/sci/ - Science & Math

[Perpetual Motion No.5953752]

pic related- So just recently i was reading up on perpetual motion and im starting to think that it is totally possible to achieve a machine that produces 101% or greater amount of energy . Fuck thermodynamics and fuck yo couch this shit can happen. Does the rest of /sci/ agree?

[Anonymous No.5953758]

>>5953752
no

[Anonymous No.5953765]

I'll believe it when you produce a peer reviewed machine that does it.

[Anonymous No.5953772]

Do you want to make a contract?

[Perpetual Motion No.5953791]

but not too long ago people are starting to say and agreeing with that the universe is flat not round. With a flat universe there is a net energy of zero. Does this mean the laws of thermodynamics are "null and void" because in know the laws of thermodynamics go completely against perpetual motion

[Anonymous No.5953833]

>>5953752
Only zero point fields can draw energy from nothing. The difficulty is getting energy from that zero point field to use.

And yes zero point energy is a very solid part of quantum theory, its not fringe.

[Anonymous No.5953975]

>>5953791
no you fucking idiot
look up what any of what you just said actually means
read a book

[joker !KNs1o0VDv6 No.5954092]

>>5953772
What do I get?

[Anonymous No.5954138]

>>5953752
Oh you! You sound like me when I was 8, those were great times.

[Anonymous No.5954155]

>>5954092
We turn your emotions into raw energy by changing you into a kind of lich and then squeeze you dry until all that is left of you is uncontrolled despair that deforms your sad remains into a cruel caricature of your dreams, at which point you may still serve as a public hazard and a convenient energy source for future generations.
In this regard we reserve the right to hire a third party with the prospect of doing hunt on you at any point during the term of our contract.

You are also permitted to use what energy and hopes you have to fulfill 1 (one) wish of yours, which we may or may not twist into the opposite of what you actually wanted but without changing the meaning of your wording.

Finally you are allowed to wear a pretty dress of your own design whenever you choose to fight for your life against the sad remains of our previous clients (see above).

And can I just say what a pretty soul you have?

[Anonymous No.5954199]

>>5953752

[Daz No.5954241]

>>5953752
the machine you pictured has been running for several months solid with no input. so some call this the actual perpetual motion machine, but it is powered by pendulums and therefore gravity. so even if you ignore that this disqualifies it from being infinite energy, it produces 100% energy. this means that if you take away even .01% as power, the ball will start slowing down

[Anonymous No.5954263]

Solar panels.
Why aren't they good enough for you?

[Anonymous No.5954266]

>>5953752
>im starting to think
No you're not. Stop pretending.

[Daz No.5954269]

>>5954263
solar panels use energy from the sun.
therefore they are not infinite energy.
case closed

[Anonymous No.5954307]

>>5954269
For all practical purposes in the timeframe of human lives the sun is a perpetual energy producer. Emitting all that energy for you to collect and turn in to motion perpetually.

What would be the application of an electricity producing overunity device? Build a factory sized zero point energy device to power an led... You see those solar powered bobble heads? Perpetual enough for me.

There is no true over unity. Even devices like andria rossi heater or the 'over unity' cavitation pumps would be using low energy nuclear reactions if they worked at all. So is that much different from a real nuclear reaction? All you magnet fags and ratcheting falling hammer fags have wasted collective millennia of man years because of your refusal to accept basic scientific principles. I have no time to waste on those kinds of people.

[Anonymous No.5954332]

No, I don't think it's possible. If you look at the entire universe as a whole, you can't just create more energy. What's most likely a possibility that one of these may stumble on is an exotic means of harnessing an energy source we simply don't understand yet. It won't be breaking the laws of thermodynamics, but it could sure look like it does. Take a plutonium rod or solar panels for example, at a very primitive level, they could sure look like they produce magical energy from nothing, but we know there's a net lower than unity energy conversion taking place.

[Anonymous No.5954364]

>>5954263
Perhaps because they have yet to prove themselves as a viable alternative to conventional methods of generating power.

Not to mention the fact that their large scale yeilds are laughable to say the least.

[Anonymous No.5954389]

posting in shite thread

[Anonymous No.5954393]

>>5953833

Zero point energy can't be drained.

