[Dekan]

A Tripolation, on 3 June 2011 - 01:29 AM, said:

Precisely. It's not a system that resembles planets orbiting a star. That's been outdated for some time.

But surely the electron isn't in a fixed position? Relative to the central proton.

Sometimes the electron is on one side of the proton. Then it's on the other side. To get to the other side, the electron must move.

Whether it moves in a smooth continuous orbit, or abruptly "quantum leaps" around, doesn't really matter. The point is: it moves.

And it keeps moving forever. Without using up any of its electrical charge. (Assuming it doesn't get disturbed by outside interference).

Isn't that perpetual motion?

[bl4ster]

Change laws of physics and you have perpetum mobile.
Also eletrons move due out affects, its not possible to create something out of nothing

[Fuzzwood]

Go ahead and change them. It's not like they only exist on paper or something.

[bl4ster]

also if we look electrons as perpetum mobile,then our whole universe is perpetum.right?

[swansont]

Dekan, on 3 June 2011 - 05:01 PM, said:

But surely the electron isn't in a fixed position? Relative to the central proton.

Sometimes the electron is on one side of the proton. Then it's on the other side. To get to the other side, the electron must move.

Whether it moves in a smooth continuous orbit, or abruptly "quantum leaps" around, doesn't really matter. The point is: it moves.

And it keeps moving forever. Without using up any of its electrical charge. (Assuming it doesn't get disturbed by outside interference).

Isn't that perpetual motion?

The motion of the electron in an atom is not a straightforward extrapolation of macroscopic motion. We don't know the electron is one one side or the other unless we measure its location, which takes energy. Regardless, the entropy of the system does not decrease and no energy is created. It's a quantum system where the energy cannot go anywhere. The impossibility of perpetual motion is a summary that is applied to macroscopic systems and can get misinterpreted because it's not the fundamental principle (much like "nothing can go faster than light" gets misapplied). The fundamental principles are from the laws of thermodynamics: entropy cannot spontaneously decrease — it increases for non-reversible processes — and energy is conserved. Electrons in orbitals of an an atom represents a reversible process. Entropy will remain constant.

[random]

I'm rather partial to the radio frequency Idea I watched an experiment once I think on a show called myth busters wherein the proved by tapping into an objects frequency very little energy could set an extremely large bridge vibrating. They used a compact "pendulum" like device which maybe weighed a few pounds that could be adjusted to the frequency of the bridge and they set the whole thing vibrating, one has to speculate this energy could be converted into a power source and since it is IMO amplified power it could be argued as a free energy source.

[insane_alien]

random, on 25 June 2011 - 05:59 PM, said:

I'm rather partial to the radio frequency Idea I watched an experiment once I think on a show called myth busters wherein the proved by tapping into an objects frequency very little energy could set an extremely large bridge vibrating. They used a compact "pendulum" like device which maybe weighed a few pounds that could be adjusted to the frequency of the bridge and they set the whole thing vibrating, one has to speculate this energy could be converted into a power source and since it is IMO amplified power it could be argued as a free energy source.

it is not amplified power.

what is happening is that the bridge isn't losing very much energy at that frequency so it allows small perturbations to accumulate until the rate of energy loss matches the rate of energy input with a relatively large energy resevoir contained in the structure.

think of it this way:

you have a bucket and you put a small pinhole in the bottom. now you start dripping water in slowly. the water level will rise until the rate of the water leaking out the bottom matches what you are putting in at the top. you 'll even be able to get a full bucket of water if you balance the rates right.

what you are talking about with the vibrating bridge is to do the bucket idea, and then have more water leaking out of the bottom than you put in.

its absurd.

[swansont]

What insane_alien said.

Resonance means you've minimized losses and stored a lot of energy in the oscillating system, but it will be no greater than the energy you put in.

[TonyMcC]

If you have a mechanical system that is responding to force that is changing at its resonant frequency it is quite possible to damp the resulting oscillations. The amount of energy the damping system has to absorb will be relatively small. If you tried to extract energy from an undamped system this would have a damping effect on the oscillations - as had been said before, you can't get more energy out of the system than was put into the system which caused the oscillations.

[JustinW]

I had an idea once that is probably as ignorant as it sounds. What if you had a fan that blew wind into some sort of impeller or prop that inturn operated a generator. The electrical current from the generator could then be routed back to power the fan motor. I disregarded the idea because of size and scope. To produce any significant amount of power the fan would have to be fairly large to produce the tork necessary to power the generator. Then you would have to worry about producing enough energy to even power the fan, as large as it would have to be, let alone come up with a (worth while) extra amount of energy. Just throwing it out there.

[TonyMcC]

JustinW, on 20 October 2011 - 05:37 PM, said:

I had an idea once that is probably as ignorant as it sounds. What if you had a fan that blew wind into some sort of impeller or prop that inturn operated a generator. The electrical current from the generator could then be routed back to power the fan motor. I disregarded the idea because of size and scope. To produce any significant amount of power the fan would have to be fairly large to produce the tork necessary to power the generator. Then you would have to worry about producing enough energy to even power the fan, as large as it would have to be, let alone come up with a (worth while) extra amount of energy. Just throwing it out there.

Your worry is justified. I think you have seen for yourself that the generator will not produce enough power to drive the fan.

[slavenenco]

I think that it might actually work, but i also think that producing energy from radio waves or static electricity, would be a lot more efficient, tesla invented something like that...