Kinda Curious Teckie Q?

Wtf ?

Shoot me to pieces on this if you want, Its the curious me speaking.
Just say, You had a 12v car battery powering a 12v motor, connected by belts to an alternator or 2 recharging the battery powering the motor. Would you not get free power forever ? Is perpetual motion a myth ?
Thanks

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

A fair bit of energy will be lost in the process of inducing movement of the various belts for a start.

Skylinehead

Wtf ? wrote: »

Shoot me to pieces on this if you want, Its the curious me speaking.
Just say, You had a 12v car battery powering a 12v motor, connected by belts to an alternator or 2 recharging the battery powering the motor. Would you not get free power forever ? Is perpetual motion a myth ?
Thanks

Breaks the first law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed. You'd lose some energy to heat, kinetic energy dissipates through the belts etc as well. Eventually you'd run out.

Oh, and the second law too.

McMurphy

If cats always land on their feet, and toast always lands butter side down, what would happen if you duct taped some hot buttered toast to a cats back and threw it out of a skyscraper window?

Skylinehead

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

If cats always land on their feet, and toast always lands butter side down, what would happen if you duct taped some hot buttered toast to a cats back and threw it out of a skyscraper window?

Sure that's how maglev works.

I guess that even in a hypothetical world where you could have zero energy loss, you'd just have a rotating motor that couldn't be used for anything except powering itself.

uch

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

If cats always land on their feet, and toast always lands butter side down, what would happen if you duct taped some hot buttered toast to a cats back and threw it out of a skyscraper window?

That reminds me of this

ohnonotgmail

Wtf ?

Battery could be 2 or alternator could be 4 to compensate for lost power then ?

seamus

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it merely changes form.

Moving the motor and the belts creates friction, which creates heat. That's your electrical energy being converted to another energy form and being lost.

Even if you could construct a perfect system, with no energy loss, what would be the point? It would be a curio, but nothing more. Imagine pouring water from one glass into another, and then back again, over and over. Not very exciting.

"Free power", "Free energy" refers to a system where you get more energy out than you put in. Even if your system self-recharged itself with 100% efficiency, if you tried to "take" some of that power, you're removing energy from the system. The battery won't fully charge itself, it will charge itself as much as it can, minus what you've taken out. Eventually you will have taken all the power out, and your battery is dead.

To use the water example, you can keep pouring it from one glass to another and back again. But if you take a drink every time, you will eventually have none left.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it merely changes form.

Moving the motor and the belts creates friction, which creates heat. That's your electrical energy being converted to another energy form and being lost.

Even if you could construct a perfect system, with no energy loss, what would be the point? It would be a curio, but nothing more. Imagine pouring water from one glass into another, and then back again, over and over. Not very exciting.

"Free power", "Free energy" refers to a system where you get more energy out than you put in. Even if your system self-recharged itself with 100% efficiency, if you tried to "take" some of that power, you're removing energy from the system. The battery won't fully charge itself, it will charge itself as much as it can, minus what you've taken out. Eventually you will have taken all the power out, and your battery is dead.

To use the water example, you can keep pouring it from one glass to another and back again. But if you take a drink every time, you will eventually have none left.

Take your water example out in the sun. The water will eventually disappear by itself from evaporation.

That's might be a more relatable analogy of the energy loss occuring.

Wtf ?

Deleted User wrote: »

I guess that even in a hypothetical world where you could have zero energy loss, you'd just have a rotating motor that couldn't be used for anything except powering itself.

But scaled up could the rotation power something else ? Think of the waterwheel for example

Wtf ?

seamus wrote: »

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it merely changes form.

Moving the motor and the belts creates friction, which creates heat. That's your electrical energy being converted to another energy form and being lost.

Even if you could construct a perfect system, with no energy loss, what would be the point? It would be a curio, but nothing more. Imagine pouring water from one glass into another, and then back again, over and over. Not very exciting.

