I lol'd.

?

MrKappa

  • 448
  • Math abstracts reality... it does not create it...
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #194 on: September 21, 2008, 12:15:28 AM »
I thought absolute Zero was impossible to achieve... Isn't everything in perpetual motion?

Free Energy... This is just a concept. Harvesting the perpetual motion in the Universe is all anyone could hope to achieve.

Efficiency.

Isn't super-conductance perpetual motion? Where is the energy lost there? Only in the end application... correct?

Free Energy is an economic issue. Not a scientific one... What do you think of this?




« Last Edit: September 21, 2008, 12:22:34 AM by MrKappa »

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #195 on: September 21, 2008, 04:06:22 AM »
I thought absolute Zero was impossible to achieve... Isn't everything in perpetual motion?

 ???

Isn't super-conductance perpetual motion? Where is the energy lost there? Only in the end application... correct?

Well yes, when one doesn't take any energy out of a system, it usually doesn't lose any.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #196 on: September 21, 2008, 04:51:04 AM »
I thought absolute Zero was impossible to achieve...
In a finite amount of experiments, yes.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #197 on: September 21, 2008, 10:42:20 AM »
I thought absolute Zero was impossible to achieve... Isn't everything in perpetual motion?

Free Energy... This is just a concept. Harvesting the perpetual motion in the Universe is all anyone could hope to achieve.

Efficiency.

Isn't super-conductance perpetual motion? Where is the energy lost there? Only in the end application... correct?

Free Energy is an economic issue. Not a scientific one... What do you think of this?






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


?

MrKappa

  • 448
  • Math abstracts reality... it does not create it...
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #198 on: September 21, 2008, 07:40:35 PM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

Somebody should retitle that wiki entry to read "perpetual motion machine"

It says, "Such a device or system would be in violation of the law of conservation of energy, which states that energy can never be created or destroyed, and is therefore impossible."

Perpetual motion itself is the definition of the law of conservation. The universe may very well be in perpetual motion.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #199 on: September 22, 2008, 12:31:56 AM »
Perpetual motion itself is the definition of the law of conservation.
No.

?

MrKappa

  • 448
  • Math abstracts reality... it does not create it...
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #200 on: September 22, 2008, 03:26:16 AM »
No.

Okay... so lets pretend that all of those atoms in the universe are moving ( which they are ).

Now imagine a Universe without perpetual motion. Energy is never lost... it is always changing form but essentially it never stops. The law of conservation says so...

Otherwise your referring to a "perpetual motion machine"... which I might add... could be the Universe if you allow for it to be called a machine.

OKAY... OKAY...

You win...

The Universe is not in perpetual motion and energy is destroyed on a continual basis... are you happy now?


?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #201 on: September 22, 2008, 03:29:00 AM »
The Universe is not in perpetual motion and energy is destroyed on a continual basis... are you happy now?

How about 'entropy increases on a continual basis'?
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

?

MrKappa

  • 448
  • Math abstracts reality... it does not create it...
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #202 on: September 22, 2008, 03:32:41 AM »
How about 'entropy increases on a continual basis'?

But this does not destroy motion... it transfers one type of energy into another... it is just the efficiency of the machine. If the Universe were not 100% efficient could it exist?

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #203 on: September 22, 2008, 03:42:26 AM »
But this does not destroy motion... it transfers one type of energy into another... it is just the efficiency of the machine. If the Universe were not 100% efficient could it exist?

Increasing entropy will eventually result in all energy being converted into longer and longer wavelengths of EM radiation, where if the Universe does not collapse or otherwise end, the result will be what cosmologists call a 'heat death'.  The Universe may be 100% efficient, but the start and end products are very, very different.
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #204 on: September 22, 2008, 04:25:53 AM »
No.

Okay... so lets pretend that all of those atoms in the universe are moving ( which they are ).

Now imagine a Universe without perpetual motion. Energy is never lost... it is always changing form but essentially it never stops. The law of conservation says so...

Otherwise your referring to a "perpetual motion machine"... which I might add... could be the Universe if you allow for it to be called a machine.

OKAY... OKAY...

You win...

The Universe is not in perpetual motion and energy is destroyed on a continual basis... are you happy now?
Energy is always conserved; there are energy losses in the universe, but that lost of energy is simply transferred to another, assuming the universe is a closed system. Same thing to energy gain. Perpetual motion, an isolated motion that literally continues forever without any external energy applied or energy being lost, violates that very rule.

Here's one of the definition:
Quote
perpetual motion
–noun Mechanics.
the motion of a theoretical mechanism that, without any losses due to friction or other forms of dissipation of energy, would continue to operate indefinitely at the same rate without any external energy being applied to it. 



Luw of Enerjy Caunservashon:

1 => 1 (closed system)

Purpitrue Moshon:

0 => 1...infinite (closed system)

?

MrKappa

  • 448
  • Math abstracts reality... it does not create it...
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #205 on: September 22, 2008, 06:16:04 AM »
Luw of Enerjy Caunservashon:

1 => 1 (closed system)

Purpitrue Moshon:

0 => 1...infinite (closed system)

I don't understand this... How can perpetual motion not be applied to the universe? Nothing is applying external energy to it correct? It was the result of the big bang correct? There is no external energy source.

Hence... due to the laws of conservation... the Universe will continue to "move" in perpetual motion correct? If not... how does the law of conservation apply to the universe? With increasing space-time/distance... energy must be lost. What am I missing?

I am not arguing to argue... This is certainly something I am trying to understand better.

