did a norwegian man create true perpetual motion?

The only way you will ever be able to prove true perpetual motion is in zero gravity inside a vacuum. At least to me anyways.... anything short of that is IMO not true over unity nor perpetual motion. The device must power itself without an outside energy influence.

reply to post by Creedo


Essentially all you have to do is remove any external influence upon a body in motion, and you have perpetual motion. It won't slow down, it won't speed up, it won't change direction - it'll keep moving.

Seeing as this guy's machine is making a noise, and doesn't slow down (apparently), it's an over-unity device, which is in direct violation of the first law of thermodynamics. My guess is it's using magnets, which are very slowly becoming demagnetised. Or he's making it up.

Using gravity like that isn't possible. It provides a downward force yes - really a force pulling something towards another body, but at some point whatever it is will reach the source of the gravitational force (so to speak) and the energy has been transferred.

Think of a hydro-dam - the water falls through the turbines and does good work and makes electricity - but once its down the mountain, its energy has gone. If you want to give it more energy, you have to spend more energy first to lift it back up.

There are probably better ways to extract gravitational field energy, but to be honest, gravitation is the weakest of all forces so it's probably a stupid road to go down.

Any kind of nuclear power is much more efficient than anything else - the strong nuclear force exploited is the strongest of all forces - 1000000 times stronger than gravity.

It's not a particularly useful comparison, but one kilo of water falling through a turbine at the hoover dam generates a negligible amount of power - 1 kilo of water used completely in a fusion reaction could power a city like NYC for hours. That's truly amazing. Fission is also pretty impressively efficient if you discount the time and energy needed to dispose of the crap it leaves us with afterwards.

I think people are ignorant when it comes to Nuclear power and a lot of negative propaganda and missinfo is in circulation about dangers etc. If handled responsibly - i.e. not like at Chenobyl and 3 Mile Island which were disasters waiting to happen from day one - we could all have cheap, clean energy - cheap carbon free energy for those who care.

Sorry to go off topic, but i think this is a useful comparison to demonstrate to those who think the gravitational energy at the heart of perpetual motion devices could ever be useful. Maybe if you built a huge device around the sun - but come on.. keep it real.

reply to post by Dutty_Rag


"Any kind of nuclear power is much more efficient than anything else - the strong nuclear force exploited is the strongest of all forces - 1000000 times stronger than gravity."


where does the tremendous power from nuclear sources come from? is it all potential energy? considering thermodynamics, will an atom eventually run out of steam? what "fuels" an atom?
just curious,
regards



[edit on 10-12-2008 by ogbert]

[edit on 10-12-2008 by ogbert]

Originally posted by jimmyx
reply to post by Desolate Cancer

 

why is this even debatable? there is nothing scientific or mathimatical that proves perpetual motion. never has been.

Why is it even debatable?

How about science and physics?

Is that a good enough reason?

I love how so many "educated" people espouse impossibilities, and refuse to accept even a little open mindedness. Science has been wrong, many millions of times.

Just because a few people (whoever they are) say "I have theorized that this is impossible!" everyone should just stop thinking about it?

Wow, what a way to make scientific discoveries!
If everyone were to do that, America wouldn't be what it is now, we would never have traveled to the Moon or put a robot on Mars.
If you were to go back a few hundred years and tell a great and wise man that one day we'd walk on the Moon, he'd probably give you a thousand reasons why it was impossible.
If you were to tell that same man that one day we would build a massive machine underground that may give evidence of other dimensions and explain dark-matter, he'd probably have you executed.

I don't know a great deal about this specifically, but I do believe that anything is possible.
To state that anything is impossible should be against the very principles of scientific research. It is limiting.

I think you have no serious grasp of science.

Perpetual motion - the idea of infinite energy is not something up for any kind of debate. It is not possible under ANY scheme EVER even imagined. There is open minded but then there is being silly.

