Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

The Future of Energy?

Posted Jul 24, '14 at 11:19am

crazyape

crazyape

1,800 posts

Yet you have only managed to produce one pro for thorium in practical applications: It is extracted as a pure single isotope. Everything else you mentioned only detracts from its usefulness.


What is this? I am not fighting you. This is a DISCUSSION. I already validated your claims and told you I respect your opinion. My belief that Thorium holds the future of energy production is not a personal affront to you and your beliefs, it is an opinion based on facts and observation.

If I have said or done something to offend you I will gladly discuss it with you, and a mediator if you so choose. But a discussion forum is the wrong place to bring your feelings in on a SCIENTIFIC subject.
 

Posted Jul 24, '14 at 2:21pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,512 posts

Knight

The future lies not in nuclear fission, of any type. The future lies in nuclear fusion. We're not there yet, but boy if we ever get there...

@weirdlike I don't know if maybe I misunderstood something in your proposition, and I didn't follow every post between you and 09philj. But, you don't create energy out of nowhere. What you are proposing sounds like a perpetuum mobile, and we all know this is physically not possible.

Consider this. To make the generator turn, you have to invest energy. You will get energy, but less than you invested, because of friction and other things, in short: your machine has an efficiency factor. By putting in gears, you will make your machine more efficient. What does this mean? It means you will lose less energy. But you will not make more energy than you invest. Not even as much as you invested. If you really know a way to make a machine run with near 100% efficiency, then go patent this idea and you will become the richest person on Earth.


last edited Jul 24 2014 02:22 pm by HahiHa
 

Posted Jul 24, '14 at 4:17pm

weirdlike

weirdlike

989 posts

Moderator

I was waiting for the friction comment

Still, I feel perpetual motion is still debatable YOUTUBE

 

Posted Jul 24, '14 at 4:46pm

FishPreferred

FishPreferred

1,990 posts

I already validated your claims and told you I respect your opinion.My belief that Thorium holds the future of energy production is not a personal affront to you and your beliefs, it is an opinion based on facts and observation.


You haven't encountered my opinion yet. Opinion has no place here. Only the facts are relevant, and they refute your conclusion.

But a discussion forum is the wrong place to bring your feelings in on a SCIENTIFIC subject.


Indeed. You therefore have no justification for playing the hurt card. Save that for the theology threads.

Still, I feel perpetual motion is still debatable YOUTUBE


Um...you know that thing slows to a stop in less than 3 minutes, right? You can debate it, but it is quite clear that perpetual motion mechanics is an impossible ideal. No Newton's cradle will ever increase its kinetic energy by its own movement alone.
 

Posted Jul 24, '14 at 5:16pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,512 posts

Knight

Still, I feel perpetual motion is still debatable YOUTUBE

You still lose energy at each step, simply in other ways than friction.
 

Posted Jul 24, '14 at 5:46pm

09philj

09philj

2,409 posts

Still, I feel perpetual motion is still debatable YOUTUBE


The newton's cradle loses energy through sound and heat, for example.
 

Posted Jul 24, '14 at 5:54pm

weirdlike

weirdlike

989 posts

Moderator

Yes. This is true.

Tho, if you put energy into the ball on the left and count the number of times that the ball (on the left) returns the energy. If it hits 100 times then you only applied 1% of the energy used. This is what I was getting at with the gears. Eventually it breaks down but the possibility of energy gained is there.

 

Posted Jul 24, '14 at 7:20pm

09philj

09philj

2,409 posts

the possibility of energy gained is there.


A perpetual motion machine isn't possible. To work, it would need to be frictionless, make no noise, generate no heat, encounter no air resistance, or transfer energy to it's surroundings in any other way.
 

Posted Jul 24, '14 at 7:46pm

FishPreferred

FishPreferred

1,990 posts

Tho, if you put energy into the ball on the left and count the number of times that the ball (on the left) returns the energy. If it hits 100 times then you only applied 1% of the energy used. This is what I was getting at with the gears. Eventually it breaks down but the possibility of energy gained is there.


No. The energy applied at the start is partially conserved throughout the entire operation, not multiplied 100 times. There is no energy gain.

A perpetual motion machine isn't possible. To work, it would need to be frictionless, make no noise, generate no heat, encounter no air resistance, or transfer energy to it's surroundings in any other way.


That would only be an ideal machine. A lone atom at absolute zero could possess all of these qualities and break no laws, but could not produce any work. A perpetual motion machine doesn't have to be ideal, but must perform some amount of work without consuming energy to do so. That is why it isn't possible.
 

Posted Jul 24, '14 at 8:05pm

weirdlike

weirdlike

989 posts

Moderator

And what is impossible to science?

We've all heard it before. Might as well tell the Wright brothers to stop wasting their time. Sorry Nikola everything that can be invented has been invented.

But THIS is actually pretty interesting to me, I wonder if it could be achieved using a smaller motor with gears.

 
Reply to The Future of Energy?

You must be logged in to post a reply!