If we could build an Alcubierre Drive what would we see?

[bilby]

Superconductivity at a few degrees Kelvin requires energy to stay cold, IOW refrifridgeration. There is no violation of LOT in terms of perpetual motion. Don't know if it is still running, there was a superconducting current loop that appeared to have no degradation, but again the system in toto is not lossless. Those pesky LOT. The problem is in measuring. Any ,easement requires a transfer of energy, no way to know if resistance is exactly zero.

I have a cousin who worked on the cooling system for the RHIC collider superconducting magnets.

No energy is needed to cool objects to temperatures above ~3K; Superconductivity has been observed at as high as 138K.

Refrigeration is needed to reach and maintain that temperature on Earth, but the surface of the Earth is a very unusual environment. Almost all of the physical universe is a very hard vacuum at a temperature of about 3K. Your claim here is about as outdated and imbecilic as saying 'Nature abhors a vacuum'.

The idiosyncrasies of your immediate environment are not universal truths.

 

[bilby]

'Never' is a dangerous word to use without VERY good evidence to support it, too.

I agree. It definitely suggests infinities exist in actual fact without the beginning of a clue and this is needlessly upsetting a few people around here.

On the other hand, not saying the word "never" in this particular case is admission to the possibility of perpetual movement, itself a kind of actual infinity I guess.

So, damn if you do, damn if you don't.

Well, in a nutshell that's just life for you, I guess.
EB

Perpetual movement is an observed reality. An object in motion remains in motion forever unless acted upon by a force.

Such an object cannot do any work, so a perpetual motion machine is impossible; But there's nothing wrong with perpetual motion itself - indeed, as there are no preferred reference frames, there is no absolute standard by which to determine whether a single object is in motion or not. Imagine two neutrinos in deep space. From the perspective of neutrino A, neutrino B comes hurtling past at the speed of light, and we wonder how long it can maintain such a phenomenal velocity. Meanwhile, from the perspective of neutrino B, A does the exact same thing, and we can ask the exact same question. So if perpetual movement is impossible, which neutrino should lose some (or all) of its velocity over time, and why?

 

[steve_bank]

LOT applies to any bounded system. Throw a rock in 0 g and it has kinetic energy. LOT says more energy must be expended in launching the rock than the kinetic energy. Further, work can be done by converting the kinetic energy to useful work. LOT says that all of the kinetic energy of the rock can not be converted to useful work. More correctly LOT says a perputual motion machine can not exists, it will run down. The rock in space is not a perpetual motion machine.

Burn a rocket engine in 0 g. The ship ends up with a kinetic energy. More chemical energy must be burned in the engine than the reulting kinetic energy.

I saw a sketch of an attemopt at perpetual motion from centuries back. Pegs were put on a vertiucal disk on a shaft. Bags of sand were hung from the pegs. The idea was that once the wheel started turing the falling weighrs would lift the risng weights, perpetual motion.

Thermodynamics 101.

 

[steve_bank]

For what its worth, perpetual motion is a catch all phrase for any process or device which has an efficiency equal to or greater than 1. An efficiency of 1 implies a lossless system. An efficiency greater than 1 implies more energy out than goes in.

 

[steve_bank]

Superconductivity at a few degrees Kelvin requires energy to stay cold, IOW refrifridgeration. There is no violation of LOT in terms of perpetual motion. Don't know if it is still running, there was a superconducting current loop that appeared to have no degradation, but again the system in toto is not lossless. Those pesky LOT. The problem is in measuring. Any ,easement requires a transfer of energy, no way to know if resistance is exactly zero.

I have a cousin who worked on the cooling system for the RHIC collider superconducting magnets.

No energy is needed to cool objects to temperatures above ~3K; Superconductivity has been observed at as high as 138K.

Refrigeration is needed to reach and maintain that temperature on Earth, but the surface of the Earth is a very unusual environment. Almost all of the physical universe is a very hard vacuum at a temperature of about 3K. Your claim here is about as outdated and imbecilic as saying 'Nature abhors a vacuum'.

The idiosyncrasies of your immediate environment are not universal truths.

Another science denier comes out of the closet.

At this point I pretty much know where you are at. It is neither here nor there to me, be as obstinate as you please. This is all mental exercise for me. As Hercule Poirot would say, stimulating the little grey cells.

