Tekforums
Chat => General Discussion => Topic started by: neXus on July 04, 2007, 13:32:01 PM
-
Real free clean power?
http://www.steorn.com/orbo/claim/
Apparently it is being shown off today here:
http://www.kinetica-museum.org/new_site/index.php?ptitle=Art%20Gallery%20Information&mfile=kinetica_museum.php
And a number of Scientists are going over it
I am of course dumbuous about it of course, but if true, OMG Free the world!, Peace Out!
-
im sure iv seen this before... de ja vu perhaps
-
im sure iv seen this before... de ja vu perhaps
well it is probably tosh but I have always thought it has to be possible using magnetics to do
-
Its not possible because it violates the most basic law of physics.
-
Its not possible because it violates the most basic law of physics.
And how many times has the law of physics been re-written? :) A lot
Dark matter meant laws of physics did not work and has been changed because it does exist :)
Probably tosh but till the science folk say "this is tosh" hold out on it
-
utter bollocks.
lets get energy from nothing!
-
exactly
-
Its not possible because it violates the most basic law of physics.
We all know about that, although just because its accepted by humans doesnt mean the universe has to meekly follow suit.
It is true that the laws have to be revised every so often. There might be ways of getting free energy with or without going outside the laws of thermodynamics. We certainly still havent proved how the universe was created and that might be the biggest free lunch ever.
However I have seen so many of these inventions touted as perpetual motion machines and they have all been proven to be useless. I think I will stick with the cautious majority for the moment, at least until some real and actual proof comes along.
-
The company asked for sceptical academics etc. to attempt to disprove their idea. As I understand it, they supplied them with various formulas to disprove which were not possible to disprove within the scope of the device. This however still doesnt make it a perpetual motion machine, theres more than one way to skin a cat.
Really its utter bollocks, but as shown its easy to fool a lot of people if you put the word "magnetism" in there somewhere as the vast majority of people dont understand it at all. Then theres the spiritual loonies who insist that it "could well be possible because science is fundamentally rediculous anyway". I wont mention any names.
We get a lot of people writing to our department with details of their perpetual motion machines. All of them are flawed, sometimes it takes seconds to spot why and sometimes a day or two if theyre really nasty. Its usually the PMM2s that take longer to spot as theyre conceptually a little trickier to get your head round.
-
There might be ways of getting free energy with or without going outside the laws of thermodynamics.
you dont say :roll:
(http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/5318/sailingboatwh1.jpg)
:mrgreen:
smacks serious on the head for being a muppet
the point isnt to simply get free energy it is to get energy perpetually - i.e. to have a limitless supply of it thus it would have to involve breaking the a couple of the laws of thermaldynamics making it theoretically impossible - regardless of what a load of loonies on tinterweb keep trying to claim.
-
Its not possible because it violates the most basic law of physics.
We all know about that, although just because its accepted by humans doesnt mean the universe has to meekly follow suit.
It is true that the laws have to be revised every so often. There might be ways of getting free energy with or without going outside the laws of thermodynamics. We certainly still havent proved how the universe was created and that might be the biggest free lunch ever.
However I have seen so many of these inventions touted as perpetual motion machines and they have all been proven to be useless. I think I will stick with the cautious majority for the moment, at least until some real and actual proof comes along.
so you can fit a physics degree up your arse as well right?
-
There might be ways of getting free energy with or without going outside the laws of thermodynamics.
you dont say :roll:
smacks serious on the head for being a muppet
the point isnt to simply get free energy it is to get energy perpetually - i.e. to have a limitless supply of it thus it would have to involve breaking the a couple of the laws of thermaldynamics making it theoretically impossible - regardless of what a load of loonies on tinterweb keep trying to claim.
Sail power comes from the sun and via heating of the air, so in this instance it doesnt count as free according to the definition I was using :P
A perpetual motion machine has no visible energy input, or at least a lower input than that output.
so you can fit a physics degree up your arse as well right?
I dont need one, all you have to do is look at the huge and ever increasing number of competing theories. and unlike what FC9K claims they are fundamentally ridiculous, just have a close look at string theory, it isnt even a theory as you cant test it.
-
well if you meant free to mean perpetual then your statement was garbage
There might be ways of getting free energy with or without going outside the laws of thermodynamics.
the idea of perpetual motion, by definition, violates the laws of thermal dynamics
-
so you can fit a physics degree up your arse as well right?
I dont need one, all you have to do is look at the huge and ever increasing number of competing theories. and unlike what FC9K claims they are fundamentally ridiculous, just have a close look at string theory, it isnt even a theory as you cant test it.
Sorry I cant let these pass. The basic, macroscopic laws of the universe have been established for a very long time. The "constant revisions" which you and a lot of people who I respect a lot less than you keep bringing up are irrelavent. You will notice if you look closely enough that these "constant revisions" are also constantly smaller and smaller in their effect on the macroscopic world. By your logic, Newtonian mechanics has been proven incorrect, so why do we continue to teach it? Because incorrect though it is, Newtonian mechanics is accurate to more decimals than you can measure as long as you dont go too fast or look at anything too small.
The laws of Thermodynamics have stood every test for a very long time. They forbid perpetual motion machines. It is not possible to construct a machine which produces more energy than it consumes. Further, it is not possible to construct a machine which even produces AS MUCH as it consumes. Look up the Carnot engine.
-
I dont need one, all you have to do is look at the huge and ever increasing number of competing theories.
Any idea how stupid you sound?
"I dont need to have any understanding of physics, I can quite happily say its all rubbish with no insight whatsoever"
-
I do not believe it is possible to produce more energy than cosumed but there be ways to tap energy sources not yet known and as they are not known it will appear as they are producing more energy than put in.
Those "machines" seems all to involve certain frequences
that change the process so it taps a not yet known energy source.
