Perpetual motion device

[elanimal1234]

i know i'm probably totally wrong with this, but i need someone who knows what he's talking about to tell me exactly where, and why, here's a quick sketch of the idea i drew and scanned/edited a little...it sorta explains itself, electrolysis(or however its spelled) turns water into hydrogen and oxygen, which then goes up a tube with a one way gate(like the ones used on a beach ball to keep the air in while you inflate it, or a water gun to shoot the water up front and not back into the tank) and goes trough a turbine, propelling it,(thus already generating, somewhat energy, ) then up to a electricity produced spark, combusting, exploding, and turning back into water, it is already well known how to make electricity out of combustion and explosion(it's essentially how cars work, i think?) and since it turns back into water, it will fall down* by gravity, pass trough another turbine(turning it, and thus exploiting gravity) and then be recycled back into the initial container.

 

so far we have 4 sources of electricity: 2 turbines, one combustion, and one source of explosions, we connect all of this to a battery's input and then we connect the output to the electrolysis and the spark ,(making the device self sustaining) and to an outlet, so if we made this device big enough it could power a house off the grid, (i suppose we'd have to take into account standards, and a bunch of other stuff...) being completely independent of the sun or anything else(except for gravity)

 

*if the water was liquid, it would fall, if gas, it would be made to pass trough a chamber where it would condense, and eventually still fall...

 

please forgive my terrible english

[EdEarl]

Try if you wish, but in the end you will fail. There is no such thing as free energy or perpetual motion.

Edited October 9, 2013 by EdEarl

[Daedalus]

... then up to a electricity produced spark, combusting, exploding, and turning back into water

Please disregard EdEarl's comment about trying to conduct this experiment yourself. It's not that EdEarl is wrong. You most certainly will fail. It's just that I'm concerned for your safety in dealing with anything explosive.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Daedalus

[Endy0816]

It takes more energy to split the Water than you can get back via combustion.

 

We used to regularly vent hydrogen from the O2 generator on the sub.

[DevilSolution]

Try if you wish, but in the end you will fail. There is no such thing as free energy or perpetual motion.

 

What about orbitals??

[StringJunky]

In any closed system there can only be a finite amount of available energy so output can never exceed input to perform limitless amounts of useful work because it takes energy out of the system. Even without getting the system to perform useful work and just run itself it will eventually stop due to energy leakage from the system via phenomena, like friction, which produce heat.

Edited October 9, 2013 by StringJunky

[swansont]

What about orbitals??

There's no free energy there, and at the level of QM, "motion" kinda loses meaning. You can have an electron is the same energy state if it cannot get to a lower energy state. This does not violate the 2nd law; there is no reduction in entropy.

 

Also , context is important. When one says there is no such thing as perpetual motion it is generally in reference to a macroscopic, man-made device, rather than a quantum system in its ground state.

[Mai-Reborn]

Perpetual motion is possible.it only takes the right knowledge

[John Cuthber]

Perpetual motion is possible.it only takes the right knowledge

http://xkcd.com/285/

[Greg H.]

Perpetual motion in a closed system is impossible. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either a liar or a crank (or both). There are always losses in converting energy from one form to another.

[EdEarl]

Friction steals motion, little by little, and prevents perpetual motion, except in superconductors, which allow electricity to flow forever. But, there is only a finite amount of electricity in a superconducting circuit, and using it steals the electrons and stops the flow. Similarly, if you start something moving in space, where there is no friction, using any of its energy will steal the motion and stop it. Thus, there is no machine that can produce energy forever for free.

[arc]

Please disregard EdEarl's comment about trying to conduct this experiment yourself. It's not that EdEarl is wrong. You most certainly will fail. It's just that I'm concerned for your safety in dealing with anything explosive.

 

Concerned for his safety! Hollow words from a man who associates with vampires!

[doG]

Perpetual motion in a closed system is impossible.

Small nitpick. Newton's first law of motion implies that all motion is perpetual until acted on by an outside force. IMO, a more accurate statement is that free energy is impossible.

[decraig]

I've got one of those infernal bombs sitting on my patio table. It's a left-over from a customer design job. These guys--the customers--needed a power supply for their device.

 

These so-called HOH generators produce explosive mixtures of oxygen and hydrogen gas. The fringe science people call it Brown's gas. Close enough I guess.

 

Not only do they not produce more energy then they can provide, you have a good chance of being blinded or maimed in an explosion, even if you do know what you're doing.

Edited November 17, 2013 by decraig

[AfterViewer]

Free energy only exists in a not-for-profit world. The elecromagnetic field in motion that is the cosmos is perpetual motion ad infinum, as is it's inverse.

Edited December 1, 2013 by AfterViewer

[Endy0816]

Or someone could just sell the energy produced while enjoying their immortal dictatorship over the rest of the world.

