Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Anti Perpetual Motion Conspiracy

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
I both loathe and love threads like this. I hate them because the proponents are so ignorantly unaware of what they are arguing, but I love them because it separates the intellectual wheat from the chaff.

Fellow scientists, I applaud your dedication in denying ignorance. However, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

and to the OP, arguments aren't about name calling or flipping out when asked for evidence. Arguments are about having a conclusion and providing evidence to support it.

Show me a "free energy" device that I can power stuff with, explain it, and I will gladly eat my words.




posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


There are a number of possible devices on this website, and I'm curious if you have any opinions as to which ones might be more or less viable? Also, has anyone been able to find images or video of these devices working or semi-working?



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
If it were just "big oil" and the like suppressing it, then there would be rouge individuals and even states making use of perpetual energy machines.

But the laws of nature not even the most powerful boss can break.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
reply to post by Moduli
 


I don't claim to be any kind of scientist at all you snake oil salesmen. Thank you for proving me right by your post.


He didn't prove you right. He addressed everything you said and actually countered everything you said without name calling or anything else.

Essentially, you were proven wrong multiple times.
edit on 23-10-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)


That's how you see it. Obviously, you did not understand my post at all. keep digging. One day, you may "get it"



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Why won't this work?

Here you go. a Pepetual Motion machine. Build a tiny solar car like in this video. www.youtube.com... Then attatch battery operated lights to the car to power the solar cells. The car will run from this light energy as well as recharge the batteries for the lights. You'll have Pepetual Motion as long as the battery lives.

I believe that would work. Then the trick is to find a way to replace the battery. Generate a bright renewable light source from something other than the battery.
edit on 23-10-2012 by JohnPhoenix because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


lol not a perpetual motion machine.
Photovoltaic cells convert solar radiation into DC electricity.

A theoretical perpetual motion machine does work without any energy input. That's against the laws of thermodynamics and why they don't exist.

Edit: just got the "light" bit you were talking about. Won't work because the photovoltaic cells are very inefficient so you're only getting like 5%-10% energy turn over and each "cycle" would make the light dimmer and dimmer. Even if you create a feedback loop somehow where Ein is very close to Eout, you can't take any energy away to do useful work or the loop won't sustain itself.
Edit: actually, I'm not really sure what you are getting at, but I know rewriting scientific history in a paragraph is quite unlikely.
edit on 10/23/2012 by MeesterB because: (no reason given)
edit on 10/23/2012 by MeesterB because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Why won't this work?

Here you go. a Pepetual Motion machine. Build a tiny solar car like in this video. www.youtube.com... Then attatch battery operated lights to the car to power the solar cells. The car will run from this light energy as well as recharge the batteries for the lights. You'll have Pepetual Motion as long as the battery lives.

I believe that would work. Then the trick is to find a way to replace the battery. Generate a bright renewable light source from something other than the battery.
edit on 23-10-2012 by JohnPhoenix because: (no reason given)
Please tell me you are joking. This idea is laughably naive. As for "You'll have Pepetual Motion as long as the battery lives", do you not see the painfully obvious contradiction here?



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   
I have plans for a perpetual motion machine Id like to sell you.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merinda
I have plans for a perpetual motion machine Id like to sell you.


No no, never mind HIM...
IF it works ill buy it....

The catch is: I decides IF it works....



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   
There is no such thing as perpetual motion. The closest one could ever get is "almost". Entropy in the end wins.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


In response to your question about what major theories in science have been proven dead wrong I give you Phlogiston!

Dead wrong theories in science

Phlogiston theory persisted for at least a hundred years and was only really completely overturned in the 18th century when antoine lavoisier proved that combustion requires a gas which can has mass (oxygen).

Does this mean I believe in magical overunity machines.... I'm like Mulder on that subject I want to believe. But in the cold light of day it just seems vanishingly unlikely



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by roguetechie


In response to your question about what major theories in science have been proven dead wrong I give you Phlogiston!

 


Actually Rogue, you misread what I had said.




