Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Blueprint For a Quantum Electric Motor

ScuttleMonkey posted about 5 years ago | from the really-inboard-motor dept.

Power 97

TechReviewAl writes "Alexey Ponomarev from the University of Augsburg in Germany and colleagues have revealed the blueprints for an electric motor built with just two atoms. The motor would have one neutral atom and one charged atom trapped in a ring-shaped optical lattice. The atoms jump from one site in the lattice to the next as they travel around the ring and placing this ring in an alternating magnetic field creates the conditions necessary to keep the charged atom moving round the the ring. A team from the University of Glasgow in the UK in fact built one of these quantum motors back in 2007, which they called an optical ferris wheel for ultracold atoms. 'The next step, say Ponomarev and co, is to attach the motor to a nanoscopic resonator, such as a spring board or nanomushroom, and make it vibrate. If you can do that, they say, you'd be powering a classical object using a quantum motor.'"

cancel ×

97 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Maybe (-1, Troll)

Daimanta (1140543) | about 5 years ago | (#29471675)

"The next step, say Ponomarev and co, is to attach the motor to a nanoscopic resonator, such as a spring board or nanomushroom, and make it vibrate. If you can do that, they say, you'd be powering a classical object using a quantum motor.'""

Maybe Ponomarev is tripping on some nanomushrooms when I'm reading things like this.

Re:Maybe (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29471695)

maybe you're a dumb faggot

Re:Maybe (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29471905)

Maybe you eat poop.

So.. what is the efficiency of this motor? (2, Interesting)

Absolut187 (816431) | about 5 years ago | (#29471721)

I'm assuming it would be wicked efficient?

Re:So.. what is the efficiency of this motor? (5, Funny)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | about 5 years ago | (#29471811)

Not really, it would be both running and not running at any given point in time, until you look at it...that can't be good for the calculations.

Re:So.. what is the efficiency of this motor? (3, Interesting)

Yetihehe (971185) | about 5 years ago | (#29472003)

I've seen an article, where authors said that it is possible to encode quantum information in "holes" in photon flow. For example when you have steady stream of photons, each emitted exactly after the same period, you can actually encode information in photons which should be sent in some cycles, but they need not be really sent. They stated at the end that quantum physics is so strange that a quantum computer which doesn't really work is the best one: it completes calculations and returns real results but because it doesn't work - it doesn't make errors.

Re:So.. what is the efficiency of this motor? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29472241)

lol wut [photobucket.com]

again i say lol wut [photobucket.com]

and a third time i say lol wut [photobucket.com]

Re:So.. what is the efficiency of this motor? (1)

mrops (927562) | about 5 years ago | (#29474043)

I don't know if I should mark this Funny or Interesting

Re:So.. what is the efficiency of this motor? (1)

virgil_disgr4ce (909068) | more than 4 years ago | (#29477725)

Link!?!?

Re:So.. what is the efficiency of this motor? (5, Funny)

JeanBaptiste (537955) | about 5 years ago | (#29471877)

only in Boston.

Re:So.. what is the efficiency of this motor? (1)

Absolut187 (816431) | more than 4 years ago | (#29492349)

I didn't say wicked AWESOME efficient...

Re:So.. what is the efficiency of this motor? (1)

wonmon (1214678) | about 5 years ago | (#29472789)

It is probably hella close to being an ideal machine.

Re:So.. what is the efficiency of this motor? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29473167)

A vibrating dildo for a protozoan?

Re:So.. what is the efficiency of this motor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29473017)

Pretty shitty if you factor in the energy necessary to power the lasers forming the lattice, the UHV pumps, and the hour-long cooling process involving more high-powered lasers.

This is not about creating something useful now, this is basic research "because we can".

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29471723)

How exactly is this quantum? Does it spin in both ways at once?

Re:Huh? (4, Informative)

omeomi (675045) | about 5 years ago | (#29471759)

How exactly is this quantum? Does it spin in both ways at once?

