Self-Sustaining Energy: The Arc Reactor Theory

  • Thread starter Thread starter Artemis Fowl
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Self
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the feasibility of the arc reactor concept from comic book lore as a non-polluting energy source. Participants clarify that the arc reactor is purely fictional and not grounded in real science. The conversation also explores the idea of using a flywheel in a vacuum, noting that while it could theoretically spin indefinitely without friction, it cannot generate energy beyond its initial input. Extracting energy from the flywheel would ultimately slow it down, aligning with the principles of conservation of energy. The thread concludes with a reminder that discussions on perpetual motion are not permitted.
Artemis Fowl
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I am new to nuclear physics and i was just looking out for anything on a non-polluting, high energy source of power when i found this article on the internet about the arc reactor.
http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-theory-concept-behind-the-Miniature-Arc-Reactor-built-by-Tony-Stark
I am confused whether this is scientifically possible or if this is just the usual comic book Science fiction.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Pure science fiction, not actual science.
 
Out of curiosity, if we placed a Flywheel in a vacuum, would it spin and create enough energy? And for how long?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Indi SUmmers said:
Out of curiosity, if we placed a Flywheel in a vacuum, would that bastard spin and create enough energy? And for how long?

If there were really zero friction or other effects to slow it down, it would spin forever - consider that the Earth turning on its axis is a giant flywheel and it's been going strong for some billions of years now.
However, if we try to power something with the flywheel it will slow down as we extract energy from it, and we won't get any more energy out of it than what went into it to start it spinning in the first place.

(Also, please be aware that discussion of perpetual motion machines are not allowed here; this post is spared the wrath of the mentors only because you probably didn't realize that you were proposing a form of perpetual motion).

I'm closing this thread because both questions have been answered.
 
Last edited:
comparing a flat solar panel of area 2π r² and a hemisphere of the same area, the hemispherical solar panel would only occupy the area π r² of while the flat panel would occupy an entire 2π r² of land. wouldn't the hemispherical version have the same area of panel exposed to the sun, occupy less land space and can therefore increase the number of panels one land can have fitted? this would increase the power output proportionally as well. when I searched it up I wasn't satisfied with...

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
25
Views
58K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top