I think people fail to grasp that many scientific theories, and scientific laws that have been developed over the last hundred years were from people who thought way outside the box.

...

You will be hard pressed to find scientific laws that have been proven flat out wrong. Mind you, you should probably first educate yourself the difference between a hypothesis, theory and a law.

...

Very few scientific laws have been broken, and the closest thing you can hope for is for them to be improved upon as there is too much empirical evidence now for most of them for any to be disproved entirely.


Theories and laws are two very much different things.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by roguetechie
 


A "theory" (not when it was concieved as it was pre-scientific method) that was overturned over 350 years ago? Talk about scraping the barrel


In any case, as I pointed out in the other thread, it is a fallacy to state that because A has been shown to be wrong that suddenly B is automatically right. This is the sort of brain-dead argument used by creationists who assume that if evolution was demonstrated to be false then creationism automatically becomes true. This, like your argument, is completely and utterly false.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Perpetual motion machines are very simple. You need to use the most available energy source around. And that is gravity. A central point with an armature. Once the correct weight is found and set in motion, it should theoretically turnover forever. Also the lenth of the armature might have to be adjusted to find the correct ratio. Like a swing set with a stiff arm, with just enough energy to make it back to the starting point. I call it an "over easy" device.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Oannes
 


friction , air resistance and the " drag " of any usefull work you attempt to excract from the system say your idea is utter twaddle



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Oannes
Perpetual motion machines are very simple. You need to use the most available energy source around. And that is gravity. A central point with an armature. Once the correct weight is found and set in motion, it should theoretically turnover forever. Also the lenth of the armature might have to be adjusted to find the correct ratio. Like a swing set with a stiff arm, with just enough energy to make it back to the starting point. I call it an "over easy" device.



Originally posted by ignorant_ape
friction , air resistance and the " drag " of any usefull work you attempt to excract from the system say your idea is utter twaddle
It's an appealing idea that has lived for centuries. Before physics was well-established it might have seemed plausible, but now, using physics, it's not that hard to show why such devices won't work. Some people don't believe the physicists, like the guy who built this machine based on a similar idea:

www.real-free-energy.co.uk...

He had to built it to prove it would work, like he knew it would...but it didn't. So did this convince him the physicists were correct? No, because now he thinks the friction in the mechanical parts is too great so he has to do essentially the same thing using lower-friction liquid transfer instead of pieces of metal.

It's actually good to see people trying these for themselves, because the more that people build them and find out they don't work, the more convinced I am that the laws of physics really apply.

This is interestingly similar to the lever arm contraption on Wikipedia's Perpetual motion page:

which carries this caption:


"This is a gallery of some of the perpetual motion machine plans.
-The "Overbalanced Wheel". It was thought that the metal balls on the right side would turn the wheel because of the longer lever arm, but since the left side had more balls than the right side, the torque was balanced and the perpetual movement could not be achieved.
And the liquid substitute isn't new either, it's seen along with other variations of this design, some of which have even been patented, reviewed here:

www.lhup.edu...
See especially Bhaskara's first perpetual motion wheel, which uses the liquid concept (with mercury, not considered so environmentally friendly today). I think the inventor building these would benefit more from taking some physics classes than from continuing to build more contraptions that don't work, but, the choice is his to make.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Oannes
Perpetual motion machines are very simple. You need to use the most available energy source around. And that is gravity. A central point with an armature. Once the correct weight is found and set in motion, it should theoretically turnover forever. Also the lenth of the armature might have to be adjusted to find the correct ratio. Like a swing set with a stiff arm, with just enough energy to make it back to the starting point. I call it an "over easy" device.


Gravity can't be used to build a perpetual motion machine because gravity is a conservative force.
Wiki:

A conservative force is a force with the property that the work done in moving a particle between two points is independent of the path taken. Equivalently, if a particle travels in a closed loop, the net work done (the sum of the force acting along the path multiplied by the distance travelled) by a conservative force is zero

So, the work you get from dropping a rock at point A is the same as the work to lift the rock back up to point A. Even if you had a frictionless system, it wouldn't be able to do any work since the net work would be 0.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by MeesterB

Originally posted by Oannes
Perpetual motion machines are very simple. You need to use the most available energy source around. And that is gravity. A central point with an armature. Once the correct weight is found and set in motion, it should theoretically turnover forever. Also the lenth of the armature might have to be adjusted to find the correct ratio. Like a swing set with a stiff arm, with just enough energy to make it back to the starting point. I call it an "over easy" device.


Gravity can't be used to build a perpetual motion machine because gravity is a conservative force.
Wiki:

A conservative force is a force with the property that the work done in moving a particle between two points is independent of the path taken. Equivalently, if a particle travels in a closed loop, the net work done (the sum of the force acting along the path multiplied by the distance travelled) by a conservative force is zero

So, the work you get from dropping a rock at point A is the same as the work to lift the rock back up to point A. Even if you had a frictionless system, it wouldn't be able to do any work since the net work would be 0.


This is what you get when your limited to the orthodox scientific box which is outdated. Your analogy is correct in a closed system i.e. you picking up the rock and dropping it with no other input from the environment hence you can only get out what is put in, in fact it is probably a bit less then is put in. However in reality there are very few closed systems.

Lets say a meteor from space was the rock in your analogy. Now the work was done without any input from you and is free to you. Same principle applies to a waterfall turning a turbine. The falling water is using gravity to turn the turbine and the energy produced is done without any energy from you or me hence we have free energy without us having to put anything in yet it does not violate the law of conservation the environment is providing the input.

For some reason science fails to take this into account and insists this is impossible using their outdated thinking based on a closed system. This is why zero point energy does not violate the law of conservation and is not over unity. The zero point field is simply already present in the environment teaming with energy to tap into. it is amazing science has stuck to their false model when in fact quantum physics recognizes it and in light of the fact solar power, wind power, and hydro electric power all use the same principle.

So we can tap into the zero point energy field and get free energy for us without having to put any energy in. We are not violating the laws of conservation or any laws of physics we are simply using what is already present in the environment just like water falls to run turbines or solar panels to tap into sunlight. In fact solar panels are terribly inefficient they only get up to about 17% of the energy yet it is free to us without putting anything in hence we get more out then is put in (by us) yet does not violate any laws of physics.

edit on 25-10-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 





Does this mean I believe in magical overunity machines.... I'm like Mulder on that subject I want to believe. But in the cold light of day it just seems vanishingly unlikely



Ah yes I missed the last hundred years bit indeed.
As you seem to have completely missed the part where I said that this wrong turn of science doesn't mean I believe in what most of these fringe "inventors" are selling.

What really puzzles me is how you and Johnbmth seem to think I was in any way supporting the believers camp


I thought my post was pretty self explanatory in it's outright skepticism of any of the supposed free energy devices so far brought up.

I'm a second year mechanical engineering student, while I'd love to see modern science proven wrong by some rogue maverick I also very very seriously doubt that it will ever happen.

And really I brought up phlogiston theory solely to illustrate a pretty simple point. That point is your theories are only as good as the level of information you have access to. This is where my sincere hopes lie, not that we'll violate the laws of physics already in place but that we'll find a deeper understanding that allows us to work with the universe and the laws of physics as we know them now.

Maybe one day we'll find something that will make us all slap our foreheads and go DOH so simple yet so powerful!
edit on 25-10-2012 by roguetechie because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Gravity is, by definition, a conservative force. Inside or outside of the box, open system or closed. This isn't open for debate.

As for the waterfall turning a turbine, I'm simply saying that the work produced by the falling water is not enough to lift the water back up due to friction. Even in a perfect system without friction, the work done by the falling water would only be enough to lift the water back up to the original position, so you wouldn't be able to produce electricity or grind wheat or anything.

You really don't help your case for perpetual motion by arguing for free energy, however you define it.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join