(Near) endless energy

[Anarcho-Leftist States of Horseflip]

So advocates of circular energy have been floating round since time immemorial. Constantly derailed as conspiratorial morons with little science background, their work is typically called useless or a hoax. My background certainly is not in science, but it seems to me that even if the energy generated is not completely circular, there certainly is a degree of sustainability in many such projects that otherwise goes to waste.

I call upon some hopefully more scientifically minded folks to answer the following:
-How permanent are circular energy sources?
-Is it worth instituting on any kind of scale?

[Khadgar]

Violating the laws of thermodynamics isn't possible. Endless energy would violate the laws, ergo, impossible. No free lunch with physics.

[Raeyh]

You can make it more efficient by using the energy lost to heat, but I don't think you can do much beyond that.

[Seperates]

Theoretically, we are on the verge of making a nuclear reaction "self-sustaining". Go check out the National Ignition Facility.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Violating the laws of thermodynamics isn't possible. Endless energy would violate the laws, ergo, impossible. No free lunch with physics.

Solar energy is functionally endless in supply (if incredibly limited in efficiency, output and environmental friendliness), since most of us won't be here in five billion years when the sun dies.

Strictly, many other resources such as hydrogen are infinite essentially, since they make up much of the universe - and uranium deposits will also be throughout the universe.
We just need to learn to strip mine celestial bodies.

[Khadgar]

Violating the laws of thermodynamics isn't possible. Endless energy would violate the laws, ergo, impossible. No free lunch with physics.

Solar energy is functionally endless in supply (if incredibly limited in efficiency, output and environmental friendliness), since most of us won't be here in five billion years when the sun dies.

Strictly, many other resources such as hydrogen are infinite essentially, since they make up much of the universe - and uranium deposits will also be throughout the universe.
We just need to learn to strip mine celestial bodies.

Tear apart the sun, use the hydrogen in controlled fusion reactors. Use it all. Probably less trouble than a dyson swarm.

[Seperates]

Violating the laws of thermodynamics isn't possible. Endless energy would violate the laws, ergo, impossible. No free lunch with physics.

However, the laws of thermodymics only apply to a closed system, which we aren't certain that the universe is.

[Olivaero]

You can certainly try but friction will get you in the end, even if it's just friction on air molecules, as an aside I assume your talking about perpetual motion? because Even the mighty Google isn't very fourth coming with "circular energy"

[Enadail]

Violating the laws of thermodynamics isn't possible. Endless energy would violate the laws, ergo, impossible. No free lunch with physics.

However, the laws of thermodymics only apply to a closed system, which we aren't certain that the universe is.

Huh? Everything I've learned about the Universe said it is a closed system, that it is not infinite... is there new work I'm unaware of? Or did I misunderstand what I learned? For it to not be closed, wouldn't it have to be infinite?

[Salandriagado]

However, the laws of thermodymics only apply to a closed system, which we aren't certain that the universe is.

Huh? Everything I've learned about the Universe said it is a closed system, that it is not infinite... is there new work I'm unaware of? Or did I misunderstand what I learned? For it to not be closed, wouldn't it have to be infinite?

I believe he's referring to the multiverse hypothesis.

[Samuraikoku]

Sorry, no can do.

[Iapetus]

I call upon some hopefully more scientifically minded folks to answer the following:
-How permanent are circular energy sources?
-Is it worth instituting on any kind of scale?

Newton’s Cradle operating in a vacuum is probably as good as it gets. Of course you can't do anything with that as a power source that doesn’t make it run down quicker.

Thinking a bit outside of the perpetual motion box, the hydrological cycle and therefore hydropower sort of fits what you want. It’s indirectly running off of solar power so while not exactly a “free lunch" the sun covers much of your lunch bill, you just have to build the chairs and table and polish the cutlery a bit.

[Enadail]

Huh? Everything I've learned about the Universe said it is a closed system, that it is not infinite... is there new work I'm unaware of? Or did I misunderstand what I learned? For it to not be closed, wouldn't it have to be infinite?

I believe he's referring to the multiverse hypothesis.

Ah, in which case it doesn't mean its an open system... as far as we know, its numerous closed systems all together. Unless there's a way for energy/matter to travel between universes, its still a closed system.

[Gauntleted Fist]

-How permanent are circular energy sources?

Not even remotely.

-Is it worth instituting on any kind of scale?

No. The problem with energy generation on any scale is inefficiency. The reason we get away with what we have now is that we don't care because we can always throw more [energy source] (Coal, natural gas, water, etc.) at it.

[Salandriagado]

I believe he's referring to the multiverse hypothesis.

Ah, in which case it doesn't mean its an open system... as far as we know, its numerous closed systems all together. Unless there's a way for energy/matter to travel between universes, its still a closed system.

I would presume that he's referring to some kind of inter-universe interactions.

[Northwest Slobovia]

I call upon some hopefully more scientifically minded folks to answer the following:
-How permanent are circular energy sources?

I have no idea what these would be other than "perpetual motion machines", which are bunk. The best Google can do with the term is find a renewable energy consultancy and a health club called "circular energy".

-Is it worth instituting on any kind of scale?

Given that, no.

As others have already said, there are plenty of sources which are essentially inexhaustable -- will likely outlast our species, much less our civilization -- so why bother?

[Seperates]

I believe he's referring to the multiverse hypothesis.

Ah, in which case it doesn't mean its an open system... as far as we know, its numerous closed systems all together. Unless there's a way for energy/matter to travel between universes, its still a closed system.

Or perhaps free energy randomly comes into the universe from a place where the physics are different and energy can propogate freely.

