Infinite Energy Idea

[Titan Space Agency]

Infinite Energy Idea

I have evidence, Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium_Isotopes

One day I was bored and looked up helium isotopes on Wikipedia. I found something interesting, Helium 5 decays into Helium 4. And if you shoot a neutron at a nucleus, it will be one isotope higher. You could exploit this by using a neutron gun to shoot a neutron at a helium 4 nucleus and it will turn into a helium 5 atom. That will then decay into helium 4 and a neutron witch could hit another helium 4 atom and so on, so on. Tell me what you think of this idea. If you find evidence that I’m wrong link it so that you have proof.

Edited August 24, 2013 by Titan Space Agency
Spelling Corrections

[Person012345]

I think that you should learn thermodynamics.

Then some spelling.

Edit: Basically, it would most likely require more energy to fire the particle at the helium and make it stick than you would get from the decay (otherwise it would violate physics). Is my guess. Perpetual motion/infinite energy (in any useful way) is impossible.

Edited August 24, 2013 by Person012345

[JMBuilder]

I had a similar idea involving unstable noble gas compounds. Similar problem, though.

HOWEVER, you might be able to use Potassium decay to turn Helium-4 into Helium-5. Banana reactor, anybody?

Edited August 24, 2013 by JMBuilder

[Titan Space Agency]

Figured out the spell-check and fixed my spelling!!!!

[Titan Space Agency]

I had a similar idea involving unstable noble gas compounds. Similar problem, though.

HOWEVER, you might be able to use Potassium decay to turn Helium-4 into Helium-5. Banana reactor, anybody?

That is so funny lololoololololol:D

[Kimberly]

Entirely possible in theory. But many perpetual motion systems work in theory--you can use electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, then cause a chain reaction that releases energy and puts them back together again. In theory, no energy input is required.

In practice, other effects are at play. You have friction to deal with, for example. And in the hydrogen example, you have to be able to capture all of the released energy--which you can't. Plus, no system can produce more energy than is put into it.

Edited August 25, 2013 by Kimberly

[SpaceHole]

Infinite Energy has already been invented:

On the other hand couldnt "infinite" or "free" energy be produce rather "easy" by for example producing electricity underground with the energy (especially the heat) (for example with steam turbines) in the earth? (as soon as technology is advanced enough to get there and stay there without bigger problems )

And @OP as other posters said there is no such thing as "free" energy. You will probably use way more energy to do what you just said than the energy you get out of it.

Not to mention that it is highly unlikely that you just found infinite energy by reading 1 wikipedia-article

Edited August 25, 2013 by SpaceHole

[K^2]

Basically, it would most likely require more energy to fire the particle at the helium and make it stick than you would get from the decay (otherwise it would violate physics). Is my guess.

And it's on the money. ⁴He->⁵He requires a fast neutron capture, something around 10MeV. That's almost 15% of the speed of light for a neutron. On the plus side, there doesn't seem to be much of a barrier, so if you managed to prevent ⁵He from decaying in a fraction of a zeptosecond, you could probably use it as an extremely high storage battery.

[stupid_chris]

You can't create energy out of nothing. A closed given system has a given amount of energy and that number won't ever change. You can switch the states of objects to modify what kinds of energy you have, but switching from a kind to another will always take the same amount of energy, minus the heat losses. So no, infinite sources of energy simply doesn't exist.

[WhiteWeasel]

You can't create energy out of nothing. A closed given system has a given amount of energy and that number won't ever change. You can switch the states of objects to modify what kinds of energy you have, but switching from a kind to another will always take the same amount of energy, minus the heat losses. So no, infinite sources of energy simply doesn't exist.

Disclaimer: I may be wrong.

So how do these work? I believe because of the first law of thermodynamics energy in a closed system (relatively speaking in this case) will remain in that system. However when generating power that power has to come from somewhere, so these machines can continually recycle their own energy, but they cannot generate power because that would 'open' the system and lose energy in the conversion, therefore no infinite energy. (or the whole video is a sham, and just really high efficiency).

[JMBuilder]

Even if those are ways to make infinite energy, the amounts of energy would be minuscule; not enough to power everything.

[Bunsen]

So how do these work?

Seriously? They don't. The only one of those that isn't faked is the rolling double cone, and it's actually rolling downhill. The first one has a pump hidden in the base (the tube doesn't go straight through the support under the vessel, watch how long it takes for the fluid to show up further along the tube), and all of the wheel variations have motors. I'm pretty sure those all have entries over in The Museum of Unworkable Devices, which is a good read if you want to understand why each of those ideas is stupid.

[Mr Shifty]

So how do these work? I believe because of the first law of thermodynamics energy in a closed system (relatively speaking in this case) will remain in that system. However when generating power that power has to come from somewhere, so these machines can continually recycle their own energy, but they cannot generate power because that would 'open' the system and lose energy in the conversion, therefore no infinite energy. (or the whole video is a sham, and just really high efficiency).

