Free Energy Device: Closest Inventors Have Come?

[Quasaire]

Yeah I know thermodynamics says it's a scientific impossibility, but what is the closes inventors have come to a free energy device? Or what is the best energy producing system out there for its size[?]

 

[Dave]

A superconductor.
There's one that can run at 125K I think.

 

[Devilin]

Somebody kick me for saying this,
No energy in lots of energy out, the universe drrrrr, its got to be the best free energy device ever

 

[Bunting]

hmmmmmmm, i think the idea of making energy is impossible :) was it einstein who said "there's a set amount of energy in the universe, and all that can be done to it, is change its form". so technically you culd have a device which converts your surroundings into energy! but i can't even begin to think of how energy may be created! becasue its problalbly can't :) though I am a bit of an optimist on theoretical physics, this is one matter (haw haw ;)) I am agreed with the scientists on :)

 

[LURCH]

Originally posted by Quasaire
Yeah I know thermodynamics says it's a scientific impossibility, but what is the closes inventors have come to a free energy device? Or what is the best energy producing system out there for its size[?]

Although I agree with Dave that a superconductor is the best way to preserve energy, it would appear that you're talking about generating energy, yes?

If that is the case, then the most efficient way (currently known) is a matter-antimatter reaction. These can convert most of the matter involved into energy. Electron-positron anihilations appear to be 100% efficient, though I can't help thinking there is some loss of energy we're not measuring.

 

[quantum]

Scientific impossibility? I think not... You see, with our modern understanding of thermodynamics, it is impossible, but out understanding of thermodynamics is slowly changing and I hope that in the future, a device that produces energy without using any just may be possible...

 

[Jonathan]

To whom it may concern...

...(all of you) I hate that they call them the "Laws" of thermodynamics when time and time again they are proved to be merely widely acceptable rules of thumb.

 

[Joy Division]

The closest you can ever come to free energy is a carnot engine it's the most efficient engine possible. It's just an ideal though and every real engine is worse than that.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/carnot.html
http://www.rawbw.com/~xmwang/myGUI/CarnotG.html

The generality of the laws of thermo dynamics, (yes they are laws)
is startling. I would doubt that they would be shown to be wrong any time soon.

 

[wimms]

imho, Casimir effect. Perhaps utopic would be having a pet-blackhole with small radius for hawking radiation..
earth's spin. sun.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by quantum
Scientific impossibility? I think not... You see, with our modern understanding of thermodynamics, it is impossible, but out understanding of thermodynamics is slowly changing and I hope that in the future, a device that produces energy without using any just may be possible...

Originally posted by Johnathan ...(all of you) I hate that they call them the "Laws" of thermodynamics when time and time again they are proved to be merely widely acceptable rules of thumb.

Both of you are precisely wrong.

 

[Bunting]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Both of you are precisely wrong.

i agree to disagree.

i agree, there both wrong. Simply thinking about it shoudl make you realize you can't turn nothing into something.

0 * 10 = 0
0 * Infinity = 0

it just can't be done.

however i disagree in the way that so called "laws" cannot be called so called laws until there conpletele researched. for example until quantum theory came along there was a hell of a lot more doubt as to whether certain things could be done, they went from an impossibility to a possibility but inproblalbility, and who knows, one day they may become real, but i don't think its fair to frame a rule until all other possibilitys have been reasearched (which culd take hundreds of years!)

but you can't make something from nothing :) you may be able to make a lot from very little, but something from nothing ? no. all energy sources have there limit :)

so say you have something :)

0.00000001 * 10 = 0.0000001
0.00000001 * 100x10^18 = a lot

you just need a good source of enbergy to get a good thing going, but you can't have it going forever :)

 

[Integral]

Originally posted by Bunting
i agree to disagree.

i agree, there both wrong. Simply thinking about it shoudl make you realize you can't turn nothing into something.

0 * 10 = 0
0 * Infinity = 0

it just can't be done.

however i disagree in the way that so called "laws" cannot be called so called laws until there conpletele researched. for example until quantum theory came along there was a hell of a lot more doubt as to whether certain things could be done, they went from an impossibility to a possibility but inproblalbility, and who knows, one day they may become real, but i don't think its fair to frame a rule until all other possibilitys have been reasearched (which culd take hundreds of years!)

but you can't make something from nothing :) you may be able to make a lot from very little, but something from nothing ? no. all energy sources have there limit :)

so say you have something :)



0.00000001 * 10 = 0.0000001
0.00000001 * 100x10^18 = a lot

you just need a good source of enbergy to get a good thing going, but you can't have it going forever :)

And just what does all this really say about Thermodynamics? Exactly zero. not approximatly but exactly nothing. If you wish to prove anytthing about the validtiy of theory you must address the topic head on not with unrelated trivial multiplications.

