| Panthrowzay wrote: |
| I made a discovery but what do you guys think about perpetural engery in small quanities, thats the only limitation of my invention, its gravity powered, works in 2.5 m/(s squared).
What would the wold do with perpetual 10.5 watts of energy? |
| Lord Kuat wrote: |
| Perpetual energy.
Man, that joke just writes itself. |
| Quote: |
| Perpetual energy seems to me to be the wrong wording. All energy is perpetual. Energy is never lost, it moves from one system to another, usually in the form of heat. |
| Quote: |
| Perpetual motion refers to a condition in which an object moves forever without the expenditure of any limited internal or external source of energy.
For example, electrons in an atom or quarks in a nucleus are in a state of perpetual motion. As well as being descriptive of motions beyond the scale of human lifetimes, for example in the phrase "the stars in perpetual motion wheeled overhead", the term is commonly used to refer to actual attempts to build machines which display this phenomenon. In the macroscopic world, energy spreads among more than one particle and therefore is shared – so loss of energy is always larger than zero, therefore an object in perpetual motion implies work being continuously done to overcome this natural retarding process. Perpetual motion machines (the Latin term perpetuum mobile is not uncommon) are a class of hypothetical machines which would produce useful energy in a way which would violate the established laws of physics. No genuine perpetual motion machine currently exists, and according to certain fundamental laws in physics they cannot exist. Specifically, perpetual motion machines would violate either the first or second laws of thermodynamics. Perpetual motion machines are divided into two subcategories defined by which law of thermodynamics would have to be broken in order for the device to be a true perpetual motion machine. Basic principles Perpetual motion machines violate one or both of the following two laws of physics: the first law of thermodynamics and the second law of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics is essentially a statement of conservation of energy. The second law has several statements, the most intuitive of which is that heat flows spontaneously from hotter to colder places; the most well known is that entropy always increases, or at the least stays the same; another statement is that no heat engine (an engine which produces work while moving heat between two places) can be more efficient than a Carnot heat engine. As a special case of this, any machine operating in a closed cycle cannot only transform thermal energy to work in a region of constant temperature. See the respective articles, and thermodynamics, for more information. Machines which claim not to violate either of the two laws of thermodynamics but rather claim to generate energy from unconventional sources are sometimes referred to as perpetual motion machines, although they do not meet the standard criteria for the name. By way of example, it is quite possible to design a clock or other low-power machine to run on the differences in barometric pressure or temperature between night and day. Such a machine has a source of energy, albeit one from which it is quite impractical to produce power in quantity. Classification It is customary to classify perpetual motion machines as follows: 1. A perpetual motion machine of the first kind produces strictly more energy than it uses, thus violating the law of conservation of energy. 2. A machine that produces (in still-usable form) exactly as much energy as it uses is a perpetual motion machine of the second kind, which continues running forever (not necessarily doing any usable work) by converting its waste heat back into mechanical work. This need not violate the law of conservation of energy, but does violate the less fundamental second law of thermodynamics (see also entropy). More generally, any device that converts heat into work without loss can be considered a perpetual motion of the second kind, since it could be used to make something that moves perpetually. By minimizing friction and other causes of dissipation, it is possible to produce a good approximation to a perpetual motion machine of the second kind. Planetary systems (such as the earth and moon) could be considered an example. Planets, moons, and stars spin without any fuel, batteries, muscle, cost, or other limited power. Planets don't rotate forever however; energy in such system is dissipated via tidal forces, by friction with the dust and gas in space, and perhaps also very slowly via gravitational waves. In an otherwise completely empty Newtonian universe, a single particle could travel forever at constant velocity with no violation of the laws of physics – though of course no energy could be extracted from it without slowing it down. For example, an electron can spin around a nucleus in an atom of matter indefinitely unless it or the atom is disrupted in some way. Just how impossible is impossible? Scientists and engineers accept the possibility that the current understanding of the laws of physics may be incomplete or incorrect; a perpetual motion device may not be impossible, but overwhelming evidence would be required to justify rewriting the laws of physics. Any proposed perpetual motion design offers a potentially instructive challenge to physicists: we know it can't work (because of the laws of thermodynamics), so explain how it fails to work. The difficulty (and the value) of such an exercise depends on the subtlety of the proposal; the best ones tend to arise from physicists' own thought experiments. Because the principles of thermodynamics are so well established, serious proposals for perpetual motion machines are often met with disbelief on the part of physicists. Thought experiments Serious work in theoretical physics often involves thought experiments that test the boundaries of understanding of physical laws. Some such thought experiments involve apparent perpetual motion machines, and insight may be had from understanding why they either don't work or don't violate the laws of physics. For example: * Maxwell's demon: a thought experiment which led to physicists considering the interaction between entropy and information * Feynman's "Brownian ratchet": a "perpetual motion" machine which extracts work from thermal fluctuations and appears to run forever but only runs as long as the environment is warmer than the ratchet * "Cosmic background space drive": where redshift/blueshift of the background radiation is used to drive a rocket's engine (actually to slow it down to the frame of cosmic background). Techniques Some ideas recur repeatedly in perpetual motion machine designs. For instance: The seemingly mysterious ability of magnets to influence motion at a distance without any apparent energy source has long appealed to inventors. Unfortunately, a constant magnetic field does no work because the force it exerts on any particle is always at right angles to its motion; a changing field can do work, but requires energy to sustain. A "fixed" magnet can do work, but energy is dissipated in the process, typically weakening the magnet's strength over time. Thus, when a magnet does work by lifting an iron weight, some of the work that was put into magnetizing the magnet is being used to lift the weight, and the strength of the magnet is reduced correspondingly. When the weight is removed from the magnet, the work required to do this restores the strength of the magnet, minus losses due to friction. Gravity also acts at a distance, without an apparent energy source. But to get energy out of a gravitational field (for instance, by dropping a heavy object, producing kinetic energy as it falls) you have to put energy in (for instance, by lifting the object up), and some energy is always dissipated in the process. A typical application of gravity in a perpetual motion machine is Bhaskara's wheel, whose key idea is itself a recurring theme, often called the overbalanced wheel: Moving weights are attached to a wheel in such a way that they fall to a position further from the wheel's center for one half of the wheel's rotation, and closer to the center for the other half. Since weights further from the center apply a greater torque, the result is (or would be, if such a device worked) that the wheel rotates forever. The moving weights may be hammers on pivoted arms, or rolling balls, or mercury in tubes; the principle is the same. Gravity and magnetism are an attractive combination indeed, and a frequently rediscovered design has a ball pulled up by a magnetic field and then rolling down under the influence of gravity, in a cycle. (At the highest point, the ball is supposed to have acquired enough speed to escape the magnet's influence.) To extract work from heat, thus producing a perpetual motion machine of the second kind, the most common approach (dating back at least to Maxwell's demon) is unidirectionality. Only molecules moving fast enough and in the right direction are allowed through the demon's trap door. In a Brownian ratchet, forces tending to turn the ratchet one way are able to do so while forces in the other direction aren't. A diode in a heat bath allows through currents in one direction and not the other. These schemes typically fail in two ways: either maintaining the unidirectionality costs energy (Maxwell's demon needs light to look at all those particles and see what they're doing), or the unidirectionality is an illusion and occasional big violations make up for the frequent small non-violations (the Brownian ratchet will be subject to internal Brownian forces and therefore will sometimes turn the wrong way). Inventions and patents The recorded history of perpetual motion machines dates at least as far back as the 8th century. * An early description of a perpetual motion machine was by Bhaskara in 1150. He described a wheel that he claimed would run forever. * Villard de Honnecourt in 1235 described, in a thirty-three page manuscript, a perpetual motion machine of the second kind. In 