"Free power", "Free energy" refers to a system where you get more energy out than you put in. Even if your system self-recharged itself with 100% efficiency, if you tried to "take" some of that power, you're removing energy from the system. The battery won't fully charge itself, it will charge itself as much as it can, minus what you've taken out. Eventually you will have taken all the power out, and your battery is dead.

To use the water example, you can keep pouring it from one glass to another and back again. But if you take a drink every time, you will eventually have none left.

It's all folly so then ? Ok, I just wanted to know, Thanks for your clear reply !

Wtf ?

Wtf ? wrote: »

But scaled up could the rotation power something else ? Think of the waterwheel for example

No, scaling does nothing.

And waterwheels have a constant source of incoming external energy.

Skylinehead

Wtf ? wrote: »

But scaled up could the rotation power something else ? Think of the waterwheel for example

Scaled up is exactly the same situation, but more of it.

maxwell smart

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

If cats always land on their feet, and toast always lands butter side down, what would happen if you duct taped some hot buttered toast to a cats back and threw it out of a skyscraper window?

That's more a Shelbyville idea....

bnt

Once source of energy loss would be the belt heating up a bit, which means that heat energy has been lost to the atmosphere.

Here's a related thought experiment: imagine that you had a spinning shaft, suspended in a magnetic field so it doesn't contact anything. It's sealed in a vacuum, so no air friction. Let's say you're removed all possible sources of friction, so wouldn't it spin forever? Maybe it could. OK, but then you can't do anything with it, can you? It would just sit there, spinning forever. You can't power anything from it, since that would mean extracting energy from it.

For example, if it had a spinning magnet on one end, and then you added a coil outside the container attached to a shaft. You would then have a generator - but in the process you would be extracting kinetic energy from the spinning shaft, and it would slow down. Maybe you could feed that energy back in ... but you would lose some in the process. In short: there is no free lunch.

Basically, the person who breaks the laws of physics and creates this will be the richest man the world has ever known.

Fusion is as good as it gets if we ever make it that far. That would change everything.

Pherekydes

Wtf ? wrote: »

Shoot me to pieces on this if you want, Its the curious me speaking.
Just say, You had a 12v car battery powering a 12v motor, connected by belts to an alternator or 2 recharging the battery powering the motor. Would you not get free power forever ? Is perpetual motion a myth ?
Thanks

WTF?

mloc123

Wtf ? wrote: »

Shoot me to pieces on this if you want, Its the curious me speaking.
Just say, You had a 12v car battery powering a 12v motor, connected by belts to an alternator or 2 recharging the battery powering the motor. Would you not get free power forever ? Is perpetual motion a myth ?
Thanks

Friction and heat...

Kilboor

The elite are all about transcendence and living forever and the secrets of the universe and they want to know all this, some are good some are bad some are a mix; but the good ones don't ever want to organize, the bad ones tend to want to organize because they lust after power. Powerful consciousnesses don't want to dominate other people, they want to empower them so they don't tend to get together until things are really late in the game, then they come together and evil is always defeated. Because good is so much stronger. And we're on this planet and Einstein's physics showed it, Max Planck's physics showed it- there's at least twelve dimensions. And now that's all the top scientists and billionaires are coming out and saying it's a false hologram, it is artificial, the computers are scanning it and finding tension points where it's artificially projected and gravity is bleeding in to this universe. That's what they call dark matter. So we're like a thought or a dream that's a wisp in a computer program, some God's mind, whatever. They're proving it all, it's all coming out.


Now, there's like this subtransmission zone below the third dimension that's just turned over to the most horrible things, it's what it resonates to, and it's trying to get up into the third dimension; that's just a basic level consciousnesses, to launch up into the next levels. Our species is already way up at the fifth, sixth dimension consciously, our best people. But there's this big war trying to basically destroy humanity because humanity has free will and there's a decision to which level we want to go to. We have free will so evil is allowed to come in and contend and not just good. And the elites themselves believe they're racing using human technology to try to take our best minds and build some type of breakaway civilization where they're going to merge with machines, transcend and breakaway from the failed species that is Man. Which is kind of like a false transmission because they're thinking what they are is ugly and bad; projecting it onto themselves instead of believing no, it's a human test about building us up.