[Dekan]

What about potential energy?

 

This is caused by how far objects are apart. The further apart objects are, the more potential energy they have.

 

So apply this principle to the Universe. Current ideas say that the Universe is continually expanding. That must mean that all the objects in it, such as stars and galaxies, are getting continually further apart. And so are continually gaining potential energy

 

From which it follows, that the amount of energy in the Universe is not limited by any "Conservation law". "Conservation" would apply to a confined, non-expanding Universe. But In the real expanding Unverse, energy can expand without limit, and perpetually.

 

So there seems no theoretical objection to a local, Earth-bound, perpetual motion machine.

It's all for the asking in the Earth and the Universe, We just have to know what questions to ask.

 

Can it be harder than, say, building a nuclear submarine in the year 1713?

[swansont]

What about potential energy?

 

This is caused by how far objects are apart. The further apart objects are, the more potential energy they have.

 

So apply this principle to the Universe. Current ideas say that the Universe is continually expanding. That must mean that all the objects in it, such as stars and galaxies, are getting continually further apart. And so are continually gaining potential energy

 

From which it follows, that the amount of energy in the Universe is not limited by any "Conservation law". "Conservation" would apply to a confined, non-expanding Universe. But In the real expanding Unverse, energy can expand without limit, and perpetually.

 

So there seems no theoretical objection to a local, Earth-bound, perpetual motion machine.

It's all for the asking in the Earth and the Universe, We just have to know what questions to ask.

 

Can it be harder than, say, building a nuclear submarine in the year 1713?

 

Expansion is not a problem in and of itself. If gravitational potential energy increases but kinetic energy decreases a corresponding amount then energy is still conserved. The issue lies with an acceleration of the expansion, which is why dark energy is hypothesized.

 

On a terrestrial scale, this is not AFAIK something you could exploit to have perpetual motion.

[Rockinghorse]

Perpetual motion in a closed system is impossible.

Actually, universe as a whole is the ultimate perpetual motion machine as it popped out from nothingness.

 

I think that if we could switch permanent magnets on/off at will, it would be possible to create perpetual motion machine. But I am not sure how much there is wasted energy on switching magnetic field on/off, so it might negate the efforts and no net energy is generated. Permanent magnets are however interesting, because only the arrangement of magnetic dipoles determines the magnetic force. This idea is hard for classical physics to handle philosophically.

 

Also spiral galaxies could be considered as perpetual motion machines, as they generate complexity and ordered shapes using only the force of gravitation.

 

On a terrestrial scale, this is not AFAIK something you could exploit to have perpetual motion.

It is irrelevant whether or not you can exploit it. Only the philosophical principles of science matters in real life! Edited December 4, 2013 by Rockinghorse

[swansont]

It is irrelevant whether or not you can exploit it. Only the philosophical principles of science matters in real life!

That misses the point. I suppose I should have put quotes around "perpetual". If the expansion is caused by dark energy, there is no violation of conservation of energy. The increase in expansion rate has a source of energy. What I meant was you could not tap into this source on a terrestrial scale to power anything. Locally the amount of energy would be small compared to conventional sources; it's only big on galactic scales.

[EdEarl]

I think that if we could switch permanent magnets on/off at will, it would be possible to create perpetual motion machine.

Perhaps Harry Potter can switch permanent magnets on/off at will. However, lacking magic, we must live within the confines of physics, in which permanent magnets can be switched only by using large amounts of energy.

[Rockinghorse]

If the expansion is caused by dark energy, there is no violation of conservation of energy.

What if the expansion is caused by cosmological constant and not dark energy? Anyway there is absolutely no good guesses why the cosmos is expanding. According our best cosmological theory (i.e. general relativity) the expanding universe is impossibility, so I would say that it is fair to say that we are missing something relevant.

 

EdEarl, if Harry Potter can do the rearrangement of magnetic dipoles atom by atom without braking any laws of quantum physics, then I accept it. If I recall correctly the minimum energy deeded to magnetize/demagnetize the 1 cm³ neodymium magnet is about 300 mJ. It is perhaps not too big energy bill for Harry Potter.

Edited December 4, 2013 by Rockinghorse

[swansont]

What if the expansion is caused by cosmological constant and not dark energy? Anyway there is absolutely no good guesses why the cosmos is expanding. According our best cosmological theory (i.e. general relativity) the expanding universe is impossibility, so I would say that it is fair to say that we are missing something relevant.

The cosmological constant is part of GR, as is expansion. Expansion ≠ acceleration

[Rockinghorse]

The cosmological constant is part of GR, as is expansion.

Yes, but the point is that cosmological constant ≠ dark energy.

[swansont]

Yes, but the point is that cosmological constant ≠ dark energy.

And expansion ≠ acceleration.