-
I do not believe it is possible to produce more energy than cosumed but there be ways to tap energy sources not yet known and as they are not known it will appear as they are producing more energy than put in.
Those "machines" seems all to involve certain frequences
that change the process so it taps a not yet known energy source.
Revise your thinking, There is a difference from what has been talked here compared to what you just said.
There are a number of ways to create more then you put it, the cost and the after effects and what you use to do it are the things of varied ways and not right
-
Mongoose and Funky Chicken are totally right on the laws of physics. they really dont change. People on this forum (well Serious at least) go on as if the whole system radically changes every couple of years when it really doesnt. Quantum physics didnt change how balls roll around. When string theory appeared it didnt change quantum effects or balls rolling round. When the next insight appears it still wont change how balls roll around. The laws of thermodynamics and macroscopic objects are proven - the only things that have changed is people have found that the same rules dont apply to tiny or massive objects, or when travelling at incredibly high speed. The day to day rules dont change and havent in any noticeable way since Newton and co wrote them down.
the idea of perpetual motion, by definition, violates the laws of thermal dynamics
People get too jumpy about perpetual motion machines automatically being false. Strictly they are of course since the test is do they disobey the laws of thermodynamics. And they will never pass that test, Daves right.
I have no problems however in believing that a machine can use a magnetic field from the earth or radiation from the big bang or heat in the universe to effectively be a perpetual motion machine. We probably wont understand how its working but it might satisfy all the rules.
I cba to look at the link since itll almost certainly be a fake or an error of measurement but I still reckon that someone will come up with something that can move forever. Ultimately itll turn out to be pulling the energy from some obscure particle or some field in the universe but if it moves forever without requiring conventional energy then its probably good enough.
-
well space is forever expanding - perpetual motion, earth always spins around, the core always churns, the moon goes around and always causes the waters of the earth to move so steve is right happens in nature all the time.
There are companies working for the Governments of the world who have been working on anti gravity since the 70s and they will have got somewhere with it since then, probably a number of the UFOs you see are indeed work in progress, I mean stealth is bloody OLD and came out when the recent big wars kicked off, so when something else kicks off what they got will come out again.
Anyway point is, magnetics and gravity for me probably is somewhere where it would be possible, at least some form of low input big output source with anti-gravity you remove the gravity so you must be able to do something with it.
Steve, Your right about laws of physics not changing in those elements and I was wrong in what I said and not detailed enough becuase your right, such things show to work and answer many of the hidden questions about the theories but still allow them to work, but the Laws of physics have changed once or twice as the human race learns more.
As star trek becomes closer to reality Bending space, time, light I am sure something will come up which will mean the current way of thinking aint all there is.
-
its very unlikely that thermodynamics will be affected. Space and time bend all the time but the effect isnt seen under normal circumstances. Scientists dont claim to know what happens at extreme conditions (which is why they all have the word theory in their names). The only way to do annything out of the ordinary to a macroscopic system is to force it into another extreme condition.
The Laws of thermodynamics and mechanics are termed laws because theyve been proven. If you actually want a perpetual machine to exist then youre going to have to have something that is extreme in there. Something with mass moving at close to the speed of light or something at ultra high or low temperature or something on planetary or sub atomic scale. While unlikely, it is possible that something operating at the fringes of what we can test could do something unexpected.
Anyt perpetual motion claim on the human scale however will follow the laws of thermodynamics and mechanics since those rules are known and wont change. Seriously, I know some people think they will or can but unless the universe totally resturctures itself then they wont change. If the universe did ever restructure itself so they could change then our bodies wouldnt be able to exist anyway for us to worry about it.
-
well space is forever expanding - perpetual motion, earth always spins around, the core always churns, the moon goes around and always causes the waters of the earth to move so steve is right happens in nature all the time.
No no no no no. There are so many things wrong with that sentence I dont even know where to start. So I wont.
-
well space is forever expanding - perpetual motion, earth always spins around, the core always churns, the moon goes around and always causes the waters of the earth to move so steve is right happens in nature all the time.
No no no no no. There are so many things wrong with that sentence I dont even know where to start. So I wont.
Go on then, becuase webby I was reading at the time about the concepts behind it mentioned all of them
I am only going on what I was reading so if int aint valid It is good to actually enlighten and inform someone so they know, the above is just worthless and more just more digs at another forum memer
-
Much like the rest of your post then. [[edit] oh I see you edited your post. FFS stop being such a martyr and get off the cross :lol:
Well, suffice it to say I wouldnt trust everything you read on the internet. As for why what you wrote is rediculous, go read up on entropy, gravity, orbits, the mechanism behind core motion etc and youll have your anwer. Not one of those things is an example of a perpetual motion machine; stuff moving for a long time does not a PMM make.
-
ph, youre all wrong !
I bought a propetual motion machine on ebay and it WORKS!
as long as I plug it in, in direct sunlight, wind the handle and blow on it a tiny wheel turns !
-
so you can fit a physics degree up your arse as well right?
I dont need one, all you have to do is look at the huge and ever increasing number of competing theories. and unlike what FC9K claims they are fundamentally ridiculous, just have a close look at string theory, it isnt even a theory as you cant test it.
Sorry I cant let these pass. The basic, macroscopic laws of the universe have been established for a very long time. The "constant revisions" which you and a lot of people who I respect a lot less than you keep bringing up are irrelavent. You will notice if you look closely enough that these "constant revisions" are also constantly smaller and smaller in their effect on the macroscopic world. By your logic, Newtonian mechanics has been proven incorrect, so why do we continue to teach it? Because incorrect though it is, Newtonian mechanics is accurate to more decimals than you can measure as long as you dont go too fast or look at anything too small.