"In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is an indivisible entity of a quantity that has the same units as the Planck constant and is related to both energy and momentum of elementary particles of matter (called fermions) and of photons and other bosons." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum [wikipedia.org]

What makes you think something has to spin both ways at once to be quantum?

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29471801)

They probably heard something about state superpositioning using qubits in quantum computers, and thought that this was a defining characteristic of quantum phenomena.

Re:Huh? (1)

buswolley (591500) | about 5 years ago | (#29471855)

Blueprint of two atoms? What, two fuzzy dots next to each other? How many arrangements can you have with two dot like parts? Without RTF, I'm assuming other atoms are involved, despite what the summary indicates?

Re:Huh? (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | about 5 years ago | (#29471887)

Without RTF

Huh?

Raising the floor?
Roasting the fatty?
Retarding the forum?
Rampaging through France?
Regurgitating the fruit?
Reconstituting the fluid?
Raping the flowers?

Help me out here, I'm struggle-ugle-ing*

*thanks, Joe Namath!

Re:Huh? (1)

buswolley (591500) | about 5 years ago | (#29472029)

ha. RTFA

Re:Huh? (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about 5 years ago | (#29472183)

Rich Text Format. The article wasn't written in WordPad.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29472359)

Damn commies!!!!

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29471923)

"In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is an indivisible entity of a quantity that has the same units as the Planck constant

OK, I'm heading over to wikipedia right now to correct that.

Re:Huh? (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about 5 years ago | (#29472335)

You're right, having opposite characteristics of one quality doesn't make it quantum, but more correctly, if you can divide it (or rather, break it apart, or split it), its not a quantum. Since atoms can clearly be split, ipso-facto, buppity buppity boo. This is an "atomic-sized" motor, I guess. Still pretty cool.

Re:Huh? (1)

Nora1701D (1640963) | more than 4 years ago | (#29481927)

Well, one can spin up and one can spin down... but you'll never know until you see if the cat is dead.

Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of... (1)

ickleberry (864871) | about 5 years ago | (#29471737)

Can you have zillions of these running in parallel with some kick azz nanotech gearbox to make something more efficient than a 'normal' electric motor to power an electric vehicle or something?

Vibrate? (1)

snspdaarf (1314399) | about 5 years ago | (#29471747)

Add some tiny little batteries, and you can make a porno version of Tron.

Re:Vibrate? (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | about 5 years ago | (#29472005)

My first reaction was a non-toxic version of the vibrator that could be attached to Panties. One could easily market this feminine product as a "Feel Good Film".

classical object (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29471763)

at what point did a vibrating nanomushroom become a classical object?

just begging to be taken out of context? (1)

argent (18001) | about 5 years ago | (#29471813)

at what point did a vibrating nanomushroom become a classical object?

Well, if you don't call it "classical" people are going to think it's porn!

Optical Lattice? (4, Insightful)

PotatoFarmer (1250696) | about 5 years ago | (#29471771)

So what exactly is an optical lattice, and why is it not considered part of the motor itself? Other than the fact that "motor made out of only two atoms!" is clearly a better-sounding story, that is.

Re:Optical Lattice? (1)

virmaior (1186271) | about 5 years ago | (#29472073)

that was my question as well. the motor seems to consist of many atoms. one might fairly say "the piston" is only 2 atoms.

Re:Optical Lattice? (1)

belthize (990217) | about 5 years ago | (#29472677)

What I don't get is how hooking one up to this http://nanomushroom.com/ [nanomushroom.com] will be all that productive.

What exactly is a nanomushroom other than a really really small mushroom.

Re:Optical Lattice? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29472939)

An Optical Lattice is a complicated array of lasers that create a egg carton like potential for the atoms (the atoms interact with the lasers via the Stark shift iirc). The idea is that the atoms then get "trapped" in the minima of this potential [well, they are still tunneling and all that].
Via the wavelength of the lasers and their intensity one can control "depth" of the potential wells and the spacing of the lattice, which is quite nice, because you get essentially a solid state system where you can change those parameters "on the fly", thus enabling studies of insulator-conductor transitions and whatnot.
And little games like that in TFA, of course.