And so Google was set up 18, 19 years ago so that they wanted to build a giant artificial system. And Google believes the first artificial intelligence will be a supercomputer based on the neuron activities of the hive mind of humanity, with billions of people wired into it with the internet of things, and so all of our thoughts go into it and we're actually building a computer with real neurons in real-time that's also psychically connected to us that are organic creatures so that they will have current prediction powers, future prediction powers- a true crystal ball- but the big secret is once you have a crystal ball and know the future you can add stimuli beforehand and make decisions and control the future. And so then it's the end of consciousness and free will for individuals as we know and a true 2.0 in a very bad way hive mind consciousness with an AI jacked into everyone knowing our hopes and dreams, delivering it to us not in some P.KD. wirehead system where we plug in and give up on consciousness because of unlimited pleasure but because we were already wired in and absorbed before we knew it by giving over our consciousness to this system by our daily decisions that it was able to manipulate and control into a larger system.

Wtf ?

Pherekydes wrote: »

WTF?

Too late with your witty retort, The knowledge bit is done, Sorry ?

Ipso

Trying to kick start Steorn again?

Ipso

Kilboor wrote: »

The elite are all about transcendence and living forever and the secrets of the universe and they want to know all this, some are good some are bad some are a mix; but the good ones don't ever want to organize, the bad ones tend to want to organize because they lust after power. Powerful consciousnesses don't want to dominate other people, they want to empower them so they don't tend to get together until things are really late in the game, then they come together and evil is always defeated. Because good is so much stronger. And we're on this planet and Einstein's physics showed it, Max Planck's physics showed it- there's at least twelve dimensions. And now that's all the top scientists and billionaires are coming out and saying it's a false hologram, it is artificial, the computers are scanning it and finding tension points where it's artificially projected and gravity is bleeding in to this universe. That's what they call dark matter. So we're like a thought or a dream that's a wisp in a computer program, some God's mind, whatever. They're proving it all, it's all coming out.


Now, there's like this subtransmission zone below the third dimension that's just turned over to the most horrible things, it's what it resonates to, and it's trying to get up into the third dimension; that's just a basic level consciousnesses, to launch up into the next levels. Our species is already way up at the fifth, sixth dimension consciously, our best people. But there's this big war trying to basically destroy humanity because humanity has free will and there's a decision to which level we want to go to. We have free will so evil is allowed to come in and contend and not just good. And the elites themselves believe they're racing using human technology to try to take our best minds and build some type of breakaway civilization where they're going to merge with machines, transcend and breakaway from the failed species that is Man. Which is kind of like a false transmission because they're thinking what they are is ugly and bad; projecting it onto themselves instead of believing no, it's a human test about building us up.

And so Google was set up 18, 19 years ago so that they wanted to build a giant artificial system. And Google believes the first artificial intelligence will be a supercomputer based on the neuron activities of the hive mind of humanity, with billions of people wired into it with the internet of things, and so all of our thoughts go into it and we're actually building a computer with real neurons in real-time that's also psychically connected to us that are organic creatures so that they will have current prediction powers, future prediction powers- a true crystal ball- but the big secret is once you have a crystal ball and know the future you can add stimuli beforehand and make decisions and control the future. And so then it's the end of consciousness and free will for individuals as we know and a true 2.0 in a very bad way hive mind consciousness with an AI jacked into everyone knowing our hopes and dreams, delivering it to us not in some P.KD. wirehead system where we plug in and give up on consciousness because of unlimited pleasure but because we were already wired in and absorbed before we knew it by giving over our consciousness to this system by our daily decisions that it was able to manipulate and control into a larger system.

Can I come?

Skylinehead

Ipso wrote: »

Can I come?

Pythagorean

mloc123 wrote: »

Friction and heat...

