ADN

Ok, there doesent seem to be much discussion going on here, so I'll try to get something started. What are your thoughts on perpetual energy? I know the stance of most engineering professors/students is that it is an impossibility. I have some thoughts but i'd like to see what people think first before I go blurting out things.

Everyone is so busy lately..! Damn, not even I have had time to chew the fat on the forums lately...

But I am pleased to see that this is a relatively FRESH topic, and one I hope to discuss to great depths...I have not ever talked of it, or read of it, but I would like to read a few theories before I go off sounding too ignorant...

Before I go reading other peoples thoughts and what not, I'd first like to get a good definition...Can you recommend one..?

You are always so quick to define, I guess one could argue that is a very useful quality, or one could argue that defining something confines it as well. Anyways I would define perpetual energy (or a machine for producing such) as something that produces more output than input without some combustible or stored energy (ie, nuclear). I work in the HVAC industry and they say heatpumps are more than 100% efficient, but this is not because they produce energy, but rather move it, and they are much more efficient at moving it than anything could be at producing it(in theory). It would not qualify as perpetual energy though, since the energy has to exist before it can be moved. I have a couple of ideas once this gets a little more in depth that i'd love everyone on here to criticize and tear apart, just because in my head I cant see a reason why they wouldnt work.

I think it's impossible. I'm in physics this year so I know a little about it but I'm no expert.

In order for this to happen, first of all you'd have to have a machine with no friction. That's impossible. Second, you would need some way for more energy to be created. You cannot have more energy come out than you put it.

Isn't that what those metal toys are supposed to do? I'm not sure what they are called but they have four or five metal balls hanging down and you pull one back and it sets all the rest in motion.

I don't know enough about Newtonian physics to say yay or nay, but from what I've read of quantum theory, it could be possible (merely on the basis that anything else is!)

QUOTE("fatboy42")Isn't that what those metal toys are supposed to do?   I'm not sure what they are called but they have four or five metal balls hanging down and you pull one back and it sets all the rest in motion.

Yea...I know what you're talking about. They don't eliminate friction though. They cut it down significantly, but you can't eliminate it

There is not an object in the known universe capable of anything perpetual, is there..? Even the sun and its massive fusiion will eventually burn out...I think that is as close to a perpetual energy system as you can get...

I can't imagine any models where proposed perpetual energy transfers could take place...I disagree Aemeth, all things are NOT possible...Too many existing laws, of both physics and common sense, I think combat it...I don't think a perpetual system could even begin to exist in our atmosphere...

Yelram, what model did you have in mind..?

Quite possible..
(OK, who wants my raum-style explaination..?)

QUOTE("AYHJA")There is not an object in the known universe capable of anything perpetual, is there..? Even the sun and its massive fusiion will eventually burn out...I think that is as close to a perpetual energy system as you can get...

I can't imagine any models where proposed perpetual energy transfers could take place...I disagree Aemeth, all things are NOT possible...Too many existing laws, of both physics and common sense, I think combat it...I don't think a perpetual system could even begin to exist in our atmosphere...

Yelram, what model did you have in mind..?

What about things in orbit? All you need is the proper juxtaposing force. Like if you were to use something like bouyancy to counter gravity. Lets say you introduced a bouyant object to the bottom of a column of water, suspended in a vacuum (like when you hold your finger on a straw to keep the water in. Only have that column slightly submerged in a pool of water. The amount of energy it takes to introduce it to the column is much less than the possible energy produced from it falling after it gets to the top (thats assuming you can find an easy way to get it out without losing the vacuum). Now I have come up with a very unique process for generating electricity from an object falling (well more like rolling), I call it the rolling ball commutator and i'll talk more in depth about it if anyones interested.