Free Energy

thor

BillScarab wrote:

Wouldn't it be more in the interests of whichever oil company came across this to buy up the rights, patent it and then sell it, thus making themselves a fortune and putting every other energy company out of business?

Yes that would be true but this is why I stated that the energy could be produced very easily by anyone. What if there was an idea which is very obvious and easy to replicate but only in hindsight? It would be very hard to patent. Just think if the wheel was invented now. How would you stop people from making use of it?

thor

superscaper wrote:

I still don't get it, if I was an oil company exec I'd still be personally far better off releasing the technology (even for free) than suppressing it from a personal wealth point of view. From an oil company, the execs can only make a finite amount of money from very finite resources. Something like "free" energy would be beneficial to them even if they shared it with their competitors.

WE are talking business i.e. about greedy people here. They will always want to be placed above the pleb. Sure they would benefit if free energy was unrestricted but do you really think they would enjoy seeing the man in the street not dependant on him or his company? He could no longer look down on them.

stevemcol

superscaper wrote:

Not quite, as a PMM of 1st kind you can't extract any energy from the system and won't have reached 100% efficiency either. As a PMM of 2nd kind the impact of both real and virtual particles and various gravity wells will affect the system and so it is not enclosed. If you think I'm being pedantic, I'm not really, PMM of 2nd kind is all about the actual practicality of the machines. And because it is all about 100%+ energy efficiency from an enclosed system with no external addition of energy then it can only be talking about motion in the energy sense and not acceleration.

superscaper

The universe is expanding and the smart money says it's not slowing down. Assuming the initial impulse is now extinct, we are watching perpetual motion at work.

superscaper

stevemcol wrote:

superscaper

The universe is expanding and the smart money says it's not slowing down. Assuming the initial impulse is now extinct, we are watching perpetual motion at work.

No because it is an example of increasing entropy which is actually the opposite of what a PMM would be capable of. You can only talk about perpetual motion in any meaningful sense when you are specifying the enclosed system. Maybe we are talking at cross purposes here, you seem to be focussed on the english definition of motion and I'm focussed on the definition of PMM as defined in my thermodynamics study days and they aren't the same thing.

kaya

i looked into this "invention" last year, the company is run by a marketing "expert" not a scientist, and they wouldnt answer any of my sensible questions on there forum either, happy to tell you how well the kiddies were etc. etc. , im sure that one day somebody will crack the laws of physics and create perpetual energy, but i doubt this guy in ireland has.

stevemcol

superscaper wrote:

No because it is an example of increasing entropy which is actually the opposite of what a PMM would be capable of. You can only talk about perpetual motion in any meaningful sense when you are specifying the enclosed system. Maybe we are talking at cross purposes here, you seem to be focussed on the english definition of motion and I'm focussed on the definition of PMM as defined in my thermodynamics study days and they aren't the same thing.

Now you're getting me. I've never been happy with the term perpetual motion; I believe it's been incorrectly used from the start.

superscaper

stevemcol wrote:

Now you're getting me. I've never been happy with the term perpetual motion; I believe it's been incorrectly used from the start.

I think we've reached a compromise then. It's like many terms in science that seem to be different to everyday language. "Perpetual Motion" I think is only called that in science because it is a good example (of one of many) to visualise the energies involved, but an actual perpetual motion machine neither has to go on forever nor does it even have to have any mechanical moving parts. In fact some of the recent attempts at a PMM don't really have any what you'd call motion at all. Eg using sonic waves to implode air bubbles. I mean if you are a scientist and know the definitions and concepts then it is a very appropriate term, but if you aren't and are only going on colloquial English then it isn't really the right term, but since it is a scientific concept then maybe there isn't anything more appropriate to describe it. If you think perpetual motion is a misleading name then wait until I start discussing the related topic of Maxwell's Demon (I kid you not it is the actual name of a genuine scientific concept) :beer:

marleyboy

superscaper wrote:

No because it is an example of increasing entropy which is actually the opposite of what a PMM would be capable of. You can only talk about perpetual motion in any meaningful sense when you are specifying the enclosed system. Maybe we are talking at cross purposes here, you seem to be focussed on the english definition of motion and I'm focussed on the definition of PMM as defined in my thermodynamics study days and they aren't the same thing.

Concider the science of the Sun, where scientists now know that the surface of the Sun is hotter than that of its core, meaning that it increases its power in a chain reaction, thus creating more than 100% of its total energy.

superscaper

marleyboy wrote:

Concider the science of the Sun, where scientists now know that the surface of the Sun is hotter than that of its core, meaning that it increases its power in a chain reaction, thus creating more than 100% of its total energy.

Have to disagree again, it may seem to release more energy than is put in but that's nuclear fusion for you. Matter conversion to energy: you'll find that energy is still conserved by e=mc^2. Unless you know a reference of a claim that the sun is "creating" energy. I've not heard any, I try to keep updated but maybe I've missed something. I would genuinely like to know as I really enjoy studying physics.

thor

I seriously doubt that scientists think the surface of the Sun is hotter than it's center. The Sun's surface is at 6000 Kelvin with the Corona above it considerably hotter at 2 or 3 million K upto perhaps 10million K. The center is at an incredible 15Million K and that is as hot as you can get in our Sun.