Re:Optical Lattice? (1)

WillCodeForRaisins (830957) | more than 4 years ago | (#29481379)

Ok, then what exactly is a nanomushroom? No wikipedia article on that one, just some lame movie service.

Re:Optical Lattice? (1)

tenco (773732) | more than 4 years ago | (#29476523)

*sigh* Ok, I'll give you a hint: maybe there's a wikipedia article about what an optical lattice is.

Two atoms? (4, Insightful)

clyde_cadiddlehopper (1052112) | about 5 years ago | (#29471791)

I suspect a few more atoms were used for the lasers that generate the optical containment and the device that applies the magnetic field and whatever was used to cool those two atoms to near zero Kelvins. Sounds a bit like a quantum physicists' retelling of stone soup [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Two atoms? (2, Informative)

blueg3 (192743) | about 5 years ago | (#29472103)

They didn't say the whole system was two atoms, they said the motor is two atoms. The motor is the component that turns a non-mechanical energy potential into mechanical motion. The cooling system, the device that produces the magnetic field, etc. are no more part of the motor than the gas tank and radiator are part of the internal combustion engine.

Re:Two atoms? (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about 5 years ago | (#29472213)

What about the spark plugs (lasers)?

Re:Two atoms? (1)

blueg3 (192743) | about 5 years ago | (#29473349)

The lasers aren't the spark plugs; they're more like the walls surrounding the piston.

Re:Two atoms? (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about 5 years ago | (#29473377)

Figured that, but I wanted something that could make a spark for my car analogy.

Re:Two atoms? (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | about 5 years ago | (#29472123)

I suspect a few more atoms were used for the lasers that generate the optical containment and the device that applies the magnetic field and whatever was used to cool those two atoms to near zero Kelvins.

Well okay, but on the other hand a 4 cylinder engine involves more parts than just those 4 cylinders -- some of those parts even being of a cylindrical nature! "4-cylinder" engine has more than 4 cylinders, wtf?! And while for a liquid-cooled engine the radiator is an essential component, you don't normally include it when talking about 'the engine'.

So sure from one point of view "two atoms" is poppycock. From another viewpoint you can say that much like the pistons in an ICE, its these two atoms what convert some other source of energy into motive force, thus "two atom motor". I think it's rather obvious which view they were speaking from -- the one that is correct. :P

Re:Two atoms? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 5 years ago | (#29472343)

My home town nearly went to zero Kevins back in 1978.

It was a particularly cold winter, and we were already down to 3 Kevins (due to their low popularity at the time).

Kevin Thomas had flown out to be with his son's family for a wedding and got stuck in Boston for a whole week due to the weather. 2 Kevins left.

Kevin Lemmer was rushed to the hospital during my shift. I still remember the call from the EMTs as the ambulance was rushing toward us. "It's Lemmer. He's in bad shape. Drove right into the fucking ditch." We called the time of death at 6:15 PM.

At 6:16, all eyes turned to room 2217. Kevin Spencer was 82 and on his death bed with leukemia. His family being Catholic, he had already been given his last rights. If he couldn't hold out until Kevin Thomas returned, we would be at zero Kevins. Sure, we had 4 perfectly healthy Calvins, but they're just not the same.

It was 7:15 when Carla Brooks and her husband James burst through the main entrance. "She's not due for 2 weeks!", James exclaimed. As the staff bustled around getting the Brookses settled, they exchanged darting glances with each other. This was their first child, and they wanted to keep the baby's sex a secret. Of course, in a small town, secrets don't get kept. Nearly all of the hospital staff new that the child about to rip open Mrs. Brooks was indeed a boy.

The delivery was routine, and Kevin Brooks was born healthy, if a tad underweight, at 10:52 PM. Kevin Spencer was pronounced dead at 10:54.

It was, as they say, a close one. Kevin Thomas arrived two days later, the weather having finally cleared up. To this day, we still rib him about it.

Cedar Falls is currently at 5 Kevins.

Emily Litella? (1)

clyde_cadiddlehopper (1052112) | about 5 years ago | (#29472523)

Gilda Radner: "What is all this fuss about Cedar Rapids reaching zero Kevins?"

