Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Practically Perpetual motion machine via Superfluid helium fountain waterwheel

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:28 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,



Enabling humans to fly was a matter of understanding and utilizing AEROdynamics (all within the laws of physics). Science has come a long way since "human flight" was developed, but one thing it hasn't done is overturn or alter our understanding of THERMOdynamics (which is fully understood and in the laws of physics). If you completely understand the laws of physics and realize that perpetual motion does not comply with those laws, then you have to move on and dismiss the notion that it is possible. Flight revolves around an entirely different set of laws and math than the hypothetical scenario of perpetual motion.




posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by SpearMint
 


you cannot have motion without energy loss, it is IMPOSSIBLE.


can i ask you, where is the energy loss in a magnet? one fixed in position moves objectes away or toward it, where is it losing its energy? where is it gaining its energy?
edit on 9/10/12 by pryingopen3rdeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye

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)


So now you've completely changed the subject, I'm not interested in that. You're asking me to argue against a new point that you don't know my opinion on, of course I haven't done that yet, and I'm not going to.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrphenFire

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,



Enabling humans to fly was a matter of understanding and utilizing AEROdynamics (all within the laws of physics). Science has come a long way since "human flight" was developed, but one thing it hasn't done is overturn or alter our understanding of THERMOdynamics (which is fully understood and in the laws of physics). If you completely understand the laws of physics and realize that perpetual motion does not comply with those laws, then you have to move on and dismiss the notion that it is possible. Flight revolves around an entirely different set of laws and math than the hypothetical scenario of perpetual motion.


OK OK lets get off the term perpetual, lets look more at thinking of it as for all intents and purposes, besides has anyone here explained just how said theoretical device will loose energy?

you have all said it will. but no one has said where or how



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by SpearMint
 


you cannot have motion without energy loss, it is IMPOSSIBLE.


can i ask you, where is the energy loss in a magnet? one fixed in position moves objectes away or toward it, where is it losing its energy? where is it gaining its energy?
edit on 9/10/12 by pryingopen3rdeye because: (no reason given)


That's the magnetic field of the magnet at work. It's one of the fundamental forces of the universe (among the Strong and Weak nuclear forces and Gravity). Your complete lack of understanding the Forces of Nature is disheartening. ):
edit on 9/10/2012 by OrphenFire because: preposition



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 


So assuming we are using the water wheel construct, and keeping it cooled naturally requiring no outside energy to do so. We come down to friction. Since the superfluid properties makes friction of the helium nonexistent or damn near, we are at the bearings for the water wheel. We could use superconductors for this, as we are already at the right temperature anyways, and open the space between the bearings and the wheel to space, making it basically frictionless, as there is no air in space.

So we havve the perpetual water wheel, with super fluid power source, and frictionless bearings, whith the wheel powering a superconductor generator and wiring, meaning we wuld lose no power in friction from the wheels bearing or the generator, or the wiring.

The only problem I am seeing at the moment is the water wheel, I have questions about it working.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


so is this admission by omission that you agree the device is potentialy better for energy production then our current options

that was the only purpose of the thread, thought it was pretty obvious this whole thing is about alternative energy production, i thought anyone could see that as the main point,

not an arguement over terminology or laws of physics, just what is potentialy possible with the idea of this possible device, that is the intended discussion,

if you refuse that discussion then i see no arguement from you on the point ive intended to make,

NEW ENERGY DEVICE!!!



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by SpearMint
 


you cannot have motion without energy loss, it is IMPOSSIBLE.


can i ask you, where is the energy loss in a magnet? one fixed in position moves objectes away or toward it, where is it losing its energy? where is it gaining its energy?
edit on 9/10/12 by pryingopen3rdeye because: (no reason given)


You're thinking of magnetic force in the wrong way. link



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
reply to post by SpearMint
 


so is this admission by omission that you agree the device is potentialy better for energy production then our current options

that was the only purpose of the thread, thought it was pretty obvious this whole thing is about alternative energy production, i thought anyone could see that as the main point,

not an arguement over terminology or laws of physics, just what is potentialy possible with the idea of this possible device, that is the intended discussion,

if you refuse that discussion then i see no arguement from you on the point ive intended to make,

NEW ENERGY DEVICE!!!



Of course it is, I never disputed that...



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by OrphenFire
 


so if i am so lacking on this knowledge you are implying to posses then why didnt you answer the question?

im well aware theres never been a satisfactory explanation for the question i asked and fully didnt expexct you to answer it so,

you only confirmed as much, in a rude way.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


read it, already knew it,

still doesnt answer the question,

the link itself states the electrons are doing more of one thing then the other thus outputing energy, and never running out.

the question still stands, where does that energy come from, what is it that is loosing the energy of its gain
edit on 9/10/12 by pryingopen3rdeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
reply to post by SpearMint
 


read it, already knew it,

still doesnt answer the question,


Then you didn't read it properly.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 


Well if the point of the thread is to argue with other members and not discuss the topic, I will just move along, seems I am the only one even attempting to discuss this.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


edited more thoughts into that post



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


well on one of your points about incorperating superconductors they would do a large part of the job for you as any superconductor is highly magnetic



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 


I wasn't rude.

The magnetic force works by way of the interaction between electrical fields. If you actually DID read the link posted by SpearMint, you would know that electrons will orbit an atom forever, and by nature a magnet has those electrons orbit in such a way that a polar opposite will be attracted to it. It doesn't require any energy because all of the energy required was used when the piece of metal was "magnetized".



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrphenFire
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 


I wasn't rude.

The magnetic force works by way of the interaction between electrical fields. If you actually DID read the link posted by SpearMint, you would know that electrons will orbit an atom forever, and by nature a magnet has those electrons orbit in such a way that a polar opposite will be attracted to it. It doesn't require any energy because all of the energy required was used when the piece of metal was "magnetized".


so the energy they output forever is a result of the energy put into them in their forming in the position they attained to result in an output of energy, how could this be its source of energy it couldnt have been formed forever or it would not be



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 


I know thatts the point, we already achieved the proper temperature for superconductivity in known materials we have available now. So the magnets are free and infinite, making the ideal frictionless bearings, and the best possible magnets for the generator. It seems like a good idea going so far, but it has been a mostly one sided coversation until you stopped by.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by OrphenFire
 


i thought this was pretty rude

Originally posted by OrphenFire

. Your complete lack of understanding the Forces of Nature is disheartening. ):[


we are here to discuss not to judge each others levels of understanding,

discussion is the way to improving understaning after all,

judging such has no effect other then to offend



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 

What my ideas so far have accomplisher are, frictionless bearings, and Ohmless power transmission, that's quite a start. When combined with infinite magnets, and your water wheel, I think we may be on to somthing.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join