The laws of Thermodynamics have stood every test for a very long time. They forbid perpetual motion machines. It is not possible to construct a machine which produces more energy than it consumes. Further, it is not possible to construct a machine which even produces AS MUCH as it consumes. Look up the Carnot engine.
I have said the theories change, not that what the universe does changes, although even that is possible and several theories claim this.
Basic every day stuff has been handled by Newtons theory for a long time, except the theory was wrong and it changed to give us Einsteins theories. These give almost the same result but are fundamentally different and far more complex. Gravity itself though is still the same as it always was (probably - excluding extreme situations like the big bang and some thinking that it has changed very slightly in strength).
Mongoose and Funky Chicken are totally right on the laws of physics. they really dont change. People on this forum (well Serious at least) go on as if the whole system radically changes every couple of years when it really doesnt. Quantum physics didnt change how balls roll around. When string theory appeared it didnt change quantum effects or balls rolling round. When the next insight appears it still wont change how balls roll around. The laws of thermodynamics and macroscopic objects are proven - the only things that have changed is people have found that the same rules dont apply to tiny or massive objects, or when travelling at incredibly high speed. The day to day rules dont change and havent in any noticeable way since Newton and co wrote them down.
Did I say that? Please point me to where. I do acknowledge its possible that they do change, and several theories have speculated this.
Physics is an attempt to model how the balls run around, to describe how things work. The problem is they may end up with a theory which, while it describes everything in perfect detail, is totally wrong.
OTOH what you two did was very predictable. Mongoose assumed I was saying something which I obviously wasnt and SteveF puts both feet in after reading that :roll:
-
rolf!
fc9k, mongoose, and stevef are the ones id put my money on tbh...
-
i love watching people backpedal.
-
OTOH what you two did was very predictable. Mongoose assumed I was saying something which I obviously wasnt and SteveF puts both feet in after reading that
Of course were predictable and you are too :) What youre not seeing is youve still not got it right. I only spend the time on this because you seem like a bright lad but you constantly miss the point. You believe that when someone says string theory is proven false and brane-theory is now accepted (for example) somehow means that scientists got everything wrong. This isnt whats happening. Humanity is trying to work out whwat happens at the edges of what humans can experience so we can build faster electronics, teleportation, whatever. These theories are constantly being revised but they only apply at the sub atomic level. Changing them doesnt change the rest of the universe models. All of the other rules/laws stay the same.
Its a fundamental mistake youre making in every thread and you dont see the mistake.
Mongoose and Funky Chicken are totally right on the laws of physics. they really dont change. People on this forum (well Serious at least) go on as if the whole system radically changes every couple of years when it really doesnt. Quantum physics didnt change how balls roll around. When string theory appeared it didnt change quantum effects or balls rolling round. When the next insight appears it still wont change how balls roll around. The laws of thermodynamics and macroscopic objects are proven - the only things that have changed is people have found that the same rules dont apply to tiny or massive objects, or when travelling at incredibly high speed. The day to day rules dont change and havent in any noticeable way since Newton and co wrote them down.
Did I say that? Please point me to where. I do acknowledge its possible that they do change, and several theories have speculated this.
You said it at the very top of your post and youre even saying it at the end of the question youre asking lol.
I have said the theories change, not that what the universe does changes,
I do acknowledge its possible that they do change
No. This is the bit you get wrong in each conversation about science. We both agree that the universe underneath doesnt chage (lets ignore the fringe stuff for the sake of simplicity because if the universe is changing as it expands then the change is so slight at this point in the universes lifecycle that we cant even detect it.
The part we disagree on is have the laws of every day objects changed. Ill give you that quantum physics changed and string thery, M-theory and wave function theories are all changing but they only exist at the sub atomic level. Those theories do not change or even modify the laws at the normal/human/macroscopic level. These laws of thermodynamics and mechanics are known and unchanging.
It doesnt matter how many new insights we have at the sub sub atomic level or dimensional level to explain how the components of matter exist - the laws of thermodynamics stay the same and always have. The laws governing everything from atoms up to solar systems are fixed and the other theories at the subatomic level do not affect them in any meaningful way. Conversely, the sub atomic theories have to match the known macroscopic laws to be considered valid as a complete theory.
The only things on our day to day experience that would effect a perpetual motion machine would be energy/waves, matter and thermodynamics
a) the removal of the concept of the ether. This was simply because people didnt understand the nature of waves. People now know exactly what a wave is - we can see them and interact with them and harness them. Waves exist, follow set rules and the laws wont change.
b) the discovery of the atom. All the sub atomic particles have little to no impact on the macroscopic level as atoms are as small as you need to go. Theres a question of how matter works but we know what it is and how to interact with and control it. Matter follows set rules and the laws wont change.
c) conservation of energy is the core of thermodynamics. These laws have been proven mathematically, through experimentation, through modelling and are in fact the only law that seems to work not only on the macroscopic level but also scales down to the subatomic levels as well. The laws of energy transfer (i.e. energy cannot be created or destroyed, merely changed from one kind to another) are fixed, well known and will not change.
Anything that you build on earth that is bigger than an atom and isnt travelling at the speed of light with mass is going to obey these rules. Granted, it is possible that the conservation of energy doesnt hold at black holes or wormholes where extreme gravity and time distortions could do something funky but that doesnt happen under normal levels (and may not occur at black holes either, who knows :)).
It is possible that you could accelerate mass beyond the speed of light and then slow it down to the speed of light (so it has infinite mass) and use the momentum to drive something which would be an expolit of particle mass but you cant get mass up anywhere close to the speed of light under normal (or possibly any) circumstances anyway. If you can then its going to require some very extreme conditions.
It is also possible that waves dont behave as waves all the time as theres a strong indication they didnt moments after the big bang. But a few moments after the big bang till now theyve stayed the same (within any noticeable way).
