It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

REAL Perpetual Motion

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   


Usually barred by the laws of thermodynamics, perpetual motion is possible at the macroscopic level when friction is completely eliminated -- the state one finds in a BEC. The NIST demonstration used laser-cooled sodium atoms flowing within a torus to demonstrate the superfluid state. So far, their longest attempt persisted for only ten seconds; the team is attempting to lengthen the period in a future prototype.


www.dailytech.com...
A true, verified, perpetual motion machine. Not free energy, which is impossible, but it's pretty awesome none the less.




posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Whoa, that's weird stuff. I wonder if there are any practical applications. I don't really know anything about Bose-Einstein condensates, but I hope they prove useful.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 02:23 AM
link   
The laws of thermodynamics are old, outdated and doesnt take in account the antimatter of our world, it is based apon observations of steam engines back in 1775. and has developed from there.
If one tries to get a patent on something that violates the laws of thermodynamics they are dismissed.

nice way to suppress people who think out of the box.

thermodynamics is based on priciples accounting to a closed system...
That is something achievable only in theory.
Because every system, and i litteraly mean every system, existing within this universe is in constant and continuous exchange with the rest of the universe.

And how this universe is made, what it consists of and how it functions, we have not even remotely begun to fully understand.

the idea of Entropy is essential to the laws of thermodynamics, and is a measure of the unavailability of a system’s energy to do work. the entropy describes the number of the possible micro/macroscopic configurations of the system. (there are no closed systems, only in theory)
The statistical definition of entropy is the more fundamental definition, from which all other definitions and all properties of entropy follow,
and since Statistical mechanics is the application of probability theory, we start to see a wellknow pattern in science...

The theory apon theory to back up flawfull theories, made in times where we had only little knowledge of science.

Theese theories and speculations, seem to be more real to the egghead scientists, than the world right outside their door.








[edit on 4-12-2007 by Bluess]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 05:51 AM
link   
woow I'm kinda glad that i didnt get any responce on my flaming of the thermodynamics flaws...

This must mean that people agree that the laws of thermodynamics is not the law of what can be done or not done, and should therefore not be used to dismiss other theories or claims.

I thank you all



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 07:01 AM
link   
As long as we have the moon and the sun we have at least one form of "perpetual motion" available to harness as energy on earth.

The tide.This can be used to generate energy on a massive scale.

On the more "conventional" thinking on perpetual motion magnet/alternator type designs(that never seem to work,as previously described)..I have an idea for a type that would be easy to build,would work indefinitely and would need NO electrical input at all...
Trouble is it would only work at 2 points of the globe.
Have you guessed it?
Thats right,a huge alternator would be built on the north/south pole.Connected to the spindle would be a massive metal rod,one end + charged,the other end -charged.
Now we have a gigantic compass connected to a gigatic alternator,at the pole.
WHat do compasses do at the poles?
THEY SPIN,and do not stop.
The alternator spins-electricity is generated perpetually(unless we get a pole shift,or the earth stops spinning...)
I think it would work,with some decent bearings and a lot of hard work.
What do you think?



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Seems a bit odd to me, even the title of the article contradicts itself.

"NIST Creates Perpetual Motion ... But Only for 10 Seconds"

How can they claim it's perpetual, when they only managed to keep it going for 10 seconds????

/me scratches head...



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   
I'm guessing it's because they couldn't keep the BEC cold enough for more than 10 seconds.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   
If you look at the official NIST press release, they don’t use the words “perpetual motion” anywhere. Instead, “persistent current” is used. Here is the article on it written by NIST.



The laws of thermodynamics are old, outdated and doesnt take in account the antimatter of our world, it is based apon observations of steam engines back in 1775. and has developed from there.


And those observations still apply today.



thermodynamics is based on priciples accounting to a closed system...
That is something achievable only in theory.
Because every system, and i litteraly mean every system, existing within this universe is in constant and continuous exchange with the rest of the universe.


While the universe may be the only isolated system, there are many systems that can be approximated as closed and isolated. While the earth is an open system where its entropy can decrease in some places, the earth and sun combined form a system where entropy always increases, and any effect from matter or radiation from outside the solar system is negligible. Same applies to other smaller systems on Earth.



