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.

 

Generator ‘Breaks The Laws Of Physics’ and that's why it can't be patented?

page: 5
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
Glad you think you have it all figured out... however atoms don't burn sugar. Breathing and eating is just gathering more perpetual motion machines (atoms) to the form.

Sorry... what are you talking about? You are not making any sense.


Look it up where in your science text book?
It is most often those who think they understand physics so well who understand it the least stuck in thier little box of orthodoxy. That is why we are still using 150 year old technology for transportation...

At least bother to understand the science you are so quick to dismiss, you look less ignorant that way


But like I said I am just some guy in the internet so what do I know...

Precisely, and evidently someone who doesn't know much about science at all.

Notice the correlation between scientific illiteracy and blind belief in all this perpetual/over unity nonsense?




posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jonnywhite
People should not think of perpetual motion machines that do work when they think about producing energy.

Another thing is that energy cannot be created or destroyed, just changed.

We keep thinking that perpetual motion machines that produce energy will answer our problems. But the mistake is assuming that non-perpetual energy producers AREN'T ALREADY answering problems!! We DO NOT need free energy to solve problems!! ]


Why couldn't you? A perpetual motion machine that does work is perfectly reasonable to me.

Energy may be able to be created. We do not know enough about energy yet to say it cannot be created or destroyed. This is another is Science's unproven theories. Sure for practical application we think of energy having these properties because we know we can work in that area. That doesn't make those statements true. They are unproven.

Sure cheaper is easier to strive for than free energy that will produce work. Doesn't mean we cant strive for both. One must not be of a mind to discourage free energy solutions. Cheap isn't good enough because as long as there is a buck involved someone is going to want to control that energy and enslave the masses - just like they do now with your electric company.. Make energy that produces work free and you change the game. In today's climate a game changer like free energy could mean innovations yet undreamed of. We cold make money obsolete. We could feed the world. We could eliminate stress from work and worry from our lives. We could figure out how to heal better and save lives that now would be terminal. I say we Need that game changer more than ever.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Originally posted by moebius
-Snip-

Your arguments are so flawed it's not funny. I have been up for over 24 hours. (watching UARS last night and work) I'm going to bed. When I get up I will address your flaws. Check back in about 10 hours.
edit on 24-9-2011 by JohnPhoenix because: sp



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Make energy that produces work free and you change the game.

 


Ever heard the expression "There's no such thing as a free lunch"... No matter what improvements there are in energy production, it takes people to work, build, maintain the systems. Which requires payment. Electricity is not going to be free, anytime soon.

Here's a thought. Food that grows in the forest (berries, etc.) is free. How many forest berries have you eaten lately?



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 

The problem is our centralized electrical distribution system. In that regard, you are correct. However if a source of "free energy" were developed, the centralized model would no longer make sense. A decentralized model would be much better imo. Each home could have it's own mini power generation station. Whether it be solar, or wind, or hydro, fuel cells, or something else like the OP is discussing. Think of the revolution that would result.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
So far I'm not too impressed, primarily because the name throws things off. Alpha Omega Galaxy generator? Seriously? That name would be deserving if he made a generator that could tap into space-time and siphon 'infinite' energy or something else revolutionary. Putting some magnets onto a fan...sorry, but change the name. Anyway, Rossi's energy catalyzer is far more impressive and so far seems to be the real deal. He also gave it a humble title.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 



Because the oil companies say so.


You know... I hear this a lot. "Oil companies just want to protect their profits" is a very popular line amongst those who like to use it as a straw-man argument to support the practicality and existence of "zero point" and "over unity" devices.

Here's the problem: at least in theory - the oil companies are going to be out of oil within 100 years - and only going to run out of it sooner with greater amounts of consumption. How are they going to be hurt by the introduction of devices that will reduce oil consumption for energy-generation purposes and extend the available reserves by 100% or more?

Further - if they were attempting to so "protect their profits" - would they, also, not be contracting private armies to destroy solar panel manufacturers and saboteurs to set-back researchers and intimidate any willing to research such technologies?

It makes as much sense as mud. Sure - there are likely some powerful influences within the 'oil tycoons' who do behave in such a way - just as there are similar personalities within the 'green tycoon' doing the same. However, that does not lend itself to the validity of one's claim to have some form of zero point or over-unity device.

Quite frankly - I believe it is possible to create, at the minimum, a "zero point" device that bypasses the second law of thermodynamics. However, it is not going to be done with chewing gum, paper clips, duct tape, and magnets from radio-shack. It will require precise engineering at the atomic level and a much more mature model of subatomic behavior.

I believe over-unity is also 'possible' - but that it is going to be derived from inherently extreme phenomena. Again, we're not going to make it with a few awkwardly shaped transformers and AA batteries. The stuff in our universe got here, somehow - so it would stand to reason that there is some method of bringing more stuff in or sending it back out (although there may be some consequences involved that we cannot possibly predict based on our limited library of phenomena).

One just has to put it all into context. The claim of over-unity or zero-point machines is a big one. The proof simply has to be in the pudding. Over-unity, zero-point, etc machines are very simple to prove. The problem is, for whatever reason, these devices always require that they be plugged in to a wall before they can generate more energy than is supposedly supplied to them.

... Go figure.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   


The patent office will not allow patents on perpetual motion machines as they break the first law of thermodynamics. This states that energy can be changed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed.


this doesn't have to be false, its just patent offices don't get the physics here, nor is perpetual motion an accurate term for the device.