The macroscopic laws are known and wont change. Its the fringes of science that are changing all the time. Those changes do not in any way change the known laws. I think this may simply be a misunderstanding on your part.
Physics is an attempt to model how the balls run around, to describe how things work. The problem is they may end up with a theory which, while it describes everything in perfect detail, is totally wrong.
This is a silly statement. Physics hasnt been this for a long time. The movement of the balls is known. Theres no physics element of it anymore. Thats mechanics. Its a law and proven in so many ways that its not even an issue. If you dont see why the above is true then i dont think I can explain it any better - Im stumped. Guess its easier for you to just believe every revision of one of the quantum theories rewrites all human knowledge and the balls moving on the table need further study.
You wont find a single law of physics that has been disproved or modified. These things only become law when theyve been proven. Science has very few things it can prove but it has proven these. The title "law" is kept for a very specific set of rules. Theyre the ones that are known to be correct.
-
I dont have time to post properly now, and frankly Steve has said everything I wanted to anyway. Just wanted to chime in my support for his well thought out and put together post.
-
[
Basic every day stuff has been handled by Newtons theory for a long time, except the theory was wrong and it changed to give us Einsteins theories. These give almost the same result but are fundamentally different and far more complex.
einstiens theories prove that newtonian physics dont work approaching the speed of light.
-
Basic every day stuff has been handled by Newtons theory for a long time, except the theory was wrong and it changed to give us Einsteins theories. These give almost the same result but are fundamentally different and far more complex.
einstiens theories prove that newtonian physics dont work approaching the speed of light.
Exactly! Einsteins equations are what happens to mechanics as you move to incredibly high speed. He never claimed his theories replace mechanics - theyre just what happens under different conditions.
Similarly quantum and chaos theory dont replace mechanics either. Theyre just what happens at very tiny scales.
Thermodynamics however (the thing stopping perpetual motion) works at all speeds and all scales. The only questionable area for thermodynamics is what happens at black holes. Black holes seem to be balanced by how much energy they eject and absorb but its not known yet.
-
Basic every day stuff has been handled by Newtons theory for a long time, except the theory was wrong and it changed to give us Einsteins theories. These give almost the same result but are fundamentally different and far more complex.
have you ever studied relativity Serious?
if you go through the maths, relativity reduces to Newtons laws of motion in the limit where velocity is very much less than c.
Newtons laws are not wrong, they are just limited in the range of situations in which they apply.
-
Basic every day stuff has been handled by Newtons theory for a long time, except the theory was wrong and it changed to give us Einsteins theories. These give almost the same result but are fundamentally different and far more complex.
einstiens theories prove that newtonian physics dont work approaching the speed of light.
Exactly! Einsteins equations are what happens to mechanics as you move to incredibly high speed. He never claimed his theories replace mechanics - theyre just what happens under different conditions.
Similarly quantum and chaos theory dont replace mechanics either. Theyre just what happens at very tiny scales.
Thermodynamics however (the thing stopping perpetual motion) works at all speeds and all scales. The only questionable area for thermodynamics is what happens at black holes. Black holes seem to be balanced by how much energy they eject and absorb but its not known yet.
your wrong. black holes are balanced by ego, and the amount of jam made by mrs potter in truro cornwall.
-
Mongoose and Funky Chicken are totally right on the laws of physics. they really dont change. People on this forum (well Serious at least) go on as if the whole system radically changes every couple of years when it really doesnt. Quantum physics didnt change how balls roll around. When string theory appeared it didnt change quantum effects or balls rolling round. When the next insight appears it still wont change how balls roll around. The laws of thermodynamics and macroscopic objects are proven - the only things that have changed is people have found that the same rules dont apply to tiny or massive objects, or when travelling at incredibly high speed. The day to day rules dont change and havent in any noticeable way since Newton and co wrote them down.
Did I say that? Please point me to where. I do acknowledge its possible that they do change, and several theories have speculated this.
You said it at the very top of your post and youre even saying it at the end of the question youre asking lol.
I have said the theories change, not that what the universe does changes,
I do acknowledge its possible that they do change
No. This is the bit you get wrong in each conversation about science. We both agree that the universe underneath doesnt chage (lets ignore the fringe stuff for the sake of simplicity because if the universe is changing as it expands then the change is so slight at this point in the universes lifecycle that we cant even detect it.
Second is part of a disclaimer, there are people who claim they do or can change slightly and who knows, they may be right. first is completely different and talks about theory, not how the universe actually works
Physics is an attempt to model how the balls run around, to describe how things work. The problem is they may end up with a theory which, while it describes everything in perfect detail, is totally wrong.
This is a silly statement. Physics hasnt been this for a long time. The movement of the balls is known. Theres no physics element of it anymore. Thats mechanics. Its a law and proven in so many ways that its not even an issue. If you dont see why the above is true then i dont think I can explain it any better - Im stumped. Guess its easier for you to just believe every revision of one of the quantum theories rewrites all human knowledge and the balls moving on the table need further study.
I didnt bring the balls up in the first case! Mechanics is still a part of physics - even if you dont think so. The balls they are experimenting with now may be subatomic particles but that doesnt change anything.
You wont find a single law of physics that has been disproved or modified. These things only become law when theyve been proven. Science has very few things it can prove but it has proven these. The title "law" is kept for a very specific set of rules. Theyre the ones that are known to be correct.
Whos talking about laws changing? Im talking about theories. Mind the universe certainly does have to take into account everything the great God SteveF has to say, that is obviously unbreakable law. Sorry to piss on your nice ideal but the universe doesn’t care who you are, or what your theories or laws are.
Basic every day stuff has been handled by Newtons theory for a long time, except the theory was wrong and it changed to give us Einsteins theories. These give almost the same result but are fundamentally different and far more complex.
einstiens theories prove that newtonian physics dont work approaching the speed of light.