The theory apon theory to back up flawfull theories, made in times where we had only little knowledge of science.


When evidence contradicts a theory, scientists adjust or replace the theory, while keeping the parts that still work and changing the parts that don’t. If an old theory has been shown to be flawed, scientists changed it.



Theese theories and speculations, seem to be more real to the egghead scientists, than the world right outside their door.


And yet it is those same egghead scientists that performed this experiment. And outside of that world are the engineers who see these theories as just tools and are constantly testing them with everything they design and create. Even if there is some conspiracy among scientists to preserve the old theories, the engineers simply don’t care and if it is possible to violate these theories to create something useful, they will.

In the end, I still find this experiment to be interesting.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by lonemaverick
 


Um let me see ... 10 seconds is far from perpetual! If you want to look towards perpetual motion one should look to magnets. Yes the concept goes against the laws of thermodynamics, but hey the world was flat too!
I came to to realize/ head in this direction of thought when I realized Albert E. stopped working with realativity to work with magnetics. I thought about it and realized the power of magnetic repulsion is somewhat unstopable when the disatnce between magnetic poles is held at a constant. That would make the repelling force at work a constant force at work and therefore perpetual.

ps - am I wrong? input plz!



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by lonemaverick


Not free energy, which is impossible


Ok, i'm not an expert here with this aspect of science but why is it impossible to have free energy?

Didn't a man create an engine in his barn that ran on only water? After making or purchasing the engine then you would have free energy for the rest of your life and your childrens life so on and so forth.

I know there might be an initial cost in the beginning but after that it would be free for the rest of your life. Is it the initial cost you where talking about?

Thanks
Stari



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Lethys
 



woow you just completely missunderstood what i wrote and what the laws of thermodynamisk is about.....

The laws of thermodynamisk is what most of "todays" scientist yell out whenever they hear things like "overunity", to explaine how it can "not be done"

What I was saying, is that the laws of thermodynamisk are wrong!



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bluess
woow I'm kinda glad that i didnt get any responce on my flaming of the thermodynamics flaws...

This must mean that people agree that the laws of thermodynamics is not the law of what can be done or not done...

You are wrong. I refer you to Hexagram 4 of the I Ching for the correct explanation.

You can disbelieve in the Second Law of Thermodynamics all you like, but you will never escape its jurisdiction.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:13 AM
link   


woow you just completely missunderstood what i wrote and what the laws of thermodynamisk is about.....




What I was saying, is that the laws of thermodynamisk are wrong!


Actually, that’s exactly what I thought you were trying to say.

And no, the laws of thermodynamics are not wrong, and all experiments agree with them. And before someone says it, no the experiment in this article does not disprove it. The source in the OP misrepresented what NIST said.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:32 AM
link   
the Laws of thermodynamics are always approximations, and can in principle never be used to eliminate alternative possible scenarios.

This is a fact, but if you want to be "locked" in your way of thinking, then by all means stick with theese approximations, fine with me.

But we will nerver agree, since "there is no closed system" known to us to this day.

[edit on 10-12-2007 by Bluess]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:55 AM
link   
As far as I can tell, saying that something isn’t a closed system is usually to explain why entropy apparently decreased. Having the second law hold despite a system not being truly closed does not hurt the law, or make it just an approximation. If anything, it further supports it.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Lethys
 


And that my friend, is just another examble of scientists making/building up theories to backup already lackfull theories.

I do know that most systems today, are not violating the laws of thermodynamics, but that doesnt mean they cant be violated. And it doesnt prove that the laws are correct.

It indicates it, but it doesnt prove it.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 02:22 AM
link   


And that my friend, is just another examble of scientists making/building up theories to backup already lackfull theories.

What? How?
What example is in my last post that supports that claim?




It indicates it, but it doesnt prove it.


While science can never “prove” anything, when a certain theory or law goes a very long time while being constantly tested without being disproved, and is even used extensively in engineering, it is safe to say that it accurately describes the universe. Just like gravity.