Chevy Chase: "Emily that unit of temperature is Kelvin [wikipedia.org] , not Kevin."

Gilda: "Oh. Never mind, b****.

I suppose one of the lost Kevins was the physics teacher at Cedar Falls High?

Re:Emily Litella? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 5 years ago | (#29472733)

Whoooooooooooooooooooooooosh

Simulation != real (1)

feranick (858651) | about 5 years ago | (#29472611)

Keep in mind this is a simulation paper (i.e. pretty much a proof of concept). There isn't any device made yet, only in a oversimplified model within a simulation.

Re:Simulation != real (2, Interesting)

net28573 (1516385) | about 5 years ago | (#29474773)

"it turns out that a team from the University of Glasgow in the UK actually built one of these quantum motors back in 2007, which they called an optical ferris wheel for ultracold atoms." Yes there is a device according to the article! note the word "built".

Re:Two atoms? (1)

Laxitive (10360) | about 5 years ago | (#29473939)

I suspect an oil rig, a refinery, a transport truck, and a highway system to deliver the oil, and an oil distribution infrastructure were all part of your car motor too. Because without those it's just a hunk of twisted metal.

-Laxitive

Re:Two atoms? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29493229)

No, but I usually consider the engine block to be a part of the engine.

Uh Oh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29471803)

Yet another Slashdot post with the word 'vibrate'...

Cold Atom? (1)

Lead Butthead (321013) | about 5 years ago | (#29471817)

Pardon me the ignorance here, but what is 'cold atom'?

Re:Cold Atom? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29471893)

An atom where the probability of being in any excited state is very low.

Re:Cold Atom? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 5 years ago | (#29471947)

Now I understand why people were not at all excited when the Cold War broke out.

Re:Cold Atom? (0, Offtopic)

sexconker (1179573) | about 5 years ago | (#29472739)

So it's kind of like a figid bitch.

Re:Cold Atom? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29471895)

its what you fuse to get cold fusion.

Re:Cold Atom? (1)

Tanman (90298) | about 5 years ago | (#29472461)

IT ARE AN ATOM THAT IS KOOLER THAN THE HOT ATOMZ.

*cough*antiyellfilterdefeater*cough*

i should note -- ianap(hysicist)

Suck it cops! (4, Funny)

Itninja (937614) | about 5 years ago | (#29471839)

I hope this one day scales up to car size. The cops would be able to tell I was speeding on the freeway, but have no idea where I was. Or they would know exactly where I was, but have no idea if I was speeding. HUP FTW!

I'll show myself out....

Re:Suck it cops! (4, Funny)

Red Flayer (890720) | about 5 years ago | (#29472009)

That's all well and good, Mr. Quantum Speeding Ticket Avoider Man, but remeber that the same principle applies to your car keys.

And what happens when you get into an accident? You'll be both dead and alive until someone opens the car door! (Is this how the zombie apocalypse starts?)

Re:Suck it cops! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29472227)

The Defense Department devloped a car like that in a secret project. Rumor has it that a prominent senator took it for a joy ride and it was lost in Chappaquiddick bay.

Re:Suck it cops! (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 5 years ago | (#29472363)

You'll be both dead and alive until someone opens the car door!

Isn't that true now? ("Schrödinger's car"?)

Re:Suck it cops! (1)

tenco (773732) | more than 4 years ago | (#29476537)

And what happens when you get into an accident? You'll be both dead and alive until someone opens the car door! (Is this how the zombie apocalypse starts?)

Due to my expertise regarding zombies *cough*from movies*cough* I doubt this. Because i never saw a zombie crumble to dust if someone looked at them.

Well (1)

ShooterNeo (555040) | about 5 years ago | (#29471847)

Some day, when technology has advanced to the point of optimizing machines to use every last atom to maximum efficiency, tricks like this will be neat.

