Wouldn't it save energy to add thermoelectric generators to refrigerators, computers, or anything that creates a lot of heat as a by-product? Would that create much electricity? Or is the steam engine too inefficient? Do we have anything better than a steam engine? Doesn't all of the energy a computer uses get transformed into heat? Couldn't a lot of that energy be reclaimed?

I suppose so, but then that would be costly and time-consuming (most likely) and wouldn't save much energy anyway, unless you used the computer 24/7.

Nice answer.

I wonder if anyone has actually done what Mynck suggested.

It looks like some MIT scientists have found a way to make thermoelectric generators run at about 18% using a special kind of thermal diode (article from 2001):

http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2001/121901/...wer_121901.html

I guess if everyone used that type of device on their computer, it would add up eventually and save energy.

Cool, so that would make stuff a little less than 22% more efficient in electricity use. That might be inefficient to put one on everything that makes heat, though. But it sure would help in coal-fired and nuclear power plants.

the article I posted said that it operates though only between 200-300 degrees Celsius, which is between about 400 and 570 degrees Farenheit. This is VERY hot, and would take some sort of oven to reach that temperature. But, it might be possible to do so using some sort of solar furnace, etc.

The other thing is the best solar panels today are running around 30 percent, and that is the real high-end ones. The majority are probably around 20-25 percent. So this thermoelectric diode would be as efficient as most solar panels.

(topic moved to tech forum).

How would you reclaim thermal energy from a computer? At most, the equipment to do so would cost a fortune.

It doesn't cost a fortune to build a simple steam engine.

Ok, then I'd like to see you make one and attach it to your computer.

I'll draw plans for you.

Did you actually make one?

I would, but I don't know where to get a dynamo. I guess I could make one, but then I'd need to buy all sorts of moving parts.

http://www.metaefficient.com/metaefficient...hot-fridge.html

This is something that is based on the same idea, but much easier to make.

Here's thermoelectric generator version 2! Provides cooling for the CPU too!

I think that the hot-fridge is still efficient and easy to make.

But can it cool a CPU?

Well, if it can keep eggs and milk cool, I'm pretty sure that's more than adequate coolness to cool a CPU.

Can it cool a CPU and generate electricity, as opposed to using it?

Well, it depends on what it is made from.

A standard refrigerator will always consume more energy that it makes because it uses pumps.

That's why companies like LG and Siemens are trying to design more efficient refrigerators.

Any device will consume more energy than it produces, and thus we have the issue of perpetual energy. An impossability.

Unless it was made to generate electricity, right?

but still, unless you prevent the heat loss from the cage (which is impossible, making the case explode due to pressure from steam, or burning up the CPU), your device will always use more power to power the CPU than how much energy you get from the generator.

Try using a heat pipe, that might work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pipe
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040212/g..._cooler-01.html (look under second picture)

Well yeah. But I mean like a solar panel.

In theory, hooking up a generator to an electric moter to turn the turbines would work, but with the heat energy escaping and stuff, it just wouldnt work.

Maybe someone tried this along time ago, but It didnt work?

It is true that creating a "infinite" perpetual machine is impossible. Since this is the case, it is then simply a matter of making the most "efficient" perpetual machine. While it may not last "infinitely", it can be efficient enough to last a long, long time. When it does run out of steam (figure of speech), it could have a process that reactivates it.

It'd be impossible to reactivate without introducing more energy into the system though.

I wonder if it'd be possible to build a perpetual motion machine out of a Bose-Einstein condensate, though? They're supposedly at a energy state that's so low that they can't possibly lose any more energy, even from friction.

That is what I tried to point out: it is impossible to build an infinite perpetual machine that requires no outside energy to make it continue on till the end of time.

However, it IS possible to build a machine that is darn efficient. This machine would run for a long, long time, but not infinitely. There will be a time down the road when it requires external energy to make it continue. But because it is so efficient, the amount of time between "reactivations" would be huge.



That is true. Another cool thing is Superconductors, which are at a state of no electrical friction.