Not that this is represented in the physical evidence. Again, physicists aren't totally certain that the universe is a completely closed system at the present time, although most, if not all, current evidence points to a singular universe. I'm merely speculating.
However I do encourage anybody who is interested to check out the National Ignition Facility.

[Enadail]

Ah, in which case it doesn't mean its an open system... as far as we know, its numerous closed systems all together. Unless there's a way for energy/matter to travel between universes, its still a closed system.

Or perhaps free energy randomly comes into the universe from a place where the physics are different and energy can propogate freely.

Not that this is represented in the physical evidence. Again, physicists aren't totally certain that the universe is a completely closed system at the present time, although most, if not all, current evidence points to a singular universe. I'm merely speculating.
However I do encourage anybody who is interested to check out the National Ignition Facility.

Well, yah, if there's a part of the universe that doesn't work how we think the universe works, all the rules fall apart You could actually compare apples and oranges!

[Seperates]

Or perhaps free energy randomly comes into the universe from a place where the physics are different and energy can propogate freely.

Not that this is represented in the physical evidence. Again, physicists aren't totally certain that the universe is a completely closed system at the present time, although most, if not all, current evidence points to a singular universe. I'm merely speculating.
However I do encourage anybody who is interested to check out the National Ignition Facility.

Well, yah, if there's a part of the universe that doesn't work how we think the universe works, all the rules fall apart You could actually compare apples and oranges!

You can do that in this universe, though. Both are fruit. Both grow on trees. Both are made up of organic matierials. Both carry seeds within them, etc. etc. etc.

Again, National Ignition Facility. It's pretty fucking awesome.

[Meridiani Planum]

-How permanent are circular energy sources?

What is "circular energy", and would you please give an example?

[Kilobugya]

The problem is not about energy, but about entropy. Energy is never lost. It's only converted. The problem is that when you need some work to be done (moving an object, or anything) you need to convert a low entropy energy form to a higher entropy energy form (usually, chemical or nuclear energy into heat). And that move can't be undone. The Second Law of Thermodynamics say that entropy can only grow.

Take a fridge for example. The purpose of a fridge is to cool things, that is, to lower their energy state. Without entropy issues, you could take the heat from the food, and convert it to electricity. So you fridge would produce "energy". But in fact, you can't. The only way to pump heat from a place (the inside of the fridge) to another place (the outside of it) which is warmer is to actually use a low-entropy energy source (electricity) and convert it to heat, so the total entropy of (fridge + outside) is still growing. So your fridge, to cool the inside, has to consume "energy", or more exactly "low-entropy, usable, energy" and convert it into heat, releasing more heat outside the fridge than the cold it generates inside.

And everything work like that. You have endless energy, but you'll never have endless energy that can produce work. Because of entropy always increasing.

[Starkindler]

I think on circular energy he meant recycling the energy we used as the Law of Conservation of Energy dictates that one cannot create, nor destroy energy. I can only imagine it as heat recycling, since most of the (electric) energy consumed by appliances is either converted to something useful (considering your computer: running programs, displaying information on the screen), and heat (that's why you need fans or water-cooling). Problem with this is, that

• heat can only be transferred to short distances or with a significant loss
• households and many industries generate heat in a large amount of small pointlike sources, and not to a huge centralized heat tank where it can be easily removed (an office has eg. 2,000 computers, each generating ~ 200 W of heat each, which is dissipated independently rather than conveniently building up eg. near the electricity meter)
• and mostly: converting heat to electricity has huge losses. Think on the order of ~ 30-40% efficiency fuel in to electricity out. Modern turbine design and engineers are striving to upgrade this efficiency, thus make it possible to produce the same amount of power with fewer plants, or recycle industrial heat.

[Magrathea]

Violating the laws of thermodynamics isn't possible. Endless energy would violate the laws, ergo, impossible. No free lunch with physics.

However, the laws of thermodymics only apply to a closed system, which we aren't certain that the universe is.

If the energy is coming from outside the system, say from solar or wind, then its not a perpetual motion machine by definition. And that is what we are talking about here, isn't it?

I have heard a leading scientist describe the thermodynamic laws as some of the most reliable ideas in science and the least likely to be overturned.

[Seperates]

However, the laws of thermodymics only apply to a closed system, which we aren't certain that the universe is.

If the energy is coming from outside the system, say from solar or wind, then its not a perpetual motion machine by definition. And that is what we are talking about here, isn't it?

I have heard a leading scientist describe the thermodynamic laws as some of the most reliable ideas in science and the least likely to be overturned.

Indeed. But all ideas have a possiblitly of being overturned... and as we go further and further into the orgins of our universe, who knows? Newtonian mechanics were once the overwhelming model for physics, until Einstien came around, just like the Bohr Model of the atom before the Quantum Cloud. Progress is a wonderful thing. Let's just follow where the evidence takes us.

[Magrathea]

If the energy is coming from outside the system, say from solar or wind, then its not a perpetual motion machine by definition. And that is what we are talking about here, isn't it?

I have heard a leading scientist describe the thermodynamic laws as some of the most reliable ideas in science and the least likely to be overturned.

Indeed. But all ideas have a possiblitly of being overturned... and as we go further and further into the orgins of our universe, who knows? Newtonian mechanics were once the overwhelming model for physics, until Einstien came around, just like the Bohr Model of the atom before the Quantum Cloud. Progress is a wonderful thing. Let's just follow where the evidence takes us.

Absolutely. Science is provisional and can change with new evidence. However, in a way Newtonian mechanics is still correct - engineers still apply his math. Also, Newtonian mechanics did have some problems in describing planetary motion, in particular mercury's orbit. I am pretty sure there are no such cracks in our thermodynamics laws.