Thing is, our post-singularity successors won't be amused by this "two atom" claim - you have to use up lots of atoms to hold everything in place and create the conditions necessary. If the "lattice" weren't there, the atoms wouldn't act like a motor. The fields from the lattice atoms are what create the necessary conditions.

Re:Well (1)

blueg3 (192743) | about 5 years ago | (#29472121)

It's not "how atom-efficient can you make the system" -- after all, individual atoms are inconceivably cheap -- it's "how minimal of a motor can you create". (Although if it's using a quantum-mechanical effect, the fewer the atoms involved, the easier.)

Re:Well (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 5 years ago | (#29472777)

Atoms? Cheap? There is a hidden cost, my friend!

      Benefits? Perqs? A green cookie on Saint Patrick's Day?
      -- Monty Burns reads the proposed union contract, ``Last Exit to Springfield''

  Burns flashes back to simpler days. Springfield, 1909, back when
  people smashed atoms by hand. Grandfather Burns catches one of his
  employees trying to steal some atoms and has him taken away.

      You can't treat the working man this way. One day, we'll form a union
      and get the fair and equitable treatment we deserve! Then we'll go
      too far, and get corrupt and shiftless, and the Japanese will eat us alive!

Re:Well (1)

ShooterNeo (555040) | about 5 years ago | (#29474079)

There are a finite number of atoms in our solar system. Getting much more mass than what is already here will be incredibly difficult (unless wormholes are possible). So some day technology will be advanced to where every atom needs to be in the right place doing the right thing.

So the real problem rears its head (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29471981)

If it is an quantum motor, how can you tell if it is running without turning it off?

Or rather, efficiency through obscurity.

Re:So the real problem rears its head (1)

tenco (773732) | more than 4 years ago | (#29476547)

By measuring it's power or energy output?

Figures (1)

nih (411096) | about 5 years ago | (#29471997)

such as a spring board or nanomushroom

so thats why the quantum world is so confusing!

Keep people in their own cars (1, Offtopic)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | about 5 years ago | (#29472193)

Developments like this are why I think emphasis on conservation at the expense of research into cheap and clean power generation is misguided. I hear a lot of talk from environmentalists about getting people out of their cars. The real effect of those policies will be to get poor people out of their cars while rich people will continue to enjoy the material advantages that personal transportation offers.

I'd rather research cheap and clean power sources and keep poor people in their cars. That's social justice.

Re:Keep people in their own cars (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29473061)

What the fuck are you talking about?
This research has nothing at all to do with cars, or transportation. The force this thing creates will probably be measured in something like microHartrees/Bohr radii [10^-13 N].

Besides the fact, that you need a room full of lasers, PhD's, UHV pumps and vibration decouplers to create the thing in the first place.

[sarcasm] But of course, which self-respecting geek would care about TFA or science, if one can spout his political ideology...

Re:Keep people in their own cars (1)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | about 5 years ago | (#29473243)

I'm a visionary. Clean and plentiful personal energy production could begin with a breakthrough like this. Apparently some others agree with me because my post is modded up.

Re:Keep people in their own cars (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29473311)

If you have no clue what you are talking about you are not a visionary, but just a dreamer.
And you obviously have not - this is a breakthrough at most as a model system, but will very likely never be practical.

Re:Keep people in their own cars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29500669)

I found your response to smoker2's assessment of motor vehicle waste mindbogglingly repugnant, hardly "visionary".

In summary, your response to the objective measurement of massive waste with regard to a FINITE resource was:

"Because I want to."

Now you might think I'm being a little harsh, but this ain't kindergarten, pull your head out of your ass and think. If you can't think on your own admit it and ask questions. Don't mouth off like some know-it-all with a political axe to grind.

To respond to your question. Yes, wasting a finite resource without a viable contingency is bad.

Now, you might say that nuclear power along with electric cars would be a nice resource which could replace gasoline as a fuel source. But waste is waste, clog up 30,000 modern electric cars in a traffic jam for five hours and what do you think would happen?

Re:Keep people in their own cars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29512017)

30,000 * 5 = 150,000 man-hours
150,000/24 = 6,250 days
6,250/365 = 17.12 YEARS

Seventeen years wasted in a traffic jam.

