Why are we not using self sustaining energy yet /pol/?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=287qd4uI7-E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKFTAobM-l0
You have to admit this is much better for the environment than coal, oil, and nuclear energy.
>>73738756
Compressed fumes from my own fecal matter powers my mobile home.
2nd law of thermodynamics.
>>73738756
Good luck with that. This one surely isn't a scam like all the other predecessors.
>>73738756
You're a fucking moron, stop posting and making the rest of us burgers look retarded.
>>73738886
This
>>73739350
>>73738886
merely a theory
>muh termodinumik
>>73739487
>canadian physics
>>73738886
When people say this, do they even know that it means? Or are they just copying what they heard a more intelligent person say?
1. Entropy
2. You're talking about machines that maintain their own movement, and also you want to draw energy OUT of them (for lights, computers, vibrators, etc), so therefore they need to be CREATING AN EXCESS OF ENERGY. From where, I wonder.
Its just energy storage, might as well use a flywheel you are going to do something mechanical
>>73739557
>stolen nazi science
>people here defending perpetual motion
I'm not even surprised.
>>73739591
I'm an energy engineer. Either burn shit, split an atom or don't bother wasting money on it.
>>73739775
No you're not
>>73739775
What about fusion my dude?
What's the Sgen on that thing? Think it may have a negative sign on it.
>>73739684
>to the victors go the spoils
The fucking video description admits it isn't perpetual. Low bait, OP
>>73739857
A lot of my teachers used to say cold fusion is complete bullshit, so I'm inclined to agree with them, but I don't know a lot about it.
>>73739857
There is NO SUCH THING as a perfect energy source without loss due to heat generated, even fusion.
There will always be loss in energy generation, which is why any "perpetual motion/energy machine" is a load of shit, as eventually entropy kicks and fucks it up.
Uh, wouldn't you need a fuckton of these (or just a number of large-scale ones) to produce the same energy output as you would get from more traditional sources?
>>73740410
I didn't claim there was. Cool your jets.
>>73739775
Im pretty sure magnetism could be of use somehow though.
>>73740522
>Magnetism
Electricity. How is it produced?
>>73738756
both of these videos are fake and gay,
much better for the environment is shagging your mum and nuclear energy
>>73738756
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RZB1xstXS0
>>73739591
Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Simple energy balance dictates:
Energy_in - Energy_out = 0
so Energy_in = Energy_out
>>73739412
True, but it has been shown correct in every test done so far.
>>73739857
Not viable right now. Maybe in the future
>>73740410
get a load of this autist
>>73741295
>implying magnets are an infinite source of energy top lol.
>ups i moved it the coils got out of alignment
>>73742680
With high-grade design and materials I bet you can get a few kw out of a bulky motor
But it would effectively have to be very sturdy, hence very expensive
Cold fusion is a thing tho and it's going to pop up in the next few years (people been telling that for half a decade, true, but now there's a lot of chatter and replications)
https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt537/CRPT-114hrpt537.pdf
page 87: http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/FY17-NDAA_LENR-Report-Language.pdf
>>73743086
>The committee encourages the Department to continue to collaborate with minority-serving institutions and minority-owned
businesses.
This is an easy way to tell that this research isn't going anywhere for a while. I wouldn't spend money on fusion if I were you, buddy, especially in France where fission is king.
>>73743086
The thing is that "motor" is more like a battery. If put under load it will decrease in its potential until it stops spinning or the load is take away, which it will then spin up to speed again and provide another round of energy. Perpetual motion doesn't exist so far as we know.
Get it in your head that perpetual energy is not possible. It simply isn't. It isn't a theory. It's a law.
These youtube videos always either fake or leaving something out.
free energy: wind and solar
free because I'm not paying for the wind or for the sun to burn.
You have to get your energy from somewhere, you can't create energy out of nothing.
>>73741534
thats true... yet...
energy out = useful energy + useless energy
Is this the real alternative?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power
>>73746102
The energy is from motion dumb brain man
![sVa5KJq[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/WShBIaU.gif "sVa5KJq[1].gif")
>>73738756
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect#Applications
>>73746786
>from
lol
>>73741534
Yeah ok but where does the Casimir effect and quantum fluctuations come into consideration here? I agree you can't get more out than you put in, but what if some kind of fancy system were to have ~100% efficiency?
>>73746619
That's why I said simple energy balance. You're talking about exergy.
For anyone still here, this patent documentation will be of great interest.
https://www.google.com/patents/US20120105181
It gets into the science of it after the pictures.
Among other consequences of the theory, is the ability to do work using the Earth's magnetic field, or even the cosmic background radiation. Its what Tesla was on to, and its whats at Area 51.
>>73738756
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGIv4SQuNzY&feature=youtu.be&t=92
The energy required to make that apparatus far outweights the energy it could ever produce.
silly, dumb, 'engineer' scum
>>73747469
I'm not sure about what you're talking about. I didn't study theoretical physics in college (mechanical engineer). However, in most mechanical systems or energy exchanging systems there are already theoretical hard lines in efficiency. I do believe Carnot cycle is ~70% max theoretical efficiency. We will see what the future holds in breakthroughs in material and physical science, but as of now we're limited.
>>73739591
See:
>>73739775
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is basically a statement that systems tend towards thermal homogeneity. You need temperature gradients in order to extract energy to do work.
>>73747469
>>73747888
The thing is, an energy gradient, however weak, will do. Even something as simple two metal plates having a quiet space between them, when compared to the background. There's limitless energy all around us, you just have to figure out how to put it at the top of a gradient.
>>73747469
Energy can only be used to do work if there is some form of gradient to extract from. For example if the entire universe was extremely hot *everywhere*, usable energy wouldn't be more abundant. Same principal applies to vacuum energy.
that feel when thorium power is bullshit
>>73748387
Feels bad, right?
>>73739857
Even fusion energy yields to the power of the second law. You can't dismiss thermodynamics because it holds the name of "theory," somewhere in it's definition. It's proven to happen in every system we've ever measured. Energy eventually dissipates and equalizes into the environment around it. Until the universe is completely homogeneous, this will continue to happen.
>>73738756
>failing basic physics
>>73738886
not an argument
>>73748631
While you're right that it shouldn't be an argument to off handedly dismiss something, it works in this case. None of these machines are violating the 2nd law. They're more akin to mechanical batteries storing energy rather than engines.
Eric Dollard
Edward Leedskalnin
>>73738756
>to make it faster please donate
>>73748387
It is ? Since when ?
>>73739857
a bigger lie than the holocaust
>>73738756
I already am, with hydroeletricity.
I don't even need nuclear power plant.
>>73747885
Carnot cycle sets the theoretical efficiency limit of any thermodynamic cycle turning heat into work, but it hasn't to be 70% or anything like that.
If you were referring to the energy efficiency of real thermal machines then yeah we're achieving that figures (see combined cycles in power plants for example) though they aren't used that much because its cheaper to keep burning coal (more cost-effective) but we will always know what will be the max output possible out of
that system.
>>73748552
Either way you have to consider that we were talking thermodynamics here, and yes in this framework (macroscopic equilibrium states) those are the rules but there is another whole layer in physics where things get a lot funnier (not saying that those don't apply as well).
>>73747501
Hey I know about that, I also know about better ways to do that than what is described in that patent.
>>73750147
Like what? Please elaborate.
>>73751006
Like the fact that you dont have to use magnets as how they describe them, rather you can use plasma that is also charged with electricity and counter rotated against itself.
>>73749871
You're thinking of 2nd law efficiency, not cycle efficiency.