Exactly! Einsteins equations are what happens to mechanics as you move to incredibly high speed. He never claimed his theories replace mechanics - theyre just what happens under different conditions.
Err, no. Einsteins theory was started because Newtons didnt match the paths of the planets exactly. The thing is they still do not give a result that is exactly right. They are near enough for almost everything we do though - and a hell of a lot simpler to use. Any change in speed affects the passage of time, the that the effect is just insignificant at normal speeds does not come into this. The unederlying principle is completely different.
Remember that newton had no idea that gravity could affect light or time. That new principle totally changed everything.
-
Everything in space goes around the earth you know, which is flat
-
Whos talking about laws changing? Im talking about theories. Mind the universe certainly does have to take into account everything the great God SteveF has to say, that is obviously unbreakable law. Sorry to piss on your nice ideal but the universe doesn’t care who you are, or what your theories or laws are.
Anyone who is talking about building a perpetual motion machine is talking about violating the laws of thermodynamics.
You missunderstand totally the concept of a law of physics. You suggest that scientists somehow expect the Universe to conform to a set of laws we lay down. In fact the grass roots of physics is the study, identification and description of the laws which the universe follows all on its own. Some of those laws we have yet to figure out, some we are still refining our descriptions of. Thermodynamics is an example of neither. As far as we can determine our understanding of thermodynamics on a macroscopic scale is complete. Therefore you cannot build a perpetual motion machine which produces any significant quantity of juice.
Even if you postulate some bizarre and unknown QM effect which allows something on the scale of a single atom to violate the macroscopic laws of Thermodynamics, you cant use it to build a working PM machine because QM effects always average out to the long known macroscopic laws when you add enough of them together. That is why you dont get lions behaving like a wave and defracting through the bars on their cages at zoos.
-
Anyone who is talking about building a perpetual motion machine is talking about violating the laws of thermodynamics.
You missunderstand totally the concept of a law of physics. You suggest that scientists somehow expect the Universe to conform to a set of laws we lay down. In fact the grass roots of physics is the study, identification and description of the laws which the universe follows all on its own.
Erm, aint this a contradiction?
thermodynamics and any other law is what man perseves to be conforming with what they see is happening that "fits" which you seem to agree with,
one point serious for example and I with dark matter have mentioned and others in comments have even said the same thing, what man thinks about something can and has changed many times in many areas including physics
You can not say it is impossible becuase 5 years time it may well be, 50 years time faster then light which is not ment to be possible probably will be
Subject matter is what has the people done to make claim to what they got, general consensus is that it aint but does not mean it is never going to be possible.
-
Erm, aint this a contradiction?
No
-
no, its not a contradiction at all
The universe doesnt conform to our laws, the universe conforms to its own laws and we spend our lives trying to figure out what those laws are.
Some of them we are pretty sure we have down. Thermodynamics is an example of one (well, 3, 4 if you count the 0th) of these. The universe is very unlikely to change its mind about conservation of energy or entropy increase any time soon, and until it does, perpetual motion machines will remain impossible.
-
Plays - E=Mc Hawkings - Entropy[1].mp3
-
no, its not a contradiction at all
The universe doesnt conform to our laws, the universe conforms to its own laws and we spend our lives trying to figure out what those laws are.
Some of them we are pretty sure we have down. Thermodynamics is an example of one (well, 3, 4 if you count the 0th) of these. The universe is very unlikely to change its mind about conservation of energy or entropy increase any time soon, and until it does, perpetual motion machines will remain impossible.
Just one of those odd ways that scientists cover their rear ends, just like I do.
Issue is SteveF claims that the laws never change, I would counter that and say they have just never been observed to change so far. Who is right? In a way it isnt a case of right or wrong, its who covers themselvess with Teflon. The probability is we are both are right, but if they are observed differences that turn up in a couple of billion years then I would be still right and SteveF would be proven wrong. Are they the same in a singularity? How about at the beginning of time? :shrug:
My attitude here has always been to talk in generalities that can be interpreted in as wide a number of ways as possible and toast anyone who makes an assumption as to what is meant.
Steve tries to talk pure science fact, I talk cardplay. Usually I win cause I cover my butt more and cant be pinned down when I get it wrong :twisted:
I certainly wouldnt be able to stand up to him in his specific subject, but on general physics I have an even chance.
Plays - E=Mc Hawkings - Entropy[1].mp3
/plays **** the creationists.mp3 :mrgreen:
-
/
(Dave now thinks serious would probably argue with the pope over catholic dogma as long as he had access to google)
-
Dave, you have no idea :lol:
I would argue with *any* catholic, Pope included, over catholic dogma without any access to the internet at all... :P
-
Steve tries to talk pure science fact, I talk cardplay. Usually I win cause I cover my butt more and cant be pinned down when I get it wrong
No, people give up because youre so unbelievably thick skinned. For what its worth, I still think your generalisms are more about covering up your cluelessness for as long as it takes you to run another yahoo search, rather than any cunning ruse.
-
Steve tries to talk pure science fact, I talk cardplay. Usually I win cause I cover my butt more and cant be pinned down when I get it wrong
No, people give up because youre so unbelievably thick skinned. For what its worth, I still think your generalisms are more about covering up your cluelessness for as long as it takes you to run another yahoo search, rather than any cunning ruse.
Then perhaps you should learn to read properly rather than assuming what you think someone is saying is what they are saying? Then you wont get done so often for incompetence.
Scientists have got to be thick skinned BTW, they have to put up with the output of other scientists and the general public.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6272752.stm
Well not a perpetual motion machine and only produces a small amount of power but it still takes the world and what it is and magnetics and some people in here out right saying it is not doable a bit wrong
-
but thats the same as saying a nuclear reactor is a perpetual motion machine.
like comparing apples to tables.