These are pretty classic examples that have been disproven many times over. The video is -- as you say -- a hoax, either deliberately using outside energy to power the devices, or not showing them long enough to see their action decay. The real tell there is that the video asks for money at the end.

- The flask: it is physically impossible to siphon a fluid up into a higher reservoir

- The cones going uphill: you can see pretty clearly that the center of gravity is moving downhill

- All those over-balanced wheels: they are analogous to pendulums and will reach equilibrium

[stupid_chris]

You really can't create more energy. You can harvest it, but there's a finite number of it. If you take the whole Universe as a closed system, it has a finite amount of energy, under many many forums, and you'll never be able to form more energy than the Universe currently has. You can't add more by a simple trick, you can only gather it from sources that give away energy, i.e. mostly stars as of right now.

[Stargate525]

The only way to get 'free' energy, MAYBE, is from managing to extract it from Zero-Point Energy. Problem is, we have no way to try and extract it, no idea if it'll work, and no idea whether it actually is an infinite amount of energy. Jury's still out, though. The main arguments against it seem to be 'you can't because you can't,' which in quantum mechanics is a bit of a farce.

[Fractal_UK]

The only way to get 'free' energy, MAYBE, is from managing to extract it from Zero-Point Energy. Problem is, we have no way to try and extract it, no idea if it'll work, and no idea whether it actually is an infinite amount of energy. Jury's still out, though. The main arguments against it seem to be 'you can't because you can't,' which in quantum mechanics is a bit of a farce.

You can't because it's the minimum energy a system can have, just because the ground state has some none-zero energy associated with it doesn't mean that's of any use. The ground state is still the ground state, you can't go any lower.

It might be possible to extract energy from the quantum vacuum but that relies on the idea that the current vacuum state is metastable, if that is the case and something prompted the vacuum to decay to its ground state you'd get energy out. This would be a one-off event, however and the effect, as it expanded, would probably destroy everything in the universe, so it's probably not a great idea as an energy generation method! Current data is not clear on whether we live in a stable or metastable vacuum.

[Person012345]

guys, anything that claims to be able to take a small amount of input energy then run for an infinite amount of time by producing or recycling it's own energy is fake. At least doing so on any macro scale level (I'm not sure if there's any funny quantum effect that might make this possible but I certainly haven't seen any alleged perpetual motion device that utilizes it if so). In a closed system you can't just magically make energy out of nothing, as nice as the concept is.

[Person012345]

So how do these work? I believe because of the first law of thermodynamics energy in a closed system (relatively speaking in this case) will remain in that system. However when generating power that power has to come from somewhere, so these machines can continually recycle their own energy, but they cannot generate power because that would 'open' the system and lose energy in the conversion, therefore no infinite energy. (or the whole video is a sham, and just really high efficiency).

As mentioned they're fake and the concepts behind them have been debunked. Whilst it's true that theoretically you could have perpetual motion in a closed system where no other effects happen, as long as all the energy was kept in the system and stayed there, but you couldn't make this useful because 100% of the energy would be required to keep the machine working and in real life there are all sorts of other effects such as friction and entropy and so on which means that any such machine will lose energy to it's surroundings and will therefore stop unless you apply more energy.

[lajoswinkler]

Entirely possible in theory. But many perpetual motion systems work in theory--you can use electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, then cause a chain reaction that releases energy and puts them back together again. In theory, no energy input is required.

In practice, other effects are at play. You have friction to deal with, for example. And in the hydrogen example, you have to be able to capture all of the released energy--which you can't. Plus, no system can produce more energy than is put into it.

No, they don't work "in theory". They work in ignorant people's heads.

In theory, these things fall apart immediately.

So how do these work?

They work using lies.

[Canopus]

As soon as i read "infinite energy" i voted No i dont think it will. Sorry but there is no infinite energy.

[SpaceHole]

As soon as i read "infinite energy" i voted No i dont think it will. Sorry but there is no infinite energy.

Well some things come close to "infinite energy" at least from a human perspective - if we could use the energy of the sun better or for example use the inner heat of the earth etc.

[Canopus]

Well some things come close to "infinite energy" at least from a human perspective - if we could use the energy of the sun better or for example use the inner heat of the earth etc.

The energy of the sun and the earth's core is not infinite either.

[Bacterius]

The energy of the sun and the earth's core is not infinite either.

I think what he meant was that it is practically infinite, as in "we will never need that much". Of course, history has shown that this is usually not the case - whenever we find more power, we also find creative ways to waste even more of it.

[Canopus]

He should still not call it "infinite energy". Call it enough energy then.

[Bacterius]

He should still not call it "infinite energy". Call it enough energy then.

He didn't. He said "come close to infinite energy, at least from a human perspective".

Edited August 25, 2013 by Bacterius