The machine, largely created out of leftover bicycle parts and a windscreen-washer motor uses high-powered magnets and a series of flywheels to apparently create energy from gravity.


vibration into gravity, its not a generator, its a transformer =) try them again without the words perpetual in the patent and I assure you they won't give you -as- funny looks next time.

ed: I say that assuming, and thats a huge if, that this particular form of 'perpetual motion' magnet machine works, the only one i've seen that does is leedskalnins PMH, which holds magnets (which are not chunks of metal) in an infinate orbit. it is a solid state device, and reminds me of superconduction, but kind of opposite.
edit on 24/9/2011 by whatsinaname because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
reply to post by boncho
 

The problem is our centralized electrical distribution system. In that regard, you are correct. However if a source of "free energy" were developed, the centralized model would no longer make sense. A decentralized model would be much better imo. Each home could have it's own mini power generation station. Whether it be solar, or wind, or hydro, fuel cells, or something else like the OP is discussing. Think of the revolution that would result.


I'm thinking of a revolution in manufacturing and maintenance, you?



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
This line of thinking that "if we had free energy economic problems would cease to exist" I suspect comes from people who have had no major responsibility in their lives. (Or well managed responsibility?)

It is akin to saying "if I had magic beans that grew turkey dinners in a day, no one would grow hungry".



It isn't a realistic view.

Even with an energy source that could be decentralized, that had nearly unlimited potentials, we would still be hundreds of years away from putting it to it's full use, (by manufacturing, maintenance and supply chain standards).

Another thing to consider, is the amount of synthetics that are used in modern technology. For the time being, we are still relying on hydrocarbons, free energy or not.

I am not saying things wouldn't improve, but a be all and end all solution it isn't. It would be a foundation...
edit on 24-9-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
S&F dude!
There have been several examples of 'overunity' being ignored because it doesn't conform to 'established' science. I have made measurements that confirm 'overunity'-and it doesn't even break the laws of Thermodynamics-which are subject to limitations BTW.
I look forward to reading everything posted........



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   
I guess Hadron colliders can't be patented either, given that one broke the laws of physics just a few days ago. Science should be banned. It's nothing but a poorly disguised assault on the laws of physics that were written a few centuries ago.

Backyard inventors are the scourge of the nation.It's only a matter of time before one builds a nuke and sells it to A-rab islamicalists. What about our nashnull suckyoority?

Ban patents, that's what I say.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 



Sorry... what are you talking about? You are not making any sense.


Why I am I not surprised you don't understand, of course it doesn't make sense to someone whose level it is way above.


At least bother to understand the science you are so quick to dismiss, you look less ignorant that way


I always get a kick out of the smugness of those who can't see past thier own ignorance...


Notice the correlation between scientific illiteracy and blind belief in all this perpetual/over unity nonsense?


Yeah cause the solar system is really plugged into a giant electrical outlet and that's what powers it ...Sigh! The fact that it is self perpetuating is just non-sense
Idiots and fools mock and deride but the truth is always true.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


The solar system is not a perpetual motion machine.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
The solar system is not a perpetual motion machine.
That's true.

I wouldn't argue with the claim that the solar system is in a state of perpetual motion or close to it, but that does not meet the definition of a perpetual motion machine.

The distinction is that the machine is expected to do work, and as soon as you extract work from the motion of the solar system, then the motion is no longer perpetual, because the motion will be affected by the work extracted.

I think this is the common definition: Perpetual Motion


Perpetual motion describes hypothetical machines that operate or produce useful work indefinitely and, more generally, hypothetical machines that produce more work or energy than they consume


The solar system can't produce useful work indefinitely. Maybe for a long time, but not indefinitely.

One of the alternative energy sources being researched is extracting power from the motion of tides. Since this is affected by the moon's orbit, it is in a sense extracting energy from the solar system. But it does have an effect on the moon's orbit to extract energy from tides, so even though some people might think it's inexhaustible, it's not. It is fairly large however.

You have a lot better chance of someday getting some of your power from tidal energy, than from the contraption in the OP



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by hawkiye
 


The solar system is not a perpetual motion machine.


Really and you can prove this right?



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   


The solar system can't produce useful work indefinitely. Maybe for a long time, but not indefinitely.
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



And your evidence for that is???



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 



And your evidence for that is???




Think about it, sunshine. The planets all orbit the sun. Using their movement to generate some form of energy will cause some form of resistance to that motion - causing a reduction of the vector-velocity. Eventually, the body will lose enough energy so that it can no longer occupy an orbit and be absorbed back into the central body (sun).

We have absolutely no reason to expect any other pattern of behavior.
edit on 25-9-2011 by Aim64C because: quote tags



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by jude11
This is the Holy Grail of energy and scientists/Engineers have been trying to create perpetual motion for...well, forever.


Actully you are very wrong there, as engineers and scientists know that they do not work, so they have not been trying for forever - only the deluded, or those in it purely to make money from the gullible work on a make believe perpetual motion device



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Glad you think you have it all figured out... however atoms don't burn sugar. Breathing and eating is just gathering more perpetual motion machines (atoms) to the form.

OMG you're awesome. Throw all the physics away immediately and embrace hawkiye's precious insight on the inner works of the universe.

Err... just for the misguided among us. Would you please explain the need to "gathering more perpetual motion machines (atoms) to the form". And if your body is a perpetual motion machine as you state it shouldn't be a big deal for you to cease breathing right now.

Btw of course do "atoms don't burn sugar". The sentence doesn't make any sense. Sugar is a compound of atoms, just to help you a bit with the terminology.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join