Quote
where if the Universe does not collapse or otherwise end, the result will be what cosmologists call a 'heat death'

What would change this? If matter were being reproduced in the universe itself, not the result of a big bang and it was continually recycling energy to matter would the heat death happen?
« Last Edit: September 22, 2008, 06:18:12 AM by MrKappa »

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #206 on: September 22, 2008, 06:30:51 AM »
Quote
where if the Universe does not collapse or otherwise end, the result will be what cosmologists call a 'heat death'

What would change this? If matter were being reproduced in the universe itself, not the result of a big bang and it was continually recycling energy to matter would the heat death happen?

If you assume the Universe is a closed system (seems reasonable) and that energy within that closed system is conserved, then there really aren't many options.  Ultimately it could be that matter is fundamentally unstable over extreme timescales (perhaps even quarks, neutrinos and electrons) and so all you end up with is photons.  The energy of those photons is then governed by the size of the Universe (or more accurately, it's expansion) - all evidence points to a Universe expanding forever, so ultimately the photons will reach arbitrarily long lengths - the infamous 'heat death'.

If somehow you either stop the expansion of the Universe, introduce new energy or find some way of stealing energy from the zero-point vibration (or other such crazy sci-fi-ness) then you might be able to get around it.  The other option is that the Universal expansion actually accelerates, in which case ultimately even the strong nuclear force won't be able to counteract the expansion of space and everything will be destroyed in a 'big rip'.  I prefer that option personally.
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

?

MrKappa

  • 448
  • Math abstracts reality... it does not create it...
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #207 on: September 22, 2008, 06:54:14 AM »
Quote
where if the Universe does not collapse or otherwise end, the result will be what cosmologists call a 'heat death'

What would change this? If matter were being reproduced in the universe itself, not the result of a big bang and it was continually recycling energy to matter would the heat death happen?

If you assume the Universe is a closed system (seems reasonable) and that energy within that closed system is conserved, then there really aren't many options.  Ultimately it could be that matter is fundamentally unstable over extreme timescales (perhaps even quarks, neutrinos and electrons) and so all you end up with is photons.  The energy of those photons is then governed by the size of the Universe (or more accurately, it's expansion) - all evidence points to a Universe expanding forever, so ultimately the photons will reach arbitrarily long lengths - the infamous 'heat death'.

If somehow you either stop the expansion of the Universe, introduce new energy or find some way of stealing energy from the zero-point vibration (or other such crazy sci-fi-ness) then you might be able to get around it.  The other option is that the Universal expansion actually accelerates, in which case ultimately even the strong nuclear force won't be able to counteract the expansion of space and everything will be destroyed in a 'big rip'.  I prefer that option personally.

This is interesting... Could the possibility of the Universe rather than expanding infinitely somehow invert onto itself? I offer this argument from a YouTuber as a possible proof that redshift has been mis-interpreted as an accurate way to gauge distance in a fixed Euclidean space. ( if that is the correct term to use as I have not figured out if redshift is parabolic in nature or not )



Additionally... This paper on Pair Production suggests that the Universe is capable of producing matter from energy. If the mechanism exists... Is it a safe bet to think it's happening?

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003hep.ex....6017L


*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13146
  • swiggity swooty
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #208 on: September 22, 2008, 07:19:32 AM »
find some way of stealing energy from the zero-point vibration

Two things come to mind: Zero-Point Modules and Project Arcturus.

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #209 on: September 22, 2008, 07:21:46 AM »
This is interesting... Could the possibility of the Universe rather than expanding infinitely somehow invert onto itself? I offer this argument from a YouTuber as a possible proof that redshift has been mis-interpreted as an accurate way to gauge distance in a fixed Euclidean space. ( if that is the correct term to use as I have not figured out if redshift is parabolic in nature or not )



There is some interesting statistical information here, but this guy is way too crackpot-like in a few regards for my liking - he has his little catchphrase "The Big Bang is Bung" which he seems to like the sound of, and he provides no other evidence to support his claims about quasar redshifts.  It's true that the apparent correlation he presents between redshift and separation is interesting, although there should be much more data available now on distant objects which should support his suggestions.  Additionally, it could be disingenuous to assume that the only factor involved in separation is distance - remember that the Universe was much smaller in the past (according to the Big Bang model) and so it may be unreasonable to assume that mater distributions have remained unchanged over that period.  The correlation could in fact be very strong evidence for the Big Bang, if argued another way - hence the need for other supporting data.

I have my own concerns about using redshift, although they are more GR-based and involve frame-dragging-like effects that appear to have been neglected in certain astrophysical calculations.

Additionally... This paper on Pair Production suggests that the Universe is capable of producing matter from energy. If the mechanism exists... Is it a safe bet to think it's happening?

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003hep.ex....6017L

For some reason the full text link wasn't working from that page, but from the abstract it doesn't look like they're claiming any unusual matter creation events... mass and energy are equivalent and largely interchangeable given the right conditions, but you can't create matter from nothing (in the case of the LEP the 'extra' matter was created from the kinetic energy of the electrons and positrons).  I don't mean that to sound patronising if you know all about this already, but I have no idea how much you do know on the subject!

The vacuum produces particle-antiparticle pairs constantly (which actually have measurable effects - see 'loop binding corrections') although these quickly annihilate and return the energy 'borrowed' after a very short space of time.  These processes would be subject to heat death as well.

The 'third option' you refer to is the 'Big Crunch' where there is enough mass-energy to counter the expansion of the Universe and space-time begins to collapse again.  This would essentially be the reverse of what has already happened, ending up with everything collapsing into a singularity-like object.  Models predicting this behaviour can be subject to problems such as 'black hole disease', however, where black holes produced in the previous Universe can survive the 'crunch' and pass into the new Universe.  This would quickly end up with a Universe made of nothing but supermassive black holes, which is not what we see today.
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.