You might like to try the following experiment ; with your car engine running at tickover speed, turn the headlights on. The engine revs should drop,because of the increased load on the battery, which in turn means the alternator has to put out more power, resulting in more magnetic drag, thereby causing the engine revs to drop, as there is no increase in the throttle opening to compensate for this.

HappyAsLarE

Physics basics should be a mandatory subject for junior/leaving cert.

I don’t understand how one can live without knowing the most fundamental laws of nature.

Your Face

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Physics basics should be a mandatory subject for junior/leaving cert.

I don’t understand how one can live without knowing the most fundamental laws of nature.

Yet, there you are.

The Rape of Lucretia

seamus wrote: »

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it merely changes form.

Moving the motor and the belts creates friction, which creates heat. That's your electrical energy being converted to another energy form and being lost.

Even if you could construct a perfect system, with no energy loss, what would be the point? It would be a curio, but nothing more. Imagine pouring water from one glass into another, and then back again, over and over. Not very exciting.

"Free power", "Free energy" refers to a system where you get more energy out than you put in. Even if your system self-recharged itself with 100% efficiency, if you tried to "take" some of that power, you're removing energy from the system. The battery won't fully charge itself, it will charge itself as much as it can, minus what you've taken out. Eventually you will have taken all the power out, and your battery is dead.

To use the water example, you can keep pouring it from one glass to another and back again. But if you take a drink every time, you will eventually have none left.

This whole post fails in the first statement.
So energy cannot be created ? Yeh. Right. So there is no energy then. Yeeeeeeeh. Well, clearly energy exists, and you concede it can change form. So it was created. So your first statement is nonsense and you disprove it yourself.

Teddy Daniels

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

This whole post fails in the first statement.
So energy cannot be created ? Yeh. Right. So there is no energy then. Yeeeeeeeh. Well, clearly energy exists, and you concede it can change form. So it was created. So your first statement is nonsense and you disprove it yourself.

Oh my god, you're right the first law of thermodynamics is incorrect.
Please note its a law not a theory so it is absolute.

ignoring the much later special theory of relativity it seems unlikely that you are unaware that the potential chemical energy contained in petrol is the energy source for a petrol fueled ice. in this system the chemical energy in the fuel is changed in form to heat sound light and most importantly kinetic forms.

The Rape of Lucretia

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

This whole post fails in the first statement.
So energy cannot be created ? Yeh. Right. So there is no energy then. Yeeeeeeeh. Well, clearly energy exists, and you concede it can change form. So it was created. So your first statement is nonsense and you disprove it yourself.

Should the wording be changed to "Energy cannot be created or destroyed, except in a Big Bang"? Cause if you want to go that route, I imagine a lot of things would have to be changed so as to not confuse those of limited ability.

seamus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Should the wording be changed to "Energy cannot be created or destroyed, except in a Big Bang"? Cause if you want to go that route, I imagine a lot of things would have to be changed so as to not confuse those of limited ability.

No. Even in the big bang nothing was created. All of the energy in the universe was concentrated into a single point and then released.

dxhound2005

Deleted User wrote: »

Basically, the person who breaks the laws of physics and creates this will be the richest man the world has ever known.

Fusion is as good as it gets if we ever make it that far. That would change everything.

Change some things in our use of electricity and in transport. But it would not change human nature. There would still be wars and famines.

Nuclear fusion will not be needed if renewables gradually replace fossil fuels. Australia could produce enough energy from solar to power the world four time over. They are working on ways to make ammonia from solar, which can then be used to power hydrogen fuels cells. Hydrogen fuel cells could be the way to non polluting cars.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/ammonia-renewable-fuel-made-sun-air-and-water-could-power-globe-without-carbon

The Rape of Lucretia

seamus wrote: »

No. Even in the big bang nothing was created. All of the energy in the universe was concentrated into a single point and then released.

Exactly. So the energy was created before the big bang.

biko

Because mass is a kind of energy

seamus

seamus wrote: »

No. Even in the big bang nothing was created. All of the energy in the universe was concentrated into a single point and then released.

