[Question] Is perpetual motion, free energy, or zero point energy possible?

[strawman]

We have our fair share of unique viewpoints and perspectives, but I've yet to see someone put forth or defend the concepts of zero point energy, free energy, or perpetual motion. It may be that it's come up in the past and been shut down hard by all the engineers, physisicists, and others here, so I'm curious if anyone actually believes there's some reasonable chance or possibility that the people pursuing zero point energy, free energy, or perpetual motion may, someday, experience a breakthrough and actually achieve their goal?

Note that while I lump the three together I understand that to enthusiasts they are probably different in important ways, so choose the one you believe in most, or believe has the greatest probability for success, when answering this poll.

 

[Dave]

Nope. There is always a degradation or dispersion of the energy. You can get something that goes on for a damned long time, but not zero-point or truly perpetual.

 

[MindDetective]

No way. I think we can find better, cheaper, more efficient sources of energy. I'm not talking about clean energy here...a "richer" source of energy than oil or coal or nuclear fission. But we're not going to break the laws of thermodynamics in doing it.

 

[Ravenpoe]

The concept itself is impossible, though I see no reason why technology can't advance enough to the point of energy so efficient and long lasting that it's practically infinite (or at least seems so to our short lives).

As to how long that would take, well, I don't think I'd see it in my lifetime.

 

[Chad Sexington]

"You did, you poor sap. You said we had all the energy we needed, forever. You said 'forever.'"

 

[Dave]

"You did, you poor sap. You said we had all the energy we needed, forever. You said 'forever.'"

I've always disliked this story as formulaic, but of course it was decades old when I read it so that could be because of the others who copied it and made it a trope of sorts.

 

[Gilgamesh]

As to how long that would take, well, I don't think I'd see it in my lifetime.

Have you seen how far our tech has come in just 20-30yrs? Imagine just 20-30 more.

 

[Eriol]

Have you seen how far our tech has come in just 20-30yrs? Imagine just 20-30 more.

Fusion power has always been "20-30 years away" since the 50s, so I'm cynical on this one. I'd say that conventional power generation hasn't progressed much in that time.

Edit: clarification

 

[Dave]

Fusion power has always been "20-30 years away" since the 50s, so I'm cynical on this one. I'd say that in terms of power generation, it hasn't progressed much in that time.

The biggest problem is that there are people actively engaging in the holding back of some technologies - of which clean and renewable energy is included.

 

[Eriol]

The biggest problem is that there are people actively engaging in the holding back of some technologies - of which clean and renewable energy is included.

Really? REALLY? I didn't think reasonable people believed in this stuff. Yikes.

Let's just say that when governments go whole-hog on renewables, they end up spending money down black holes. See Spain for one extremely great example of this. It isn't the money being spent on it, it's two-fold:

1. The money is being spent on subsidizing BAD TECH that doesn't work nearly as well as it should to be viable. This is the majority of spending.
2. The money SHOULD be spent on basic research looking for breakthroughs, but is spent on point 1 instead. We need breakthroughs, not incremental improvement. It's not ready (not even close) as-is.

The renewable technologies that people think about are blocking themselves. The main one that works, and is widely deployed is hydroelectricity. It works. That's why it's everywhere. People blocking the others is a pipe dream. I thought only the most extreme believed that. Yikes.

 

[MindDetective]

Fusion power has always been "20-30 years away" since the 50s, so I'm cynical on this one. I'd say that in terms of power generation, it hasn't progressed much in that time.

What? That is a bit TOO cynical, if you ask me.

 

[Eriol]

I meant conventional generation hasn't progressed in terms of tech, not that Fusion Research hasn't progressed. Re-reading it I see how that's ambiguous. I'll edit it.

 

[Gilgamesh]

Fusion power has always been "20-30 years away" since the 50s, so I'm cynical on this one. I'd say that in terms of power generation, it hasn't progressed much in that time.