-
And apparently it doesnt work in a non-lab environment...
http://www.steorn.com/news/releases/?id=1001
Theyve pulled the public demo "until further notice" due to unexpected heat/enviromental influences causing the system to fail.
Shame really as I was quite excited to see it :(
-
And apparently it doesnt work in a non-lab environment...
http://www.steorn.com/news/releases/?id=1001
Theyve pulled the public demo "until further notice" due to unexpected heat/enviromental influences causing the system to fail.
Shame really as I was quite excited to see it :(
Indeed, till they show it working or not working in public I will hold out but I doubt it
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6272752.stm
Well not a perpetual motion machine and only produces a small amount of power but it still takes the world and what it is and magnetics and some people in here out right saying it is not doable a bit wrong
Saw that article this morning, those have been in the pipeline for ages and its good to see stuff like that getting an airing. I gave a presentation on them 3 years ago, good to see them maturing (or not, as the case may be)...
Opens up the way for some pretty serious advances in ubiquitous computing, couple them with ultra-low power wifi transcievers and youve got a great platform for building stability sensing, stock taking, production line process control, environmental measurements... the possibilities really are endless. Assuming you have an A/C duct or similar to glue them to of course ;)
-
quel suprise
-
Aye. I remember last time this did the rounds a lot of people (myself included) figured the whole thing for a publicity stunt. Lets face it, who ever heard of Steorn before?
-
sorry fc9k i just wanted to annoy nexus by saying the "perpetual bullsh*t machine" was a flop
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6272752.stm
Well not a perpetual motion machine and only produces a small amount of power but it still takes the world and what it is and magnetics and some people in here out right saying it is not doable a bit wrong
Saw that article this morning, those have been in the pipeline for ages and its good to see stuff like that getting an airing. I gave a presentation on them 3 years ago, good to see them maturing (or not, as the case may be)...
Opens up the way for some pretty serious advances in ubiquitous computing, couple them with ultra-low power wifi transcievers and youve got a great platform for building stability sensing, stock taking, production line process control, environmental measurements... the possibilities really are endless. Assuming you have an A/C duct or similar to glue them to of course ;)
Is it possible to get much more power from this sort of thing or is it rally the future of mobile devices like mobile phones etc?
-
its more a generator. theyve had vibration generators in seiko watches for ages. they are just calling it a perpetual motion machine because it generates a glint of false hope.
for it to work the same in a heart the mechanical heart would have to be tres efficient.
-
I think youre missing the point a bit (assuming youre talking about the scavenging generator rather than the Steorn bollocks), the scavenging generator wasnt ever touted as a PMM. Also Im pretty sure its not going to become the basis of a pacemaker power system for the time being, although I could be wrong there. Id say it will start off more in the biosensor area, where you dont need hefty voltage conversion.
Seiko kinetic watches are a different kettle of fish, more than likely they use rotating weights to turn axial generators and charge a capacitor. Thats simple, as you can rely on the weight to spin pretty well when a person is swinging their arms to walk. The same approach would be very difficult to use with low-amplitude vibration, and thats why this more than likely has an element of mems-style silicon cantilevers and clever magnet placement etc.
As for how much power it can scavenge, it all depends on the efficiency of the conversion mechanism, the strength of the magnets, permittivities and permeabilities, etc. Also it will also heavily hinge on the vibration of the system its attatched to; more than likely it will be mechanically optimised for certain vibrational modes and frequencies, so something thats nice and predictable in that respect would yield good results.
At the same time, vibrations mean noise so A/C companies have a vested interest in reducing them of course ;)
-
ill take six.
-
Whos talking about laws changing? Im talking about theories. Mind the universe certainly does have to take into account everything the great God SteveF has to say, that is obviously unbreakable law. Sorry to piss on your nice ideal but the universe doesn’t care who you are, or what your theories or laws are.
Issue is SteveF claims that the laws never change, I would counter that and say they have just never been observed to change so far. Who is right? In a way it isnt a case of right or wrong, its who covers themselvess with Teflon. The probability is we are both are right, but if they are observed differences that turn up in a couple of billion years then I would be still right and SteveF would be proven wrong. Are they the same in a singularity? How about at the beginning of time? :shrug:
My attitude here has always been to talk in generalities that can be interpreted in as wide a number of ways as possible and toast anyone who makes an assumption as to what is meant.
Steve tries to talk pure science fact, I talk cardplay. Usually I win cause I cover my butt more and cant be pinned down when I get it wrong :twisted:
I certainly wouldnt be able to stand up to him in his specific subject, but on general physics I have an even chance.
Plays - E=Mc Hawkings - Entropy[1].mp3
/plays **** the creationists.mp3 :mrgreen:
Meh - if you want to take the thread personal go for it. I guess Ill just have to blunder around and note that all my posts have 5 star ratings and all yours seem to have 1 star ratings. If someone explaining the other side means you take it to a personal attack then I retract my comment about you seeming a bright lad at the start of this diatribe.
I tried to explain something. If youre happy with your model and it works for you then run with it. Im sure itll serve you well and mine will work for me. :)
If Im honest I think you cant fault me for saying 100% what I believe. Im not skirting around the issues. Im not being vague and Im even giving you the opportunity to prove me wrong and telling you what would be required to do so. By saying clearly stating what I (and to be frank every scientist) believes to be true is about as fair as I can make this.
Im giving specific examples and the unknown cases, Im even saying that if you (or anyone else in the world) can find even one example in the universe that disproves anything Ive said then Ill eat my words. Im not hiding behind vague things like what ifs or simply (as you are) saying I just think youre incorrect without explaining why. If you can show any fault in what Ive said then please let me know. At that point Im with you 100%, willing to learn and will be writing a book on it.