I was involved with cryogenic IR detectors. We used argon, nitrogen, and closed cycle Stirling devices.

High pressure argon from a tank hits a surface, condenses to a liquid, and cools by evaporation. It takes energy to create the argon and put it under pressure in a tank. LOT are inescapable. Temperature was regulated by a Joule Thompson device. Essentially a bimetalic thermal switch. The energy used to create the pressurized gas = the thermal energy removed from the sensor + energy lost in the cooling process. To say otherwise is to reject LOT.

Cooling a cryogenic superconductor is no different in thermodynamics terms than your refrigerator. This is off topic, you can take it over to the energy thread. BTW, have you had calculus and any intro physics? I can recommend a book on thermo.

 

[bilby]

For what its worth, perpetual motion is a catch all phrase for any process or device which has an efficiency equal to or greater than 1. An efficiency of 1 implies a lossless system. An efficiency greater than 1 implies more energy out than goes in.

Teach your grandmother

 

[bilby]

Superconductivity at a few degrees Kelvin requires energy to stay cold, IOW refrifridgeration. There is no violation of LOT in terms of perpetual motion. Don't know if it is still running, there was a superconducting current loop that appeared to have no degradation, but again the system in toto is not lossless. Those pesky LOT. The problem is in measuring. Any ,easement requires a transfer of energy, no way to know if resistance is exactly zero.

I have a cousin who worked on the cooling system for the RHIC collider superconducting magnets.

No energy is needed to cool objects to temperatures above ~3K; Superconductivity has been observed at as high as 138K.

Refrigeration is needed to reach and maintain that temperature on Earth, but the surface of the Earth is a very unusual environment. Almost all of the physical universe is a very hard vacuum at a temperature of about 3K. Your claim here is about as outdated and imbecilic as saying 'Nature abhors a vacuum'.

The idiosyncrasies of your immediate environment are not universal truths.

Another science denier comes out of the closet.

At this point I pretty much know where you are at. It is neither here nor there to me, be as obstinate as you please. This is all mental exercise for me. As Hercule Poirot would say, stimulating the little grey cells.

I was involved with cryogenic IR detectors. We used argon, nitrogen, and closed cycle Stirling devices.

High pressure argon from a tank hits a surface, condenses to a liquid, and cools by evaporation. It takes energy to create the argon and put it under pressure in a tank. LOT are inescapable. Temperature was regulated by a Joule Thompson device. Essentially a bimetalic thermal switch. The energy used to create the pressurized gas = the thermal energy removed from the sensor + energy lost in the cooling process. To say otherwise is to reject LOT.

Cooling a cryogenic superconductor is no different in thermodynamics terms than your refrigerator. This is off topic, you can take it over to the energy thread. BTW, have you had calculus and any intro physics? I can recommend a book on thermo.

For fucks sake. If you refuse to even consider my replies, why are you even responding to them?

You do NOT require refrigeration to reach temperatures above ~3K in the VAST majority of the universe. All you need is a heat sink.

You are correct ONLY in the very tiny part of the universe that is close to a star or similar energy source.

And the condescension with which you deliver your small-minded engineering solutions with their incredibly limited relevance is pissing me the fuck off.

I don't give a shit about your engineering crap. It has NO applicability to the universal case. You can't see past your assumption that what I am saying is somehow in contradiction of the laws of thermodynamics, whose incorrect interpretation you are treating as holy writ.

Read this again, and try not to stop thinking as soon as you (incorrectly) believe that you have encountered an engineering heresy:

Perpetual movement is an observed reality. An object in motion remains in motion forever unless acted upon by a force.

Such an object cannot do any work, so a perpetual motion machine is impossible

Oh, fuck it. Don't bother. I'm putting you on ignore.

 

[steve_bank]

For what its worth, perpetual motion is a catch all phrase for any process or device which has an efficiency equal to or greater than 1. An efficiency of 1 implies a lossless system. An efficiency greater than 1 implies more energy out than goes in.

Teach your grandmother

Bilby, when you say you can cool an object without consuming energy, that says it all. I am nobody special, that being said you have no credibility with me.

An object in deep space will go to equilibrium with the background which looks like a blackbody at a few degrees K.

What I said was to cool a superconductor to a low temp requires energy to maintain superconduction. As such, a superconductor is not a violation the injunctiion against perpetual motion.You have a habit of leaping before you look and invoking theories that really do not apply.