Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Practically Perpetual motion machine via Superfluid helium fountain waterwheel

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye

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


Okay. A magnet utilizes a fundamental force of nature: electromagnetism. Magnetism will work forever (with a permanent magnet) because the atoms have been magnetized. They will stay magnetized and keep being magnets forever, unless you "unmagnetize" them, which I admit I don't know if that's even possible. But the point is, you don't need any more energy to keep something in a fundamental state. It's just a law of the universe, it utilizes the way atoms and electrons work. If I knew the math, I would throw you an equation, but I don't.
edit on 9/10/2012 by OrphenFire because: (no reason given)




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


honestly the idea that there are much more efficent methods to produce energy in this world is pretty well blown up the last hundreds years with all the amazing things science has done,

the fact we still pump gallons of oil into our cars every day is whats most "disheartening"

its just to bring a new method to the surface in the hopes maybe some day some one might actualy act on it without reprisal is always fun,



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by OrphenFire
 


the math relates to quantum physics, which are beyond the laws of physics IN A SENSE, and as said only apply to either the very finite state OR superconductors

the arguement over wether or not quantum science defies the laws of physics is one that rages on in the scientific community even now so lets not go there if they cant come to an conclusion with that yet i wouldnt expect us too either.

the point is as you stated the magnets are outputting energy forever, yet no energy is going into them (except in their creation)

so as they sit there and exist they are producing energy.......



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 


Sorry I wasn't meaning to be rude. I was saying that your lack of understanding the fundamental forces of nature:

Gravity
Electromagnetism
Strong Nuclear Force
Weak Nuclear Force

... was disheartening. It's fun to talk science, but if you don't even know what those 4 things are, you need to read up on some physics. I suggest going to college and taking physics and really making an effort to understand the material. Again, not trying to be rude. I'm trying to help you.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 


The one thing I am lacking on this subject is an understanding of a superconducting magnet over long term loadrequirements.

I am not sure if it is suseptable to the realining of the electron shell over time, such as the loss associated with permanent magnets coercivity.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Before I agreed that it would be better than our current energy supply options, I don't know what I was thinking, it isn't. First of all it would need to produce more energy than it needs to move in order for you to be able to harness that energy without it stopping, impossible, the energy has to come from somewhere. Secondly, that energy production would have to be huge to be practical. So no, it's not better than our current options, and possible options that may be available in the near future.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by OrphenFire
 


Yes yes we all learned about the 4 forces in physical science in highschool, we also learned our knowledge is quite incomplete, hence the complete lack of a unified field theory.

There is much left to learn, as quantum mechanics and the standard model don't mix, string theory, super string theory and M theory all fail also.

We only know enough to know we don't know enough.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
reply to post by OrphenFire
 


the math relates to quantum physics, which are beyond the laws of physics IN A SENSE, and as said only apply to either the very finite state OR superconductors

the arguement over wether or not quantum science defies the laws of physics is one that rages on in the scientific community even now so lets not go there if they cant come to an conclusion with that yet i wouldnt expect us too either.

the point is as you stated the magnets are outputting energy forever, yet no energy is going into them (except in their creation)

so as they sit there and exist they are producing energy.......


A magnet "produces energy" in the same way that your arm is "producing energy" by remaining an arm. What's to keep your arm from disassembling? What's keeping your arm from "deatomizing" and all the rest of your or anybody else's atoms just flying off and the whole universe becoming a scattered pile of subatomic particles?

Thanks for asking, I'll tell you. It's the Strong Nuclear Force (strong interaction).

Electromagnetism works in conjunction with the other forces and you get magnets.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by OrphenFire
 


been, was nothing surprising, i havent a degree but ive been through the classes,

for your mental perusal www.youtube.com...


imagine this in the superconducter state.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Well sense I am the only one here not working at arguing semantics and or belittling others on knowledge I can't be sure wether they know or not.


Good evening



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by OrphenFire
 


you explained that there is a force and call it the explanation but you have not explained the source of that force,

this is still an unknown to science,



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


i think your jumping to conclusions stating so confidently that it would cost more energy to run then it would output,

calculations would be needed to be so certain of that

main point of your thoughtline there being it cost energy to bring it down to such a cold temperature, but what are you actualy doing in that process? heat IS energy so you literaly are trying to TAKE energy out of it in that process, the fact it cost us energy to do so is only a result of the means by wich we do it,
edit on 9/10/12 by pryingopen3rdeye because: (no reason given)



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


ya i dont blame you, the arguementative nature of these forums wears you down,

ive seen so many other forums that go about such discussion in a much more friendly non judgmental manner, something about ats brings out the emotion in people,



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
reply to post by OrphenFire
 


you explained that there is a force and call it the explanation but you have not explained the source of that force,

this is still an unknown to science,



It's simply a fundamental force of nature. It's just the way physics work. Do we really know why we are stuck with the model of physics that we got? No. It's just the way the universe ended up. It's the main reason the LHC was built by Cern. They're trying to understand why exactly our universe is the way it is.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


ya i dont blame you, the arguementative nature of these forums wears you down,

ive seen so many other forums that go about such discussion in a much more friendly non judgmental manner, something about ats brings out the emotion in people,


I think one of the issues with ATS is its more formal tone causes some posts to appear judgmental, or condescending when really the poster probably wasn't trying to be. It's not 4chan or reddit where the liberal use of smilies and modern internet speak sets a much more informal and casual tone. I have not intended any disrespect in any of my posts.

Remember, you can't accurately read emotions in text. We all read how we think it's being said, not necessarily how it was intended to be said.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by OrphenFire
 


too true
edit on 9/10/12 by pryingopen3rdeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
reply to post by SpearMint
 


i think your jumping to conclusions stating so confidently that it would cost more energy to run then it would output,

calculations would be needed to be so certain of that

main point of your thoughtline there being it cost energy to bring it down to such a cold temperature, but what are you actualy doing in that process? heat IS energy so you literaly are trying to TAKE energy out of it in that process, the fact it cost us energy to do so is only a result of the means by wich we do it,
edit on 9/10/12 by pryingopen3rdeye because: (no reason given)


No calculations are not needed, just logic. If you take energy out of it, it needs to maintain the amount of energy needed to move or it will slow down and stop. Which means when you stop taking energy out of it, it will just keep getting faster and faster. This obviously isn't possible. If it doesn't produce more energy than it uses then like I said it will stop and be very pointless.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by OrphenFire
 


Cern was built to find the higgs, and learn why we can't make our understanding of physics wok I.e. we know were don't know everything, and that our current model is very flawed I.e. we don't understand the way the universe actually works.

Maybe we are missing at the minimum an entire force, and or an understanding of their interaction together.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by OrphenFire
 


and in clarification of what i meant by the force being mysterious im refering to what actualy causes a particle to become and remain a particle rather then its former wave function

that is what is still a mystery, our understanding does not yet explain why anything physical is actualy physical



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


on that ideology of yours what did you think of this video

video.google.com...


Google Video Link


it was put up on ats some days ago, what is your opinion regarding this mans device? in that vid are many scientists getting up close and personal with the device and affirming it to be factual in function





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join