The point is, you cant.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6283374.stm
-
If Im honest I think you cant fault me for saying 100% what I believe. Im not skirting around the issues. Im not being vague and Im even giving you the opportunity to prove me wrong and telling you what would be required to do so. By saying clearly stating what I (and to be frank every scientist) believes to be true is about as fair as I can make this.
It wasnt what you said, someone else read my post and assumed I had said something I hadnt. Then you followed on without thinking if they were right or wrong. There have been dozens of threads on here where someone says something in the first post and a few posts later they are either misinterpreted or another poster ignores what they have said completely. OTOH you cant exactly diss me for covering my butt.
Im giving specific examples and the unknown cases, Im even saying that if you (or anyone else in the world) can find even one example in the universe that disproves anything Ive said then Ill eat my words. Im not hiding behind vague things like what ifs or simply (as you are) saying I just think youre incorrect without explaining why. If you can show any fault in what Ive said then please let me know.
Pretty much what I have said. There have been many instances of scientists who have produced stuff that looks good but has been proven to be made up out of whole cloth. You cant depend on others to be as upright and honest as you are. Most theories are now in the same dustbin that the world is flat occupies, they cant all be right, there are far too many of them.
At that point Im with you 100%, willing to learn and will be writing a book on it.
The point is, you cant.
Im actually pretty well up on the theories, I need to be for the SF books I write, and they are based on facts. Latest ive had a look at is string-net liquid, most are damn confusing or counter intuitive at least in part. Things happen that I at least wouldnt expect. One scientist indicated a theory to me and said it "wasnt anywhere near mad enough" and Im pretty sure he wasnt kidding me either. The issue now isnt so much what happens, which is where the laws are, but how and why.
One of the biggest items that was brushed under the carpet by science is how the Big Bang works, there are a few possibilities, removing gravity is one of them, but in most cases you dont have a Bang at all, not as originally described, and if you dont have a get around you end up with a perpetual singularity.
BTW I never look at the ratings, the only people who bother most of the time are trolls :mrgreen:
/waits for single star :P
-
if you want to switch this into a random conversation that broadly says that theoroies at the fringes of science are incorrect then youre going to get no arguments and certainly none from me.
However, the reason the people in this thread corrected things/you was because you included the law of thermodynamics in with those fringe science/theories. It was that people were talking about.
If you fancy pointing the conversation somewhere else now thats cool. However it wasnt the wider conversation people were correcting. It was stating that the laws of thermodynamics might change for macroscopic systems for the possibility of perpetual motion machines (the title of the thread). It was this that caused people to step in and try and explain why theyre not theories.
It seems this point is being backpeddled a little now. I guess perpetual motion machines are useful for a SF writer so if it works for you, go for it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6283374.stm
Anyone here actually believe this thing failed because the lights in the theatre were too bright? The demonstration now has to be postponed indefinitely and can only be run in his lab? Im sorry - I may not be the god of science that Serious referred to but why didnt they just turn off the lights and run it? Too difficult? Too complicated a solution? No, they didnt do it because the thing only works in his lab. Funny, that sounds remarkably like the cold fusion reactor that produced neutrons only in the guys lab. Amazingly that stopped working too when they turned off the neutron generator in the room next door...
-
Anyone here actually believe this thing failed because the lights in the theatre were too bright? The demonstration now has to be postponed indefinitely and can only be run in his lab? Im sorry - I may not be the god of science that Serious referred to but why didnt they just turn off the lights and run it? Too difficult? Too complicated a solution? No, they didnt do it because the thing only works in his lab. Funny, that sounds remarkably like the cold fusion reactor that produced neutrons only in the guys lab. Amazingly that stopped working too when they turned off the neutron generator in the room next door...
With some of the interferances we get in our labs anything were working on would probably work better anywhere else. I really cant see how the lights would effect it without seeing further technical details of the design.
-
if you want to switch this into a random conversation that broadly says that theoroies at the fringes of science are incorrect then youre going to get no arguments and certainly none from me.
However, the reason the people in this thread corrected things/you was because you included the law of thermodynamics in with those fringe science/theories. It was that people were talking about.
If you fancy pointing the conversation somewhere else now thats cool. However it wasnt the wider conversation people were correcting. It was stating that the laws of thermodynamics might change for macroscopic systems for the possibility of perpetual motion machines (the title of the thread). It was this that caused people to step in and try and explain why theyre not theories.
Put enough energy into a black hole and it is possible that the law of thermodynamics might reverse, entropy going backwards. That in itself does not necessarily break the law, just changes the conditions locally. For that matter the universe might cycle through a series of big crunches and then big bangs Again entropy would appear to go backwards for the whole uinverse.
It seems this point is being backpeddled a little now. I guess perpetual motion machines are useful for a SF writer so if it works for you, go for it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6283374.stm
Anyone here actually believe this thing failed because the lights in the theatre were too bright? The demonstration now has to be postponed indefinitely and can only be run in his lab? Im sorry - I may not be the god of science that Serious referred to but why didnt they just turn off the lights and run it? Too difficult? Too complicated a solution? No, they didnt do it because the thing only works in his lab. Funny, that sounds remarkably like the cold fusion reactor that produced neutrons only in the guys lab. Amazingly that stopped working too when they turned off the neutron generator in the room next door...
A fairly obvious solution, they could have used low energy lights too. Or dimmed those present. I suspect they have run into another issue, like it doesnt work. Only time will tell.
-
Put enough energy into a black hole and it is possible that the law of thermodynamics might reverse, entropy going backwards. That in itself does not necessarily break the law, just changes the conditions locally. For that matter the universe might cycle through a series of big crunches and then big bangs Again entropy would appear to go backwards for the whole uinverse.
Irrelevent. The device isnt being operated during a big crunch, and Im pretty sure its not near a saturated black hole either. Ergo, it violates the laws of thermodynamics and again youre missing the point.