Thermodynamics is about as solid a field of Physics as they get. There is nothing that will change it now or in the future.

Why is that all pseudo scientist start by claiming that all we now know is wrong and just around the corner it will change.

Natuarly you are the one with the great insite but are misunderstood and ignored.

LOL

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Integral
Why is that all pseudo scientist start by claiming that all we now know is wrong and just around the corner it will change.

AKA: pseudoscientific fallacy #1.

"A" was a theory and has been proven wrong. "B" is also a theory and therefore may (will) also be proven wrong.

Related to this is fallacy #2: All theories have the same strength. The statement: "[insert rock hard theory] is only a theory" is meant to insinuate that since no theory can ever be 100% proven, it will eventually be proven wrong.

Sorry boys, you won't win any money betting against thermodyamics.

 

[Bunting]

so I am wrong and you can get something from nothing, is what your trying to tell me ? I am a physics noobie, relatively, i didnt know this went any further than simple multiplications! :-| don't just shout at me if your a mentor, teach me.

edit:
First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed.

i.e. you can't get something from nothing ?

 

[Brad_Ad23]

No, you are correct in saying something in our universe can come from nothing. However, demonstrating that 0 times something is zero does not do enough to show this. Essentially all you did was add 10 zeros together. Wow. Generally, you would have to show that no energy can just appear out of nowhere (however I do not know of the proof off the top of my head).

 

[Jonathan]

Oh come on! I read an article in SciAm saying that on small scales, a object (some kind of tiny bead I think it was) can rectify thermal energy into unidirectional motion. Not significant, but it does prove that they aren't laws, just rules of thumb that apply in ALMOST every imaginable cirumstance. And let's not forget the experimentally proved fact that particles/energy are popping in and out of existence everywherre in the quantum vacuum! So, my point, though almost meaning less, is true.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

A bit of a misnomer here. The laws of thermodynamics are statistical laws. And while certain microscopic systmes can seem to violate the laws, it has been found that the system compensates for this and more entropy is still produced in trying to set it up so that the system does that in the first place.

As for virtual particles, they do not violate any laws. The reason is that they vanish in the shortest amount of time possible so as to not violate the law. It would be like taking out a loan for a million dollars and paying it back right away so you don't have to pay any interest.

 

[Jonathan]

I'm just repeating what SciAm said. If we assume time is continuous, ie not discreet, then you will have to pay a lllllliiiitttllleee tttiiinnnyyy bit of interest, no matter what. Insignificant, but true.

 

[russ_watters]

Johnathan, read up a little on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Its what Brad was alluding to. HUP make some amazing things possible in the very microscopic scale, but the effects disappear when you look on the larger scale. Zero Point Energy perpetual motion machines are based on HUP, but they ignore the fact that HUP is a double edged sword - it predicts that the energy is there, but it also predicts that it can't be accessed.

i.e. you can't get something from nothing ?

Pretty much, yeah. There is a way to summarize the 3 laws of thermodynamics like this:

1. You can't win.
2. You can't break even.
3. The game is rigged (not sure about that one).

 

[Jonathan]

Again I will point out that I'm referring to the ridiculusly insignificant, but provably existant, violation of the laws.we are going to have to agree to disagree, I'mgetting tired of arguing my tiny, stupid, little point.[zz)]

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Jon, it is not a true violation of the laws. Do some more searching for what you are referring to. You will see that the system compensates by essentially causing more entropy than normal to be made in setting it up. In other words, in order to create the violation you are referring to, you still wind up creating just as much entropy. Remember, the laws of thermodynamics are statistical laws.

 

[Jonathan]

They are statistical laws specifically because people started to notice that for a very short period on small scales, they didn't apply. Then, after that the entropy would increase a whole bunch. That means that if we were to observe a system for say 1/5 of a second, we might see it disobey the laws of thermodynamics. If we had a camera setup, taking pictures every 1/20 of a second, then applied statistics, the statistics would say that for those four photos over the period of 1/5 of a second, the laws of thermodynamics didn't apply. You see, they are statistical laws and so by nature as the time period gets abitrarily and insignificantly small, the laws don't apply.

 

[russ_watters]

No, Johnathan. Quantum fluctuations happen on a specific time scale that just so happens (actually, its not a coincidence) to be indivisible. Such an apparent violation can only be observed on an individual event basis and can't then be subdivided to allow you to identify a time range (or a system).

"agree to disagree" only goes so far - you're maintaining disagreement with the accepted laws of physics as understood (and invented) by high end physicists (and then regurgitated by people like me).