1775 Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris issued the statement that Academy "will no longer accept or deal with proposals concerning perpetual motion". * In the 1760s, James Cox (with the help of John Joseph Merlin) developed a working perpetual motion machine of sorts: a clock (known as Cox's timepiece) powered by changes in atmospheric pressure. Cox was quite open about the workings of his machine, unlike many perpetual motion inventors. The clock still exists today (but was deactivated by the clock's relocation). * Johann Bessler (also known as Orffyreus) created a series of claimed perpetual motion machines in the 18th Century. In the 19th century, the invention of perpetual motion machines became an obsession for many scientists. Many machines were designed based on electricity, but none of them lived up to their promises. Other early prospectors in this field included John Gamgee and Cromwell Varley. * Gamgee developed the Zeromotor, a perpetual motion machine of the second kind. Varley, though, did discover in 1867 that an electric generator did not need to be started with a conventional prime mover. He used the Earth's magnetic field to induce enough field strength in the stator windings to get a generator running. * Other 19th century inventors such as Thomas Henry Moray, an admirer of Nikola Tesla, claimed to be able to tap into radiant energy sources utilizing high frequency high voltage currents interacting with the aether. The energy would be derived from the "running river" of the aether. Several demonstrations by Moray were done where 50 kW of power were generated for several days from an antenna connected to a series of transformers, capacitors, and other components. However, all plans and knowledge were kept secret by Moray, demonstration was not verified, and patents were never granted. These designs may appear to work on paper at first glance, but have various flaws or obfuscated external power sources that render them useless in practice. This sort of "invention" has become common enough that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has made an official policy of refusing to grant patents for perpetual motion machines without a working model. One reason for this concern is that a few "inventors" have used official patents to convince gullible potential investors that their machine is "approved" by the Patent Office. The USPTO has granted a few patents for motors that are claimed to run without net energy input. These patents were issued because, skeptics claim, it was not obvious from the patent that a perpetual motion machine was being claimed. Some of these are: * Johnson, Howard R., U.S. Patent 4151431 "Permanent Magnet Motor", April 24, 1979 * Baker, Daniel, U.S. Patent 4074153 "Magnetic propulsion device", February 14, 1978 * Hartman; Emil T., U.S. Patent 4215330 "Permanent magnet propulsion system", December 20, 1977 (this device is related to the Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy (SMOT)), * Flynn; Charles J., U.S. Patent 6246561 "Methods for controlling the path of magnetic flux from a permanent magnet and devices incorporating the same", July 31, 1998 * Patrick, et al., U.S. Patent 6362718 "Motionless electromagnetic generator" , March 26, 2002 Proponents of perpetual motion machines use a number of other terms to describe their inventions, including "free energy" and "over unity" machines. "Free energy" devices A free energy device is an electronic apparatus or circuit that absorbs ambient electromagnetic fields (known as radiant energy) and converts the incoming energy into a useful form of power or function. Here the term is categorised more as renewable energy. Other "free energy devices" are solar cells and thermocouples which do the same for light and heat. Of course "free energy" here is something of a misnomer, it is simply that the energy used is generated elsewhere. These devices are not perpetual motion machines in the strict sense of breaking thermodynamic laws. An early "free energy" device that was widely used was the crystal radio, which consisted of a solenoid coil made of insulated wire and a galena crystal. It used no batteries. The "Wireless" devices of Mahlon Loomis, David Edward Hughes and then Nikola Tesla built even more powerful versions. Perpetual motion in pop culture In "The PTA Disbands" episode of The Simpsons, Lisa builds a perpetual motion machine when there was no school due to a teachers' strike; after seeing the machine, her father Homer says: "This perpetual motion machine Lisa made is a joke, it just keeps going faster and faster," before yelling at her, and afterwards yells at her saying "Lisa get in here,...in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!". In the Playstation 2 video games Xenosaga I & II, and in the Playstation 1 video game Xenogears, the device, called the Zohar, is a form of a perpetual motion machine. It is briefly described as a Pseudo-Perpetual Infinite Energy Engine. In the computer game The Sims, a complicated (and very expensive) perpetual motion machine can be bought as a household decoration. The Discovery Channel program MythBusters attempted to build a perpetual motion machine consisting of several propane tanks arranged in an overbalanced wheel, supposedly to draw energy from a heat difference between two ends of the device (with the lower end moving through water heated by the sun). Technically it did work, but its movement was barely perceptible and created so little electricity the hosts declared it a failure. Since it relied on the sun to heat the water beneath it, the device was essentially an overly complicated solar power generator. |
| Electricat wrote: |
| Perpetual motion From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Perpetual motion re... |
| HoboPelican wrote: | ||
I think you are supposed to put quotes like that in quote tags. You might want to edit those in. |
| Quote: |
|
water falls turbine-geneorator falls in pit e-tech pumps water to top repeat all in a vacumed system eagletechnology is magnictaly driven by natually acurring fields. yes that is vauge but I have a copyright to protect. |
| Burritovision wrote: |
| 10watts of power can only to 10 watts of force. but if it is replenished by an exotic machine it can do massive things. |
| FunFunkyFritz wrote: |
|
Whenever a "matter" particle is created an "anti-matter" particle is always created next to it, one yocto-second (10E–24) later or so they collide and the big book of energy accounting is balanced once again. But what would happen if this happens on the event horizon of a black hole? The theory says that some of the antimatter particles are sucked down into the black hole and the matter particles sometimes escapes the black hole. The mighty laws of thermodynamic are still intact and yet, matter i.e. - energy "seems" to have been created out of nothing!!! Fascinating theory, isn't it? |
| LeviticusMky wrote: |
| You're talking about Perpetual Motion.
If you've invented some amazingly insightful device that can generate endless amounts of electricity, beat out hundreds of years and billions of dollars of investment in energy science, get the hell off FriHost, and go to the freaking patent office. If you're wrong, and your device is something that can use the moon's gravitation or some such, congrats, you've invented a tidal harness, an extremely common form of power generation. It seems that this is more likely, you're talking about using alternating gravitational pull to spinn water in a turbine, then you are talking about the same motion that moves the tides of the oceans. |
| Panthrowzay wrote: |
| I have the plans for a inexpendable electrical current genorators anymore qusetions on the subject?! The question is what to do with it, its not like i should go and make it, *momentary insight* it would destroy hundereds of industries! |
| Traveller wrote: |
| Talk about having one's cake and eating it, too: Here we have people insisting on a "Big Bang" and entropy, then seeking "perpetual energy," while, at the same time, refusing to entertain any thoughts of eternity. Pascal was right! |
| Burritovision wrote: |
|
for example, the moray device, resonates and entrains with cosmic rays, background radiation, to generate electricity. seems to come from nothing, but it actually is resonation and entrainment energy. it was hated because people didn't understand it. today's scientists still don't understand a lot of this kind of thing. |
| Miniwood wrote: |
| Perpetual energy seems to me to be the wrong wording. All energy is perpetual. Energy is never lost, it moves from one system to another, usually in the form of heat.
Are you saying that you have invented a way of producing 10.5 watts of energy using a gravitational system? That is possible. But if you're saying that friction doesn't slow the invention down, and energy doesn't have to be added to the system to keep it going, then I think you are mistaken. |
| QrafTee wrote: |
| Actually I heard something about there are rare cases where energy is destroyed as a result of an A-bomb or H-bomb (I don't remember the specifics because I was only lectured of it by my science teacher oh so long ago). Again, I'm shady about this topic, can you shed any light on whether energy can be destroyed in some rare cases?
|
| indeedwrestling wrote: |
| Does this "perpetural engery" machine run on the heat created by computers trying to run spell-checking programs? |
| d4rch wrote: |
| Hello everyone !
I've just learnt a wonderful invention (the machine has been tested for many years). It is called : Z-machine. This machine could (when it will be totally operationnal) product an infinity of energy without decreasing Earth's resources. Indeed, this machine can product a temperature about 3 billions degrees and use fusion of differents atoms. Moreover, it doesn't product any waste that can be dangerous for us unlike radioactivity producted by an A-bomb. this is some links to know more about this project : http://zpinch.sandia.gov/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_machine Adrien Sorry for the mistakes |
 |