-
Put enough energy into a black hole and it is possible that the law of thermodynamics might reverse, entropy going backwards. That in itself does not necessarily break the law, just changes the conditions locally. For that matter the universe might cycle through a series of big crunches and then big bangs Again entropy would appear to go backwards for the whole uinverse.
I believe it was me that pointed out that at extreme conditions the system may fail. Theres no reason to think it will - just we dont know. The point is that this does not happen at the macroscopic level and will not happen. In anything youre able to touch or build the law of thermodynamics will hold.
Theres very few things in science I would bet on but the macroscopic laws of thermodynamics on the planet earth are one - I literally would bet my life and every wordly possession I have on them being right and never being disproved. I literally mean forever and I mean they will remain unchanged on the macroscopic scale, they dont even have to be shown totally wrong for me to lose the bet. Im that certain of it. This isnt a question of belief. Its a consequence of measuring and proving the statement. Its a bit like someone taking the bet that 1+1=2. People might try and get fancy and show that it doesnt but thats another bet I would take. The law of thermodynamics is the same, it;s just the concept is a bit tricker than 1+1 if you dont use them all the time.
I wouldnt take the same bet at the event horizon of a black hole (it probably does actually hold true even there but I simply dont know) but in any machine we can make, touch or build that doesnt involve pushing the universe into another state by generating immensely distorted conditions then Ill take it. You wont get that bet from many people on many other things.
edit: lol - I see I now have a 4 star rating Serious, how mature lol :P
-
I wonder what cool things you could do with dark matter
-
Put enough energy into a black hole and it is possible that the law of thermodynamics might reverse, entropy going backwards. That in itself does not necessarily break the law, just changes the conditions locally. For that matter the universe might cycle through a series of big crunches and then big bangs Again entropy would appear to go backwards for the whole uinverse.
Irrelevent. The device isnt being operated during a big crunch, and Im pretty sure its not near a saturated black hole either. Ergo, it violates the laws of thermodynamics and again youre missing the point.
Im not on about this ****ing device, stop making ****ing assenine assumptions. As I said the item posted in the first post isnt going to work, not as a perpetual motion machine. It cant create energy, it might mine it from an unknown source, but I doubt that. OTOH the universe does work, and can be regarded as a form of perpetual motion machine, at least if the theories are right.
Put enough energy into a black hole and it is possible that the law of thermodynamics might reverse, entropy going backwards. That in itself does not necessarily break the law, just changes the conditions locally. For that matter the universe might cycle through a series of big crunches and then big bangs Again entropy would appear to go backwards for the whole uinverse.
I believe it was me that pointed out that at extreme conditions the system may fail. Theres no reason to think it will - just we dont know. The point is that this does not happen at the macroscopic level and will not happen. In anything youre able to touch or build the law of thermodynamics will hold.
I would totally agree with that.
Theres very few things in science I would bet on but the macroscopic laws of thermodynamics on the planet earth are one - I literally would bet my life and every wordly possession I have on them being right and never being disproved. I literally mean forever and I mean they will remain unchanged on the macroscopic scale, they dont even have to be shown totally wrong for me to lose the bet. Im that certain of it. This isnt a question of belief. Its a consequence of measuring and proving the statement. Its a bit like someone taking the bet that 1+1=2. People might try and get fancy and show that it doesnt but thats another bet I would take. The law of thermodynamics is the same, it;s just the concept is a bit tricker than 1+1 if you dont use them all the time.
Its hardly a bet when you are virtually guaranteed that it will not happen in your lifetime.
I wouldnt take the same bet at the event horizon of a black hole (it probably does actually hold true even there but I simply dont know) but in any machine we can make, touch or build that doesnt involve pushing the universe into another state by generating immensely distorted conditions then Ill take it. You wont get that bet from many people on many other things.
Black holes are very tricky. Particle pairs form on the outside, one is a positron, the other its negative counterpart. The negative one falls in and has a meeting with a positron. The positron sails away and meets with a nice neutron, they pair, get themselves an electron. You now have a nice new hydrogen atom. Eventually all of the matter inside the black hole will be recycled, although it will take a very long time.
edit: lol - I see I now have a 4 star rating Serious, how mature lol :P
Not me, unless it takes the couple of posts I rated on this page extremely seriously, oops sorry it was me :lol:
Stuffed you back up again, you deserve the five stars ;)
Seems someone keeps on marking mine as one star, not that I care.
Whoever is doing it is wasting their time :mutley:
-
I guess perpetual motion machines are useful for a SF writer so if it works for you, go for it.
I havent used one anything like this, ever, I need to keep things believable.
Although I have used huge devices to harvest zero point energy to power colony spaceships in the physics model I used you cant harvest enough without going at a minimum of 60km/sec. where the device starts to provide more energy than it uses. Too much speed and harvested energy means the ships capacitors fill and the ship goes bang. Whole idea works on moving gravitons from the back to the front of the ship, which creates a gravity slope so the ship moves forwards. It also negates the problem of Gee force, as the ship is effectively falling forwards, no compensation is needed.
OK I have no idea if that is possible, but I have seen many worse options. Such as using a black hole held in a field to pull the ship forward. Ship moves forwards, field moves forwards, black hole moves forwards... Totally impossible, even someone with a very basic understanding of physics could pull it apart.
-
cakes are great.
-
cakes are great.
But even better if you can eat your cake and still have one :D
-
if you dont look at it is it actually a cake?
-
cakes are great.
But even better if you can eat your cake and still have one :D
Therefore, always buy two.
-
if you dont look at it is it actually a cake?
If you did not see it comming, did you really get hit ?
-
if you dont look at it is it actually a cake?
Even worse if you dont look at it has the seller given you a turd instead? :gag: