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.
Originally posted by hawkiye
This thread is for discussing the devices or similar on that site which the site claims ARE NOT PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINES. Heck some of them have no moving parts... But you would know that had you read much of it. Have a little courtesy and take it to the other thread.
Originally posted by alfa1
Originally posted by hawkiye
This thread is for discussing the devices or similar on that site which the site claims ARE NOT PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINES. Heck some of them have no moving parts... But you would know that had you read much of it. Have a little courtesy and take it to the other thread.
I think I'm understanding the difference of opinion in this thread.
You've taken ideas for machines which run forever, and which every single other person in the world calls "perpetual motion machines" and then say...
"No, they're not perpetual motion machines"
...and proceed to make up fantasy ideas on how they are powered externally, such as extraction of zero point energy.
Its a definition thing. Calling a perpetual motion machine a "zero point energy powered machine" is cute, but useless in the real world.
Originally posted by hawkiye
Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by hawkiye
Perpeptual motion violates the laws of physics. The site in your op makes specific claims about perpeptual motion. This is not a tough concept to grasp.
It is a tough concept for you apparently! The site claims none of the devices are perpetual motion arguing about perpetual motion is off topic on this thread. I started another thread for that argument. If you want to argue go over on that thread www.abovetopsecret.com...
This thread is for discussing the devices or similar on that site which the site claims ARE NOT PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINES. Heck some of them have no moving parts... But you would know that had you read much of it. Have a little courtesy and take it to the other thread.
From now on I am going to ignore your posts unless they are on topic, I suggest others do the same.
Originally posted by davjan4
I can't wait until these are available. I only have two 145 watt panels and on a good day generate 1,300 watts to my storage batteries. If their claims hold up, you should be able to have a fairly small one of these and generate 20,000 watts a day. Couple that will Edisons old nickle iron batteries, and you'll be set for life with no batteries to replace.
inhabitat.com...
www.beutilityfree.com...
No conspiracies or spooky stuff. Technology available now.
Originally posted by hawkiye
Originally posted by davjan4
I can't wait until these are available. I only have two 145 watt panels and on a good day generate 1,300 watts to my storage batteries. If their claims hold up, you should be able to have a fairly small one of these and generate 20,000 watts a day. Couple that will Edisons old nickle iron batteries, and you'll be set for life with no batteries to replace.
inhabitat.com...
www.beutilityfree.com...
No conspiracies or spooky stuff. Technology available now.
Yeah this is good stuff. The cone solar is great. I know some kid discovered that making solar cells 3d greatly improved their efficiency I wonder if these cone cells are using that technology... Thanks for the link on the Edison batteries I have been lucky enough to acquire a few used ones but have not had the opportunity to test them yet. But from what I have read they are the way to go.
Originally posted by davjan4
The cone devices work by "dumping" the entire load of electrons as they rapidly move from sun to shade. On a static panel, you just catch the "overload" as it were, of electrons. Only what "overflows" from the bucket, rather than the bucket emptying totally...
Originally posted by hawkiye
I know some kid discovered that making solar cells 3d greatly improved their efficiency ...
Yuan ... never tried to imply that he invented the 3D solar cell.
Yuan based his research on some ground-breaking, graduate-level work on 3D solar cells done at Georgia Tech and Notre Dame.
Originally posted by alfa1
Originally posted by hawkiye
I know some kid discovered that making solar cells 3d greatly improved their efficiency ...
Thats the urban legend and popular "underdog" story, but its simply not true.
Yuan ... never tried to imply that he invented the 3D solar cell.
Yuan based his research on some ground-breaking, graduate-level work on 3D solar cells done at Georgia Tech and Notre Dame.
link
He did create a new type of 3D solar cell that works for visible and UV light
Originally posted by hawkiye
Hardly a myth you conveniently left this out from the article you quoted:
He did create a new type of 3D solar cell that works for visible and UV light
So he did invent a new type of solar cell.
discovered that making solar cells 3d
Originally posted by ubeenhad
You honestly believe I, or my peers are against getting rich?
Originally posted by ubeenhad
Im gunna offer some reality shattering insight for you loons. Better sit down for this.
If there was a website that gave you instructions on how to become a billionaire, then there would be a lot more billionaires out there.
Edit: Incase it didn't sink home enough. Put it this way. My peers and myself went to school because we liked this kind of tinkering. We spent a lot of time and money learning the stuff you all obviously didn't. Now I make a living with the knowledge you should have learned. To actually support a healthy interest in science/engineering, the knowledge is required. Not the education per-say, just the actual knowledge.
You honestly believe I, or my peers are against getting rich? Or I don't want to win a nobel prize? Cause thats what your hypothesis implies.
If your junk had any merit or potential then half the guys working on sustained fusion, wouldn't.edit on 28-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)edit on 28-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Miccey
Tis veeeeeelly funny...
If you try to look at this thread from a NONBIAS way...
You CLEARLY see problems..
One side is desperate to find novel ways to get of the slavery.
The other is desperate to keep them IN.
My view:I have no clue if the stuff works. I wouldnt BUY one
if i cant test it PROPERLY, and i dont think i would try to
BUILD one if there are no blueprints that is NOOBPROOF...(And verry! cheap)
BUT
On the other side, i wont belive anyone saying THEY DONT WORK either.
No matter how much you bang your heads in these threads.
So yes, a FORUM that speculates in these things would be nice.
NOT A DEBUNKING one.
Originally posted by ubeenhad
Originally posted by davjan4
The cone devices work by "dumping" the entire load of electrons as they rapidly move from sun to shade. On a static panel, you just catch the "overload" as it were, of electrons. Only what "overflows" from the bucket, rather than the bucket emptying totally...
You HAD to be paraphrasing something because that's a relatively wrong statement shrouded by a little truth. Summarizing science literature without the proper foundational knowledge almost always leads to being as it were, incorrect. The phrase "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" comes to mind
So can you source the info you were attempting to redistribute?edit on 28-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)