Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Practically Perpetual motion machine via Superfluid helium fountain waterwheel

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
reply to post by SpearMint
 


see this link in regards to the arguement that flight was deemed impossible by scientists before the wright brothers did it, perfect place for your arguement, not this thread

forums.randi.org...

and if you dont know what "practically" means then google it
edit on 9/10/12 by pryingopen3rdeye because: (no reason given)


Impossible for humans maybe, but not impossible. Obviously flight was possible. Anyway, scientists were wrong assuming this is true, but our laws of the universe are not, they are proven to be true. I don't know why you're focusing on flight, it's irrelevant and nothing like perpetual motion, it's not possible without defying the laws of physics.

Of course I know what "practically" means, but your sentence containing it doesn't make any sense.
edit on 10-9-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
reply to post by SpearMint
 


see this link in regards to the arguement that flight was deemed impossible by scientists before the wright brothers did it, perfect place for your arguement, not this thread

forums.randi.org...

and if you dont know what "practically" means then google it
edit on 9/10/12 by pryingopen3rdeye because: (no reason given)


Impossible for humans maybe, but not impossible. Obviously flight was possible. Anyway, scientists were wrong assuming this is true, but our laws of the universe are not, they are proven to be true. I don't know why you're focusing on flight, it's irrelevant and nothing like perpetual motion, it's not possible without defying the laws of physics.


oh ho ho now you have
1 claimed that i was focusing on flight when my every point of the matter was only a rebuttal to the topic you brought up as if it was relevant, whats more you say this AFTER i have already attempted to redirect such topic elsewhere,

and
2 said your very self that " scientists were wrong " ok now and just who came up with the laws of physics? was it possibly hmmmmmmmmmmm a scientist!?

is it so hard for you to consider that perhaps he was wrong about some things too?



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by SpearMint
 

The second law of thermodynamics is - entripy. Just because a ordered state seeks a more chaotic state, or everything rusts in short, how does that violate the second law?


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
reply to post by SpearMint
 


see this link in regards to the arguement that flight was deemed impossible by scientists before the wright brothers did it, perfect place for your arguement, not this thread

forums.randi.org...

and if you dont know what "practically" means then google it
edit on 9/10/12 by pryingopen3rdeye because: (no reason given)


Impossible for humans maybe, but not impossible. Obviously flight was possible. Anyway, scientists were wrong assuming this is true, but our laws of the universe are not, they are proven to be true. I don't know why you're focusing on flight, it's irrelevant and nothing like perpetual motion, it's not possible without defying the laws of physics.


oh ho ho now you have
1 claimed that i was focusing on flight when my every point of the matter was only a rebuttal to the topic you brought up as if it was relevant, whats more you say this AFTER i have already attempted to redirect such topic elsewhere,

and
2 said your very self that " scientists were wrong " ok now and just who came up with the laws of physics? was it possibly hmmmmmmmmmmm a scientist!?

is it so hard for you to consider that perhaps he was wrong about some things too?


No one "came up" with the laws of physics, they were discovered. I notice your posts revolve around either flight or the above drivel, most of which doesn't make sense. I don't know what you're on about in your first paragraph, you brought up flight, I'm talking about the thread subject, flight is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand.

You're arguing your point with no knowledge on the subject, that's not very smart.
edit on 10-9-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


He is pointing out the fact that the modern definition of perpetual motion- move of a device under its own power without outside energy input, forever.

Is an oxymoron, as no material can even last forever, let alone work forever.

The point he and I are stating that your using semantics, as even DaVinci, one of the smartest humans who ever livved believed it to be possible, as he understood it wasn't meant in a literal"forever" sense of the word, it was meant as in, longer than a mans lifetime at quite a lot more energy extracted than added at startup.

Now be senseable, the universe can't even last forever, as forever is infinite time, which doesn't exist, which makes your entire position nonsensical from the start.

Please think reasonably, and within the confines of finite time, as in a mans or multiple mens lifetimes, which is clearly what is meant, or just continue to troll for no reason, at which point the grown ups will simply ignore you.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


so who and when proved the laws of physics to be factual? show me this, cause it would seem to me to never have been proven 100%,

nothing has been proven to a 100% in fact this much has also been proven to a degree, en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


each law was declared by scientists, they "came up" with them

newtons laws of motion for example, obviously by newton,



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


totaly agree, argueing the point of literaly perpetual is useless in this sittuation,

practical terms suffice plenty in search of a better method of energy production then the fuel we go by today.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
reply to post by SpearMint
 


so who and when proved the laws of physics to be factual? show me this, cause it would seem to me to never have been proven 100%,

nothing has been proven to a 100% in fact this much has also been proven to a degree, en.wikipedia.org...


oh wow, that first sentence has made me realize that arguing with you is quite pointless, a waste of my time. You're blinding arguing in a subject you don't know anything about, and you are wrong, but since you are uneducated on the matter only time will prove you wrong. Ask any scientist and he will tell you what I have told you.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


flight is irrelevant sure, but your point that it is impossible because scientists have told us so was the point of mentioning flight,

they told us that too was impossible before we did it. thought i already made that clear but either you are beingwillfully ignorant or arguementative, either way this is going nowhere with you, clearly us two disagree and will not find compromise, so why continue this? move on to another thread and let me continue this discussion with others who will be more positive and polite,
edit on 9/10/12 by pryingopen3rdeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
reply to post by SpearMint
 


so who and when proved the laws of physics to be factual? show me this, cause it would seem to me to never have been proven 100%,

nothing has been proven to a 100% in fact this much has also been proven to a degree, en.wikipedia.org...


