|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 20, 2009 11:19:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ss on Dec 20, 2009 16:22:19 GMT
Wow...this could be an amazing breakthrough...but (I don't know about all this stuff) but it seems to work similar to a wind generator, but doesn't require wind.??...
Cool. wish I had stock in that company.. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 20, 2009 17:56:41 GMT
IF it isn't the latest tech equivalent of snake oil...
It's been the grand dream for so long, because if it's real then the world's energy problems are quite literally over. But that's a very, VERY, big if...
I hope it is real. That would be great. But I have strong doubts...
|
|
|
|
Post by Hand-E-Food on Dec 20, 2009 23:18:13 GMT
Interesting. From what I understood, I don't think it's a perpetual motion device. It runs on power. However, it runs incredibly efficiently and steadily, requiring less support equipment (which would consume more energy) to regulate the system.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lews on Dec 24, 2009 6:29:47 GMT
Doesn't the second rule of thermodynamics mean that perpetual motion devices cannot exist? I would think that if it really did "break" the rule, this would be all over the news.
That's not to say it's an extremely efficient device.
Personally, I still think the future of energy will be huge ass solar panels in outer space that then send energy down, via microwaves, to the planet below.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 24, 2009 7:04:55 GMT
Indeed it does, Lews. Which is why I'm so sceptical - and doubtless why the newspapers are treating these claims very cautiously. I would too, in their shoes.
|
|
|
|
Post by ss on Dec 24, 2009 14:22:35 GMT
Doesn't the second rule of thermodynamics mean that perpetual motion devices cannot exist? I would think that if it really did "break" the rule, this would be all over the news. That's not to say it's an extremely efficient device. Personally, I still think the future of energy will be huge ass solar panels in outer space that then send energy down, via microwaves, to the planet below. Pays to be skeptical, but a quasi-perpetual device could work by the energy being created storing up a charge in a capacitor and when it senses it needs a boost to kick start it again and keep repeating the procedure. This would in essense be perpetual.  |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Jan 4, 2010 10:24:37 GMT
it would still need a little energy from outside itself as it isn't a completely closed system. If you housed it in a true vacuum then it may become even more efficient but for it to produce enough energy to keep itself going would require that none of the energy it produces leaves the system as light, heat, sound, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lews on Jan 4, 2010 14:27:42 GMT
It's always going to need some outside energy. It can't keep itself going. It will always lose a little bit of energy, until it stops.
That's just how the world works.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Jan 4, 2010 16:03:03 GMT
Erm, if you had a completely closed system then it would be possible to have a perpetual energy machine as no energy would ever leave the system. However it would also be impossible to prove that it worked unless you were inside the system as any measurements would entail changing the state of the system, and thus either adding or taking away energy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hand-E-Food on Jan 4, 2010 21:48:56 GMT
@dpr: In your completely closed system, include a measurement device that can be turned on or off. Measure the energy in the system at regular intervals, then try again at double-length intervals. That way you can calculate how much energy is lost by the closed system, and how much is lost by taking a measurement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Jan 5, 2010 9:09:15 GMT
Erm, by accessing the system to be able to take the measurement you are opening the system, which means that any future measurements are no longer reliable.
It's similar to one of the problems in quantum physics - because the things that you use to measure particles are about the same size as the things you are measuring you can either measure the location of a particle or the speed, but not both.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lews on Jan 5, 2010 18:06:44 GMT
Exactly! Just the act of measuring it changes it.
|
|