The answer is waste. Waste would happen.

Re:Keep people in their own cars (1)

smoker2 (750216) | about 5 years ago | (#29473091)

Very big of you, but why do you think cars are a good place to be ? Your last sentence can be read from the other aspect too. Let's keep the poor people in their cars while the rich get better transport arrangements.

I have a hate thing with cars at the moment. It seems they are more addictive than heroin, and kill more people. Yet if you try talking to a car owner you rarely get any sense if it means restricting their rights to drive. I've heard arguments from people suggesting that the best thing for the city is to allow more cars in, and let them basically race around without regard for pedestrians. Parking should be a god given right, free of course, and if there isn't space, rip down a few buildings and build car parks. Shortly after a story about out of town supermarkets being forced to charge for parking in order to help the city centre traders (where everybody defended clogging the streets to get to these places), a new supermarket opened and people from the other side of town drove across to get their shopping. But then they claim the city centre is dead and suggest letting more cars in. I rarely see more than 1 person per car, they sit in queues for great lengths of time and pay through the nose for the privilege. Cars are an insidious menace.
A guy was trying to jump off a bridge a few weeks ago. It's the bridge over the Severn to Wales. The N-S traffic tailback was 20 miles long while the police tried unsuccessfully to get him down. It blocked the entire N-S, and E-W motorway for 5 hours, and it isn't actually that near the N-S road. How can we keep doing this shit ? There must have been at least 30,000 people stuck in that jam - how efficient is that ? This country is having constant coronaries.
Now one car manufacturing union is demanding half a billion quid to bail out the firm and keep it working. Let it go. The people are going to have to find a new job pretty soon anyway, may as well make a start. You can pay welfare for 40,000 people for less than 500 million. The South Island of New Zealand has about the right car density, any more and the point kind of goes away.

Re:Keep people in their own cars (1)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | about 5 years ago | (#29473205)

smoker2,

Can't is just be a matter of individual choice?

You don't like cars, so you structure your life to avoid them.

I like cars so I am free to decide to make them a part of my life.

Each of us is free and not coerced in this decision. Is there anything wrong with that?

Re:Keep people in their own cars (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29473489)

You should really think about taking a writing class. Your sentences were hard to follow grammatically... then again, I have had quite a few beers recently.

Forget I said anything.

Re:Keep people in their own cars (1)

MartinSchou (1360093) | about 5 years ago | (#29473609)

I'd rather research cheap and clean power sources and keep poor people in their cars.

What's wrong with low income housing? Are you seriously suggesting that poor people shouldn't have access to running water, decent sized beds or even a toilet?!?

</joke>

Superposition (1)

sexybomber (740588) | about 5 years ago | (#29472205)

I'd love to try some quantum nanomushrooms. Would they simultaneously do nothing and cause me to trip my face off?

for more of an insight (1)

KingPin27 (1290730) | about 5 years ago | (#29472255)

Here is a link to the paper that discusses this. It's an interesting read for anyone who cares about physics and theoretical motors. Article here [arxiv.org]
Happy physics reading. PS: The links are in the top right.

Quantum Perpetual Motion machine.... (1)

jameskojiro (705701) | about 5 years ago | (#29472347)

How long before some lab hack claims to have made a nano scale "free energy" machine.....

Of course if you could find some way to make nano machine that could turn latent heat energy into electricity you could theoretically make a device that could make cold air and electricity out of warm air......

Build a couple hundred million of these and we could keep the arctic region cold as ice and supply the tropics with plentiful electrical energy....

Assuming you could tweak the laws of thermodynamics to work this way.....

wow (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29472399)

Soon we will be ablr to have Quantum Hard drives

Re:wow (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 5 years ago | (#29472831)

Mod parent funny, and yourselves as dumb.
http://i37.tinypic.com/14npvtk.jpg [tinypic.com]

Maxtor (< Quantum, Seagate (< Maxtor.
(< is the buyout (Pac Man) symbol.
(<>) is for mergers.

