It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by moebius
Amazingly you geniuses really believe perpetual could only mean forever which science does not even recognize as a scientific term yet your whole model is based on this unscientific term that it can only be perpetual if it last forever LOL! Clueless fanatical believers in irrationality indeed! And yet here you are 2 or 3 of you trying to ridicule the majority who does not "believe" your ridiculous non-sense... Oh please come on now and tell us one more time how perpetual can only mean forever and anything else is blasphemy and maybe we will all shut off our brains and believe as you do
Gotta love the academia cult worshipers...
Originally posted by pheonix358
You guys are using all the tools of disinfo agents. You have moved down to name calling and belittling.
Hell, if a school kid can do it why can't you?
TITLE: perpetual motion (physics)
...those devices that purport to deliver more energy from a falling or turning body than is required to restore those devices to their original state. The most common of these, and the oldest, is the overbalanced wheel. In a typical version, flexible arms are attached to the outer rim of a vertically mounted wheel. An inclined trough is arranged to transfer rolling weights from folded arms on one...
From the 8th century to the present time inventors have sought to achieve perpetual motion by use of wheels with shifting weights. None have worked, but that doesn't stop people from using the same idea again and again, altering mechanical details, often with incredibly complex designs. I call this "reinventing the square wheel".
This is an outline of the reasons why physicists understand that all overbalanced wheels, no matter how ingeniously constructed, can never provide more energy than they were given initially. In fact, the situation is even worse, for the more ingenious and complex is the mechanism for maintaining the overbalance, the more poorly the wheel will perform due to mechanical inefficiency.
Researchers in the “free energy” field should not concern themselves with the outmoded ideas presented as the so- called "Laws of Thermodynamics".
They embody an erroneous concept of a mechanical universe that mysteriously burst forth as a fully wound spring that has been unwinding ever since.
It is a lifeless, empty vision that ignores the Source of the energy it started with and closes the minds of its adherents to the solutions at hand.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: mbkennel
So can you make a superconducting "loop" or how would you build it?
And if it's a loop, does the current or electron energy have to be low enough to avoid something like synchrotron radiation or is there a threshold of electron energy for that and if so what is it? I know you get synchrotron radiation from high energy electrons being accelerated in a loop or curve, but I don't know if it stops completely at lower energies.
Our data on YBCO films, and other data that we have analyzed, are more consistent with the occurrence of small but non-zero resistance at low temperature.
The electron doesn't really orbit the nucleus, it forms something like a standing wave.
Why doesn't an electron in the ground state of hydrogen radiate?
Perpetual motion is kind of like a thought exercise in the scientific world, because the
very description is describing something that can't exist because of very well tested scientific laws.
Perpetual motion in science is usually referring to some kind of isolated system that is doing
work (or capable of) forever without an external input of energy, which therefore cannot exist.
However, some people who argue for the validity of "free energy" will use the idea of perpetually
moving objects to justify the possibility of "free energy".
One could argue that this is a form of perpetual motion as the electrons are not really
staying in the same place, but at the same time, one could also argue that electrons aren't really
"moving" as in the way we know it.
In some ways you kind of, sort of, could argue that it's perpetual motion, or that the
subatomic layers are perpetual changing their positions. But the point of this argument is kind of moot because it doesn't relate to the macro world we live in. And, QM is still governed by the second law of thermodynamics. So any real push past the simple notion that they are always moving, which would lend weight to something in the macro world moving the same way (macro
objects acting as waves? Can you point some out to me?) is kind of pointless.
Elastic energy transfer. The intermediary balls cannot move much but they can transfer the mechanical energy. You would get the same result if you held the balls in a vice or used a solid steel rod instead of the balls. Kinetic energy becomes a wave of elastic energy which travels through the material until it reaches the last ball where it is converted back into kinetic energy. It's like using a steel rod to "extend" a hammer blow into a tight space.
The energy is transferred from the first ball to the last one without the ones in between seeming to move. So if they are not moving, how is the energy going through them?
No. As you said, work requires motion. No movement, no work. The magnet on the fridge does not move. It is doing no work.
According to the work equation, a fridge magnet is impossible. In most of the physics 'laws' fridge magnets are impossible, simply for the reason that they defy gravity by clnging to the fridge and yet they use no energy.
No. The kinetic energy has a vector. The elastic transfer extends that vector to the last ball which swings out then back. The energy then is transferred to the first ball and it does, indeed, bounce back.
Er, no, i meant the reaction of the second ball regaining shape, it should bounce the first ball back.
Perhaps it's because you are not looking deeply enough into the "anomalies." In the case of Newton's cradle, there really aren't any. There is nothing strange about it. It's just a cool demonstration of the conservation of momentum.
What bugs me most of all is when the observed facts do not match the formula & vice versa, it always amazes me when scientists & engineers dont even question these anamolies.