I've been enjoying your "think outside the box" attitude in this thread. That's the sort of thinking scientists need. However, you're wrong. The laws of physics are LAWS. They are not to be broken. Also quantum mechanics does not defy the laws of physics. I'm not a particle physicist, but I know enough to know that quantum mechanics has been fully understand for several decades and doesn't defy the natural laws of physics. Sorry man, but perpetual motion is not possible. At least, not in this universe with our current physics model. Maybe there's another universe "somewhere" where perpetual motion is all they know and they are trying to figure out how to use outside force to influence an object. Imagine the bizarre world that would exist there lol...

Anyway I'm rambling. Thinking outside the box is good. But perpetual motion is not and never will be possible.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by SpearMint
 


He is pointing out the fact that the modern definition of perpetual motion- move of a device under its own power without outside energy input, forever.

Is an oxymoron, as no material can even last forever, let alone work forever.

The point he and I are stating that your using semantics, as even DaVinci, one of the smartest humans who ever livved believed it to be possible, as he understood it wasn't meant in a literal"forever" sense of the word, it was meant as in, longer than a mans lifetime at quite a lot more energy extracted than added at startup.

Now be senseable, the universe can't even last forever, as forever is infinite time, which doesn't exist, which makes your entire position nonsensical from the start.

Please think reasonably, and within the confines of finite time, as in a mans or multiple mens lifetimes, which is clearly what is meant, or just continue to troll for no reason, at which point the grown ups will simply ignore you.


I know what perpetual motion is, you cannot have motion without energy loss, it is IMPOSSIBLE. You are the one that needs to think reasonably, and read up on this, your childish comment about trolling proves that you don't actually have anything behind your statements, you're trying to insult and/or belittle me instead, which is very common when someone doesn't feel confident in their argument. Both of you do not know what you're talking about, that is very clear. Like I said, I'm wasting my time here.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by OrphenFire
 


THANK YOU! Someone that knows what they're talking about.
edit on 10-9-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 


So ya let's you and I discuss this further, since he is just trolling and trying to derail the relevent topic at hand. Let him dismiss it if he likes, he will get bored and leave after we ignore him long enough.

I am just wandering if since we already have the machine cooled to near absolute zero, if we could use super conductors on a generator to reclaim the energy from the water wheel.

Also orbit involves several other problems just up front, as there is not gravity in orbit, we would have to spin the station its on, which at the scale we are capable of now, would impart gyroscopic forces on the liquid and water outside of the 1G spin, so we would have to scale up by at least a factor to reduce this problem potentially.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


and over 100 years ago almost any scientist would have said flight was also impossible, like i keep on telling you stop limiting your thoughts to the walls others have built for you,



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 


So ya let's you and I discuss this further, since he is just trolling and trying to derail the relevent topic at hand. Let him dismiss it if he likes, he will get bored and leave after we ignore him long enough.


Uh.. what? I've been talking about perpetual motion all along, he's been talking about flight and you've just been accusing me of trolling, however since it's obvious that I'm not, and I'm the only one that hasn't strayed from the subject, that makes you the troll.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
reply to post by SpearMint
 


and over 100 years ago almost any scientist would have said flight was also impossible, like i keep on telling you stop limiting your thoughts to the walls others have built for you,



You mean scientists that have never heard of birds or insects? Flight is NOTHING like this, flight does not break the LAWS of physics. Stick to the subject. Notice how I've been explaining why it's impossible, but you havn't even tried to explain why it is possible.
edit on 10-9-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by OrphenFire
 


well as the thread title now states, this is speaking of practicly perpetual, something that may not LITERALY last forever, but is still more effective then our current means,

people get so hung up on terminology around here, i knew it would be an er to include the word perpetual, but as another poster pointed out even the word itself is impossible in the literal sense,

we are not seeking a holy grail with this theoretical device just an improvment, something that will last longer then our current means, that is my opinion of PRACTICALY perpetual,

but i get it, your mind wants the word perpetual to mean literaly endless, so just pretend that word isnt in there



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 


Then you aren't talking about perpetual motion, perpetual motion is never ending unless an outside force is introduced, that's why I said "practically perpetual" doesn't make sense, it's either perpetual motion or it isn't, there is no in-between.
edit on 10-9-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
reply to post by SpearMint
 


and over 100 years ago almost any scientist would have said flight was also impossible, like i keep on telling you stop limiting your thoughts to the walls others have built for you,



You mean scientists that have never heard of birds or insects? Flight is NOTHING like this, flight does not break the LAWS of physics. Stick to the subject. Notice how I've been explaining why it's impossible, but you havn't even tried to explain why it

look at the op, theres the vid, you can see the fountain at 1:30 imagine a water wheel in it, there, explained, done,

the word practicaly is now in the thread title, so dont argue about how it isnt 100% perfect and may experience energy loss,

instead try and explain how it couldnt be better then our current options for energy production, you've not done that yet
edit on 9/10/12 by pryingopen3rdeye because: (no reason given)





new topics




 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join