Which is mad to think about. But my point is that it shouldn't need an addendum saying that at some point, this energy sprung to life.

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Change some things in our use of electricity and in transport. But it would not change human nature. There would still be wars and famines.

Nuclear fusion will not be needed if renewables gradually replace fossil fuels. Australia could produce enough energy from solar to power the world four time over. They are working on ways to make ammonia from solar, which can then be used to power hydrogen fuels cells. Hydrogen fuel cells could be the way to non polluting cars.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/ammonia-renewable-fuel-made-sun-air-and-water-could-power-globe-without-carbon

I think it would be an enormous change in the future. In 2019, it may be hard to see where all this electricity could go, but imo it will be a big thing when it's available.

This is based on the whole Dyson Sphere idea.

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Exactly. So the energy was created before the big bang.

Which is irrelevant. What you called that poster out on was semantic at best. You called out someone for stating what is accepted in all of science. Since the Big Bang, it can't be created or destroyed.

seamus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Which is irrelevant. What you called that poster out on was semantic at best. You called out someone for stating what is accepted in all of science. Since the Big Bang, it can't be created or destroyed.

It's not even semantics, it's just wrong. No energy was created in the big bang.

endacl

biko wrote: »

Because mass is a kind of energy

I always found it energy sapping. Stopped going when I wa 11.

Franz Von Peppercorn

seamus wrote: »

It's not even semantics, it's just wrong. No energy was created in the big bang.

Just before it, then.

It’s best to say that energy cannot be created or destroyed since the Big Bang.

seamus

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Just before it, then.

It’s best to say that energy cannot be created or destroyed since the Big Bang.

There is no "before" the big bang. It's meaningless. Time didn't exist until the big bang.

recedite

While we are waiting for fusion power, there's a couple of cool techs out there providing free energy. All new houses have either solar pv cells on the roof (free electricity) or a heat pump. A heat pump heats the house using a magic box which spews out 3 or 4 units of power for every 1 unit you put in.
I'll leave any further explanation for the honours class

Franz Von Peppercorn

seamus wrote: »

There is no "before" the big bang. It's meaningless. Time didn't exist until the big bang.

That’s actually a non explanation, in fact theologians have argued similarly about the time before creation. God apparently lived outside of time. So stop asking questions.

It’s also not fully accepted. There’s also a multiverse theory.

Nevertheless it clearly has no explanatory power as to where the energy for the creation of the universe came from.

seamus

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

That’s actually a non explanation

Yes, that's exactly what it is. There is no explanation for the energy of the universe. It is folly to assert a "before".

Nevertheless it clearly has no explanatory power as to where the energy for the creation of the universe came from.

There is no reason for us to believe the energy "came from" anywhere. Before we can answer that question we need to determine if the questions exists in the first place.

We have no model of physics to explain it, so at present there is no requirement for the energy of the big bang to have been created or to have an origin. For all intents and purposes it has always existed.

Franz Von Peppercorn

seamus wrote: »

Yes, that's exactly what it is. There is no explanation for the energy of the universe. It is folly to assert a "before".

There is no reason for us to believe the energy "came from" anywhere. Before we can answer that question we need to determine if the questions exists in the first place.

The question definitely exists. I just asked it.

We have no model of physics to explain it, so at present there is no requirement for the energy of the big bang to have been created or to have an origin. For all intents and purposes it has always existed.

There’s definitely a logical requirement for the energy to have been been there and physics not explaining it doesn’t seem to make that logic disappear. “Always been there” is also not much in the way of an explanation.

St Augustine used tricks like this to argue that the angels weren’t co-eternal with God although the bible says they were (he says they were eternal in time but god was eternal before time), that God didn’t tarry in the creation of the universe and that we couldn’t even talk about what God was doing pre universe as there was no time prior to the creation of the earth. God was also always there. Doing nothing but not doing nothing as there was no time. Then the universe and time happened. Caused by God.

So the “nothing to explain before there was time” has a not very good pedigree as an explanation.