Re:wow (1)

Tolkien (664315) | about 5 years ago | (#29474211)

Looks like yours is corrupt already. :)

Re:wow (1)

dissy (172727) | more than 4 years ago | (#29476625)

That what happens when you read the data back in without a cat present.

Only two atoms? I don't think so. (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | about 5 years ago | (#29472559)

What are those lattices made of? What is the magnetic field generator made of?

I can make a motor of zero atoms too. I just have to wrap it in a traditional electric motor. :P

Wake me up when they make a real version (1)

feranick (858651) | about 5 years ago | (#29472595)

As I said before on similar occasions, those are only calculations on the feasibility of making the atomic motor. As much as these calculations can be difficult, the actual experimental realization is even more complicated. Think for example in the challenges in making the ring shaped optical lattice with atomic precision, while maintaining the atoms cold enough (usually with laser pumps). Only at that point I will be really impressed, and actually start thinking on how to integrate it with more complex molecular machines.

optical ferris wheel for ultracold atoms (1)

greg_barton (5551) | about 5 years ago | (#29472597)

Best band name...ever!

Just because it moves, doesn't mean it's a motor. (0, Offtopic)

Chemisor (97276) | about 5 years ago | (#29472741)

Let me give you an analogy: consider a container in the shape of half-a-donut, filled with salty water. Let's put a nonconductive barrier in at one point and place two electrodes on either side. Apply a voltage to the electrodes and ions will start moving through the water, sodium to the negative, chlorine to the positive. Although the ions are moving, we don't call this contraption a "motor". You could try to hook something up to the moving ions (good luck!) and try to move it, and if you succeed in this task it might become a motor. Until then I'd be more inclined to used the word "wire", or heck, no particular word at all.

Same in this experiment. So they make a little cage with a laser interference pattern. Then they stick two atoms in it. Apply some alternating voltage and one atom pushes off the other, hops through a series of "cavities", and hits the other atom again from the other side. Gee, somehow I am not terribly impressed. Not only does it do absolutely nothing useful, it can only complete a single revolution. Oh, and let's not forget all the energy expended on maintaining the lattice, and on keeping the atoms cold. That last requirement shows that you can't ever hope to scale this to room temperature - the more kinetic energy the atoms have, the more intense must the laser confinement be.

Re:Just because it moves, doesn't mean it's a moto (1)

smoker2 (750216) | about 5 years ago | (#29473131)

So you didn't even read TFS. Good job.
Do the words "alternating magnetic field" mean anything to you ? or "to keep the atom in constant motion" ?

old news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29474445)

I thought this was already invented:

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Murphy's_law_application_for_antigravitatory_cats

but why? (1)

Altreus (1492723) | more than 4 years ago | (#29476125)

I don't mean to be flippant but I can't think of any practical application for this motor that isn't somewhat confounded by the requirement for the lasers and the magnetic field generator... TFA seems fairly proud that they've come up with this thing but doesn't really tell us what good it does.

I mean, does it have some massively superb output per unit size? Is the amount of motive energy it creates so great that it massively outweighs the amount of energy put *in* to the system by running the lasers and the magnetic field generator? This all assuming that they succeed in harnessing it, of course.

Aren't they all? (1)

gordguide (307383) | more than 4 years ago | (#29476147)

Okay, call me crazy, but can't EVERY atom-level structure with atoms circling other atoms a "motor"? I'm calling "Patent Troll" !!

Yo dawg (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 4 years ago | (#29476465)

We heard like you liked paradoxes so we put quantum superposition in your classical scale universe so you can not spin while you spin.

not a motor... needs to be able to do work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29478059)

if you can't put a load on it, how can it be a motor?

This is as pointless as one of those thermal expansion vacuum windmill things.

WHAT THE HELL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29478119)

IS THIS SHIT? just tell me what the fuck it is what the fuck it does and how fucking well it does and why i should fucking give a damn fuck

I'm more interested in... (1)

aqk (844307) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480693)

... in powering a quantum object with my classical motor.

Could it work? or wouldn't it? Cats are peculiar creatures.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>