[edit on 10-12-2007 by Lethys]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lethys

And that my friend, is just another examble of scientists making/building up theories to backup already lackfull theories.

What? How?
What example is in my last post that supports that claim?


The laws of thermodynamics very not made up all at once, they started with the principle of the Carnot cycle(which eventually became the Second Law). and you said: "Having the second law hold despite a system not being truly closed does not hurt the law, or make it just an approximation. If anything, it further supports it."




It indicates it, but it doesnt prove it.


While science can never “prove” anything, when a certain theory or law goes a very long time while being constantly tested without being disproved, and is even used extensively in engineering, it is safe to say that it accurately describes the universe. Just like gravity.


Constantly tested without being disproved you say? The fact is, that it is being used more as a law, of what can and can't be done, ore then being actually tested.

See as you say "science can never prove anything" it is frightening that: "the laws of thermodynamics are being used, over and over again, to dissprove alternative theories!"

Instead of accepting the test/challange, theories that go against thermodynamic laws are dismissed.


[edit on 10-12-2007 by Lethys]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 03:27 AM
link   


The laws of thermodynamics very not made up all at once, they started with the principle of the Carnot cycle(which eventually became the Second Law).

Perhaps there is a bit of miscommunication between on us this issue. Your making it sound, both in your choice of words and context, that scientists desperately try to botch up theories that don’t work in order to preserve the theories. When, in reality, if a theory that had been working before comes up against contradictory experimental evidence, scientists will try and see if the previous theory can be modified to fit in with the experimental data. After all, there may be a reason it had been working so well before. If it can’t then the theory is discarded.

And yes, the latter example has happened many times. The Bohr atom and quantum mechanics for example. When the Bohr model of the atom and the classical view of the universe proved insufficient given the experimental data, quantum mechanics came into being.



See as you say "science can never prove anything" it is frightening that: "the laws of thermodynamics are being used, over and over again, to dissprove alternative theories!"

By nothing can be proven in science, I mean that we can’t be sure of anything within 100% certainty. In the case the laws of thermodynamics, our certainty, while not 100%, is still very high, like 99.9%. Even if no direct tests(tests of just the 3 laws) are being done, the laws themselves are so general that they carry on and are indirectly tested in all sorts of other things. Even in the world of engineering, the laws are constantly tested, if they broke down in certain cases, it would be noticed as what they were trying to create wouldn’t work.

If those alternative theories actually had evidence behind them, then they would be tested. Such a discovery as the violation of the laws of thermodynamics could easily make a scientists career, and win them a Nobel prize. But without evidence behind them, you can’t expect scientists to take those alternatives seriously when they go against something that we have such a degree of certainty in. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”


[edit on 10-12-2007 by Lethys]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Lethys
 


and what evidence are we talking about?
Functional machinery?
functional theories?



scientists will try and see if the previous theory can be modified to fit in with the experimental data. After all, there may be a reason it had been working so well before. If it can’t then the theory is discarded.

This is exactly what I am talking about... It is being discarded...

Lets remember here, that most of todays established theories have started their growth about 100 years ago, including the "laws of thermodynamics".
So it might take a loooong time for the alternative theories to become established, but that doesnt mean that they wont.
Many new discoveries are coming into play theese days and we are moving into a better understanding of our universe and our surroundings.

Lets remember that "the laws of thermodynamics" is a theory, not a law.

And yet it is being used as a law to dismiss other theories, because the scientists can't modify them to fit into the already established theories.

The laws of thermodynamics can be supported by most of todays systems, however,that doesnt mean that another system that doesnt support the laws of thermodynamics, cannot exist.

So why are this theory being used do discard other theories?
Why cant we invastigate new theories instead of modifying old theories?

Is it so hard to imagine implosion instead of explotion?
How does the laws of thermodynamics deal with issues such as anti matter?
How does the laws of thermodynamics relate to how everything is "glued" together from the smallest imaginable scenario to the large scale of the universe?
How does the laws of thermodynamics relate to magnetism and electricity?

I would go as far as to, rely on the laws of thermodynamics, only when dealing with todays established heat engines.

Maybe alternative theories should use the same method as established theories do, and simply discard the laws of thermodynamics.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join