That is why it's Zero point energy

[Anonymous No.5954406]

>>5954364
And how are your perpetual motion power plants doing?

[Anonymous No.5954414]

Won't perpetual motion violate laws of physics?

Also when you throw an object in space, technically it is in perpetual motion until it collied with something or its path gets distorted by the gravity of a nearby object. Objects travelling in vaccum do not accelerate but once a certain amount of energy is used to push them, they keep moving.

[Anonymous No.5954416]

>>5954155
Fuck off QB. Ain't no Mina's for you to fuck over here.

[Anonymous No.5954419]

>>5954414

objects in space do decelerate though, it takes millions of years

[Anonymous No.5954422]

>>5954419
So not perpetual motion, something close to it, but millions of years is sufficient time considering our life spans. If we talking applications for energy, it can work?

If you were to spin a turbine in a vaccum, will it not keep turning and generating electricity?

[Anonymous No.5954508]

>>5954419
is that because of collisions with micro-debris or something else?

[Anonymous No.5954513]

>>5954508
Im not that guy, nor a smart dude, but my assumption would be that since gravity/em fields extend infinitely, you'd end up losing your energy trying to go through it, no matter where you are in the universe.

[Anonymous No.5954516]

>>5954513
ah yea that makes sense.

And thought about it more and I think even photons would eventually have an effect on the object

[Anonymous No.5954519]

>>5954155
Tell me more about this dress part ...

[Anonymous No.5956272]

>>5954519
Wanna do it?

[Anonymous No.5956279]

>>5954516
Completely discounting outside forces, to be able to harness energy, the kinetic energy must be changed into another type of energy, because we can't store kinetic energy. for the perpetual motion to be useful, you would have to introduce a source of friction.

[Anonymous No.5956281]

>>5954508
Gravitational interaction and transfer of rotational energy to thermal/magnetic/whathaveyou.

[Anonymous No.5956282]

>>5956281
+1

[sage No.5956287]

>>5953791
>>5953752
JESUS CHRIST HOW FUCKING IDIOT COULD A HUMAN BE

[Anonymous No.5956288]

>>5954422
can you even friction brah?

[Anonymous No.5956292]

>>5954422
>If you were to spin a turbine in a vaccum, will it not keep turning and generating electricity?

No. If it's generating electricity, that means it's losing energy.

[Anonymous No.5956307]

This thread has finally proved to me that /sci/ is in fact solely populated by 15 year olds.

[Anonymous No.5956313]

>>5956307
Your idea of proof is not very scientific.

[Anonymous No.5956319]

what's the point of this being always lower "slightly in front of the ball"? wouldn't it have to get continually lower and lower to use gravity?

[Anonymous No.5956321]

It's not really difficult to build something that contains its energy 100%, the difficulty is building something that generates energy.

[Anonymous No.5956384]

Energy is naturally lost as it is transferred, your fucking machine will eventually have too much heat loss.

[Carbon No.5957352]

>>5953752
If it moves, no
If it isn't in a vacuum no.
if it follows thermodynamics, no.

[sage No.5957598]

>>5956321
>It's not really difficult to build something that contains its energy 100%
That's wrong you fucking faggot, it violates the thermodinamic laws.

[Anonymous No.5958777]

>>5954263
>clouds

[Anonymous No.5958969]

>>5957598
Not if its perfectly silent, retains 100% of all heat generated, and is invisible!

[Anonymous No.5958976]

>>5954393
>implying

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

[Anonymous No.5958985]

>>5958976
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
Except that isn't the result of extra energy being taken from a vacuum, its the result of the Van der Waals force between the molecules in two metallic plates.

[Anonymous No.5959005]

>>5958985
That's one possible explanation, but another involves the zero point. Though considering Wikipedia is my only source and my knowledge of this is barely past pop-sci, I really don't have a horse in the race.

[Anonymous No.5959021]

>old news
rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/06/scientists-break-absolute-zero-barrier/

[Anonymous No.5959033]

>>5959005
No, that is the best possible explanation because we know about the Van Der Waals force and we can predict its effects in many other applications with precise predictability unlike "zero point energy".

That is like saying thunder is either the sonic discharge of high levels of static electricity in the atmosphere or angels bowling.