Except the bounce in tech from the 50-80s isn't even close to the 80s-00s.

 

[Covar]

Really? REALLY? I didn't think reasonable people believed in this stuff. Yikes.

Let's just say that when governments go whole-hog on renewables, they end up spending money down black holes. See Spain for one extremely great example of this. It isn't the money being spent on it, it's two-fold:

1. The money is being spent on subsidizing BAD TECH that doesn't work nearly as well as it should to be viable. This is the majority of spending.
2. The money SHOULD be spent on basic research looking for breakthroughs, but is spent on point 1 instead. We need breakthroughs, not incremental improvement. It's not ready (not even close) as-is.

The renewable technologies that people think about are blocking themselves. The main one that works, and is widely deployed is hydroelectricity. It works. That's why it's everywhere. People blocking the others is a pipe dream. I thought only the most extreme believed that. Yikes.

It's those energy companies that want to keep destroying the planet man! Everyone knows those fat cats are more interested in lining their pockets on the back of mother nature than coming up with a form of power that's as or more affordable than current sources and far more marketable. In fact I know a guy who knew a guy who's sister-in-law had a friend who read about a man who once drove up the entire east coast on a single gallon of gas! Can you believe it? Why don't we have that now? those oil companies man, those oil companies squashed him!

 

[Dave]

Really? REALLY? I didn't think reasonable people believed in this stuff. Yikes.

Let's just say that when governments go whole-hog on renewables, they end up spending money down black holes. See Spain for one extremely great example of this. It isn't the money being spent on it, it's two-fold:

1. The money is being spent on subsidizing BAD TECH that doesn't work nearly as well as it should to be viable. This is the majority of spending.
2. The money SHOULD be spent on basic research looking for breakthroughs, but is spent on point 1 instead. We need breakthroughs, not incremental improvement. It's not ready (not even close) as-is.

The renewable technologies that people think about are blocking themselves. The main one that works, and is widely deployed is hydroelectricity. It works. That's why it's everywhere. People blocking the others is a pipe dream. I thought only the most extreme believed that. Yikes.

I wish I had time to find the links on the oil companies that set up dummy corporations and used those to purchase the companies that made the batteries used for early electric cars...and then shut them down. Or the oil executives that got on California's board that worked on the lessening of normal combustion engines...and then lessened restrictions. Or the millions of dollars used for lobbying against renewables to keep things going towards oil & coal production/use.

These things are real, not some pipe dream of a conspiracy theory nutcase.[DOUBLEPOST=1363802975][/DOUBLEPOST]Quick read that is only 1 example of what I was talking about. The technology for viable electric cars has been around for many years, but was squashed by oil companies and auto manufacturers who had interest in keeping the technology down. It's one of the reasons hybrids have been sold so much - because it keeps the fossil fuels flowing while still making people think that they are doing something for the environment.[DOUBLEPOST=1363802991][/DOUBLEPOST]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries

(forgot the link)

 

[Eriol]

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

LOTS of conjecture, with not a lot of evidence in that article. I read through it, but it doesn't talk at all about:

• $10k+ to replace the pack in a car, and you WILL need to replace it long before the life of the surrounding vehicle is done for.
• The fact that the base cost is that much to begin with.
• Charging time (not trivial)

The future as I see it for this is actually Super-capacitors. I really hope that takes off, and EVs along with it. Batteries as we know it have had a lot of hype for EVs, but ultimately fall short IMO. SCs will be "it" though IMO.

 

[Dave]

You're right, the wiki is not a complete article. But I'm not getting into specifics because I don't have the time right now. But what this does do is show that oil companies did, indeed, purchase technologies such as this and either use it to patent block innovation or simply hold back the technology from further use. Even a few year's worth of innovation suppression is worth billions to the companies.

 

[Eriol]

You're right, the wiki is not a complete article. But I'm not getting into specifics because I don't have the time right now. But what this does do is show that oil companies did, indeed, purchase technologies such as this and either use it to patent block innovation or simply hold back the technology from further use. Even a few year's worth of innovation suppression is worth billions to the companies.

I trust more in their desire to make money by cornering the market. Completely dominate a new field and you'll make more than their normal methods of profits. That's what I see when I see "oil" companies buying up "alternative" energy sources. Besides, with the electric car stuff, you still need the energy from the "grid" which is quite dominated by Coal, and increasingly Natural Gas, which they have big stakes in, so it's win-win for them to promote EVs.

I just don't see the ulterior motive to kill it there.

 

[strawman]

The technology for viable electric cars has emphatically NOT been around for years, and simply hidden.

The fact is that consumers want and are used to all the features gas cars provide, and those features are too expensive to have in an electric car for the target market.

Primary among them is safety, distance, power, low cost, and air conditioning and heating.

All of these things are harder to provide using electrical batteries, regardless of the chemistry, than they are on a gas car.

The oil companies have been buying such patents and technologies not to hold them back, but because they know that oil is ultimately limited, and if they don't diversify they will go the way of the dinosaur.

They may not be using the patents as aggressively as some would like, but the reality is that almost any patent can be overcome with some novel thinking. You don't like the lithium ion patents? Well, lets change the chemistry and at the same time provide a few features lithium ion can't provide, like less "venting with flames" and, oh, here we go, now with have lithium iron phosphate. Almost as energy dense, but cheaper and safer. Not as competitive for portable devices, but much better for vehicles.

I don't know about all the other technologies entrenched industries are holding back. I do know it happens, a little, but its not nearly as bad as I think it's being made out to be.

The primary reason any product isn't brought to market is because its not profitable.

 

[AshburnerX]

I blame Thomas Edison. If Tesla wouldn't have been driven into madness by his constant attacks, we'd ALREADY have free power!

 

[Covar]

The technology for viable electric cars has emphatically NOT been around for years, and simply hidden.

The fact is that consumers want and are used to all the features gas cars provide, and those features are too expensive to have in an electric car for the target market.

Primary among them is safety, distance, power, low cost, and air conditioning and heating.

All of these things are harder to provide using electrical batteries, regardless of the chemistry, than they are on a gas car.

The oil companies have been buying such patents and technologies not to hold them back, but because they know that oil is ultimately limited, and if they don't diversify they will go the way of the dinosaur.

They may not be using the patents as aggressively as some would like, but the reality is that almost any patent can be overcome with some novel thinking. You don't like the lithium ion patents? Well, lets change the chemistry and at the same time provide a few features lithium ion can't provide, like less "venting with flames" and, oh, here we go, now with have lithium iron phosphate. Almost as energy dense, but cheaper and safer. Not as competitive for portable devices, but much better for vehicles.

I don't know about all the other technologies entrenched industries are holding back. I do know it happens, a little, but its not nearly as bad as I think it's being made out to be.

The primary reason any product isn't brought to market is because its not profitable.

but, but, but our supervillains!!

 

[strawman]

but, but, but our supervillains!!

They can still be super villains without holding technology back. The Valdez spill was just to distract Americans from the fact that they had to drill through polar bears in order to get oil out of Alaska. So much polar bear death for each oil rig, and the smell of rotting carcasses piled around the pipe is pretty bad for the first few months.

 

[GasBandit]

On the original question - most of it is bunk, but when it comes to "free" energy, that depends on the magnitude and required return. I mean, in the loose definition, you could call a water wheel in a river to be "free energy" because the river runs whether or not you stick a wheel in it, and it doesn't actually impede the flow of the river in any real sense (a mile downstream, you wouldn't be able to tell a difference from the current).

 

[Bowielee]

On the original question - most of it is bunk, but when it comes to "free" energy, that depends on the magnitude and required return. I mean, in the loose definition, you could call a water wheel in a river to be "free energy" because the river runs whether or not you stick a wheel in it, and it doesn't actually impede the flow of the river in any real sense (a mile downstream, you wouldn't be able to tell a difference from the current).