As it turns out that’s not the only physics solution these days


Big bounce.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce

Multiverse.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

And a general overview here including theories on string theory and colliding “branes”.

In String theory the multiverse is a higher dimensional space in which branes (=universes) float around and sometime 2 branes collide in big fiery explosion (=big bang) and create a new brane.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity

Fourier

Actually energy can be created and destroyed. In Newtonian Mechanics it can't which of course is what describes most motions of energy we see everyday.

Fourier

seamus wrote: »

There is no "before" the big bang. It's meaningless. Time didn't exist until the big bang.

That's a pop science notion found in many books unfortunately. In truth there may have been trillions of years prior to the hot dense state described by the Big Bang theory. The 13.7 billion year age is the limit of what current theories can track.

The Rape of Lucretia

OK, so what we can probably all agree on then is that :
- energy can indeed be created.
- admittedly, we dont know how it was created, nor when.
- that it exists, proves it can be created, and that it is probably sloppy science to declare that because we dont know the how or the when, to declare that it is a law that it cannot be created
- while we have the evidence it was created, we dont have evidence it can be destroyed, so the jury is out on that bit for the moment
- in the OP's proposition, as they state it, and assuming normal batteries, motors, and alternators, we know that in the real world, inefficiencies mean his machine will not run forever
- but, if one of those components were to include an energy creating process, then, his machine would indeed keep running

Fourier

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

OK, so what we can probably all agree on then is that :
- energy can indeed be created.
- admittedly, we dont know how it was created, nor when.
- that it exists, proves it can be created, and that it is probably sloppy science to declare that because we dont know the how or the when, to declare that it is a law that it cannot be created
- while we have the evidence it was created, we dont have evidence it can be destroyed, so the jury is out on that bit for the moment

We know it can be both created and destroyed, it occurs all the time in cosmology and subatomic reactions.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

Basically, the person who breaks the laws of physics and creates this will be the richest man the world has ever known.

Fusion is as good as it gets if we ever make it that far. That would change everything.

No it wouldn't.

To get energy there are costs for fuel , for generating equipment and maintenance and financing until it comes online, for storage, for transmission, and for decommissioning.

for wind and hydro and fusion the fuel cost is zero
for fossil fuel and nuclear it's the opposite

for dispatchable power like hydro and fossil fuel and biomass the storage costs are zero
for nuclear and renewables it's not

for locally generated power the transmission costs tend to zero
for wind and nuclear not so much

nuclear is in a class of it's own when it comes to the insane financing and decommissioning costs

Solar is dirt cheap to install and maintain, but high storage costs.



So even if you could generate electricity at Zero cost you would still have to factor in all the other costs too.


You can get nuclear batteries. They are small, last for decades, provide power 24/7 365. But gold is way cheaper.

Wtf ?

We should go the nuclear way then. Too much ''What if's over nuclear power. A Nuclear sub or ship needs re powering after 20 or 30 years. The only thing stopping a Nuclear machine staying at sea, On or under the sea for an unlimited time is food for the crew. Human's are the weak link.

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

No it wouldn't.

To get energy there are costs for fuel , for generating equipment and maintenance and financing until it comes online, for storage, for transmission, and for decommissioning.

for wind and hydro and fusion the fuel cost is zero
for fossil fuel and nuclear it's the opposite

for dispatchable power like hydro and fossil fuel and biomass the storage costs are zero
for nuclear and renewables it's not

for locally generated power the transmission costs tend to zero
for wind and nuclear not so much

nuclear is in a class of it's own when it comes to the insane financing and decommissioning costs

Solar is dirt cheap to install and maintain, but high storage costs.



So even if you could generate electricity at Zero cost you would still have to factor in all the other costs too.


You can get nuclear batteries. They are small, last for decades, provide power 24/7 365. But gold is way cheaper.

This was a weirdly formatted post so I don't really know how to reply. All I'm saying is that fusion is a totally different thing to what we think of when we think nuclear. Expensive to get running but if we ever do it, we don't even need renewables anymore. There isn't even any nuclear waste from it.