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 MeesterB
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.
No Rogue I know you don't support the stuff that isn't backed by science, engineering or simple understanding
You say the falling water turning a turbine can produce enough electricity to move the water back up to the starting point "just fine" I don't think that's how it works. Care to design and carry out an experiment to prove to me it works? I think you'll be disappointed.
You think you are a genius disproving modern science because you claim you can get "free energy" from the environment when the hydroelectric process you describe fits firmly in the realm of science.
The heat and pressure of the sun converts hydrogen into helium and energy, the energy causes a phase change in water from liquid to vapor, the vapor rises and condenses back to a liquid and falls as rain to fill up the lake, the lake flows, by gravity, from high altitude from low, turning the turbine. So no, it's not "free energy." Yes, it's true that you don't have to do anything to the sun to get its energy, but that doesn't mean the energy came from nothing. When the sun stops producing energy, the waterfalls will stop.
We, as humans, have known, for almost ever, that energy can be harvested from the sun. There are so many sun god religions because the people knew the crops wouldn't grow without the sun.
by the way, perpetual motion machines have to work in a closed system, otherwise they aren't perpetual motion machines.
Also, you can't move the goal post and change definitions and assume you have made a breakthrough. It doesn't work like that. "I can jump 3 meters" is not the same as "I can jump 3 feet" just because you think a meter and a foot are the same length.
Why would I need to do that my friend when there are hundreds if not thousands of pumps through out NY pumping tens of thousands of gallons of water daily using the energy created by Niagara falls to do it...
Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by hawkiye
Why would I need to do that my friend when there are hundreds if not thousands of pumps through out NY pumping tens of thousands of gallons of water daily using the energy created by Niagara falls to do it...
citation please
The amount of electricity the power plants at Niagara Falls have the capacity to output is close to 4.9 million kilowatts. That's enough to power 3.8 millions homes.
On the US side, plants have a capacity of roughly 2.7 million Kilowatts, while the Canadian side's combined capacity is close to 2.2 million kilowatts.
This aether (or the quantum superfluid vacum) we exist within does appear to have stored energy but this is probably derived from its entire volume so is probably innaccesible without a force that matches or exceeds this....
Originally posted by theDarthvader
Having followed this thread from the beginning, I have to say, some of the posters here are being completely ridiculous. BONCHO says 'millions of years is not perpetual motion'. His arguing of semantics shows himself up as someone with a closed mind, who has no wish to see any challenge to the orthodox. What is your point BONCHO, that a perpetual motion machine that lasts a thousand years wouldn't be any use? Of course it would, so stop with the semantics that are clearly attempts to halt discussion. For what purpose you do this, I have no idea. The same can most definitely be said for ARBINGEUR, who in all my time on ATS i have only ever seen knock down any ideas that stray from accepted current scientific thinking. Why bother being on the ATS website if you only accept what scientists have told you? Pointless.
And as for MODULI telling us that Xploder knows nothing of physics, you were proven completely wrong. Xploder really knows his onions, and gave you a verbal smackdown. You still never answered his question either. Might I suggest you exit a discussion about possibilities, for a closed mind such as yours offers nothing to the discussion.
Everyone trying to derail the thread should just stop posting in it, you clearly have an unhealthy / obsessive need to stop the discussion. Anyone who is interested in perpetual motion shouldn't let these naysayers get away with the derailment. Ironically I may well be derailing the thread by accident right now, so I'll stop right away.
PS i almost never post on ATS but I have lurked for many a year, so I'm not sure if I'll be in trouble for this post but it makes no difference either way to me.
Onwards and upwards free thinkers.
Solar panels are free energy by tapping into sunlight that has been perpetually hitting the earth for millions of years...
Oh come on they had no clue about energy and what it was. Worshiping a sun god is not thinking about harnessing the energy from the sun they were praying to a mythical being to help them grow their crops. Harnessing energy from the Sun was never really thought of seriously till about a 150 years ago or so...
BONCHO says 'millions of years is not perpetual motion'. His arguing of semantics shows himself up as someone with a closed mind, who has no wish to see any challenge to the orthodox.
Bearden got a patent, but he needs 10 million dollars to make it work.
Originally posted by hawkiye
Tom Bearden has done it
Your Niagara falls example is cute, but it still doesn't prove that the amount of electricity produced is enough to pump all the water back up to the top.
Regardless, let me see if I have this right... The work done by a windmill is "free energy" because you don't have to do anything to make the wind blow.... therefore windmills are perpetual motion machines? Lets not forget what you're trying to prove here.
All of what we know today was not back by science at one time... Your statement speaks volumes as to your lack of understanding logic and reason... If we only stuck to what was backed by science we would never move forward.
His arguing of semantics shows himself up as someone with a closed mind,
Your Niagara falls example is cute, but it still doesn't prove that the amount of electricity produced is enough to pump all the water back up to the top.
I agree that there aren't many closed systems in nature, but a perpetual motion machine is, by definition
let me see if I have this right... The work done by a windmill is "free energy" because you don't have to do anything to make the wind blow.... therefore windmills are perpetual motion machines? Lets not forget what you're trying to prove here.
That bit about drawing energy from some external source is important because all of your recent examples involve energy from external sources. Just because YOU don't have to input energy doesn't mean there isn't an energy input. You're smudging definitions to fit your notion while condemning the apparently "bought and paid for" science for explaining things with concrete definitions.
under that interpretation, gasoline-petrol is "free energy". In which case, we should probably start spamming the forum with "GAS IS FREE ENERGY!!" threads...
It is scientific laws and sound theories that have projected us into the future. You and your misinterpretations of science is a general call for everyone to educate themselves at the equivalent of 1500s understanding of science. Where unicorn farts will be the next major move in energy production...