That's pretty much clarified with the words "perpetual motion" and "zero point energy".

 

[GasBandit]

That's pretty much clarified with the words "perpetual motion" and "zero point energy".

Eh, I read it as a list of 3 elements, separated by commas. But by your definition, no, perpetual motion is directly precluded by the laws of thermodynamics. Even my example of the water wheel is really just an extremely inefficient solar power collector - sun evaporates water from the oceans, which falls as snow in the mountains, which the sun then melts, the runoff goes into rivers, which turns the wheel. When the sun burns out, the energy goes away.

 

[bhamv3]

The sun is pretty much our source of "near-infinite" energy. We just need to harness it better.

Someone create a Dyson Sphere already.

 

[PatrThom]

"free" energy just isn't possible. I would be plenty happy if we just concentrated instead on making a quantum leap in efficiency.

--Patrick

 

[Necronic]

When the possible answers for a question involving science and reason use the word "belief" then he only rational answer is agnosticism. Because a belief can't be absolute, at least not rationally. That said I can't imagine how something like this could happen, but v0v, maybe it could.

And don't take thermo as a set of scripture. Classical thermo was already debunked as an approximation almost a century ago. True, it's such a good approximation that it's effectively true in almost all cases, but it's not perfect. And to make absolute statements requires absolute laws, somethig we will never have.

So...you know...philosophically we can't say. We can say its highly likely based on current understanding that it's impossible. But that's different.

 

[GasBandit]

When the possible answers for a question involving science and reason use the word "belief" then he only rational answer is agnosticism. Because a belief can't be absolute, at least not rationally. That said I can't imagine how something like this could happen, but v0v, maybe it could.

And don't take thermo as a set of scripture. Classical thermo was already debunked as an approximation almost a century ago. True, it's such a good approximation that it's effectively true in almost all cases, but it's not perfect. And to make absolute statements requires absolute laws, somethig we will never have.

So...you know...philosophically we can't say. We can say its highly likely based on current understanding that it's impossible. But that's different.

I was unaware there were exceptions to the first two laws... what are they?

 

[Necronic]

It's not so much the language as it is the math (although math is basically language), basically the problem is that classical thermo treated the problems as continuous systems, which they are not, something we determined through QM. This lead to problems like the Ultraviolet Catastrophe (which is not as cool as it sounds, also not exactly a thermo problem but very related). But really its a philosophical problem since at most scales classical continuous systems are adequate approximations.

The point is that an approximation, as good as it is, is not fundamental truth. And to state an absolute you must have a fundamental truth behind it. Which is impossible really, but even less possible in this case since we can clearly see where the truth breaks down.

ed (To specifically adress the first law):

where del = infinitessimal quantity. That statement is factually incorrect because there can be no infinitessimal quantity. And infinitessimal quantity of energy transfer is impossible. If it were possible you would have the Ultraviolet Catastrophe.
That said, even though it's factually wrong. It's still pretty much right. Does that make sense?

 

[Eriol]

For whatever reason, your discussion reminded me of this xkcd: http://xkcd.com/505/

 

[GasBandit]

Man, I'm a literate, moderately educated man, and everything you just said sounded like "Phlogiston unobtanium pure fuckin' magic."

 

[Eriol]

Back to one of the topics here: http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2013/03/22/germany-bosch-to-exit-solar-energy-business/

Solar isn't economically viable, even for the "really big" guys. Not yet. I hope it comes, but the "grid-level" power viability of this really depends on battery/storage technology too.

 

[strawman]

Note that this is photoelectric solar energy. Thermoelectric (where you heat a boiler with the sun, then run a generator with the steam) is still competitive with other electric production methods, at least in high insolation areas with high electricity costs.

 

[Necronic]

The Ultraviolet Catastrophe has had its name kind of ruined by the movie Ultraviolet, which was a catastrophe.

Discuss.