This is silly. It's in the same boat as me changing into a hippo and climbing into my own ass while Riki Lake runs a paternity test on my alien child.

Think before you open your mouth. If you don't understand science and physics - even to high-school level, don't make bold claims in a science thread that try and put down people who actually have a lot of understanding of what they are talking about compared to your 'no understanding of what you are talking about'.

The OP posed a question. The answer is know.

Originally posted by ogbert
reply to post by Dutty_Rag

 

"Any kind of nuclear power is much more efficient than anything else - the strong nuclear force exploited is the strongest of all forces - 1000000 times stronger than gravity."


where does the tremendous power from nuclear sources come from? is it all potential energy? considering thermodynamics, will an atom eventually run out of steam? what "fuels" an atom?
just curious,
regards



[edit on 10-12-2008 by ogbert]

[edit on 10-12-2008 by ogbert]

Yep; it uses the potential energy stored in heavy elements. It does so by breaking them apart in a controlled chain reaction. eventually, so many atoms are split apart that the fuel is no longer usable. With fuel reprocessing, the decay products can be removed from spent fuel, so that we can use it again, but was banned under the carter administration, iirc.

The atoms don't "run out of steam" They're unstable, and being hit by neutrons causes them to violently break apart into a pair of smaller atoms and a few neutrons; usually krypton and barium. These cannot feasibly be broken apart to gain energy. Nuclear fission power is unsustainable. Fusion is too, to extent; but seeing as the stars are fusing it all the time, we'd be far more efficient at using it than nature. Any power derived from the sun is the result of fusion power, and is unsustainable too; since the sun will eventually use up all it's hydrogen. This includes wind, solar, hydroelectric, and probably wave power. (but not tidal; that saps energy from the earth's rotation, and pushes the moon away)

In a fusion reaction, the components being fused actually have more energy than the end result, and so by fusing them, they emit the extra energy in various forms of radiation. The cutoff point is around iron. Nothing heavier than iron can be fused for net energy; and the conditions for fusion are so intense that we can barely fuse the lightest of elements.

in a breeder reactor intended to make more fissile material, fissionable material like uranium 238 or thorium is placed in a specially designed nuclear reactor which will bombard them with low energy neutrons, so they absorb it. Generally the target is plutonium. While thorium and uranium 238 are fissionable, when fissioned, they don't produce enough neutrons with a high enough energy to split enough other atoms to sustain a chain reaction, making them useless for nuclear power.

reply to post by ogbert


The strong nuclear force hold together sub-atomic particles together that make protons and neutrons and its the force that keeps the protons and neutrons in a nucleus of the atom. The strong nuclear force must be overcome to begin fission or fusion, fission splits a heavier atom, uranium, plutonium into smaller atoms and to sustain it one needs a sufficient mass for the chain reaction to continue. To sustain nuclear fusion, you need lots and lots of energy to initially begin the proces, heat and pressure asit happens in stars, or by speeding up to hydrogen atoms sufficiently to over come the strong nuclear force and literaly combine the atoms to make a new element, again this requires alot of hydrogen. This usually results in the emission of lots of energy, heat, all spectrums of light and neutrons. The fusion of two nuclei with lower mass than iron generally releases energy while the fusion of nuclei heavier than iron absorbs energy; vice-versa for the reverse process, nuclear fission.

Hope this helps

Over Unity and perpetual motion engines must exist now if
the UFO is a real craft.
Because Aliens have no gas stations.

Using atoms in non Relativistic reactions, that is not smashing them
together, by energizing them within limits should provide enough
energy in turbines for any application.

Thus the engine lasts as long as the parts do not wear out.
So simple yet in the famous words of MG Hammer: You can't touch this.

reply to post by jimmyx


Just because we do not know the answer, doesnt mean it doesnt exist. The earth isnt round, we would fall off if it was lol...what you see here is proof IMHO that it is possible. Since there is undoubtedly heat and friction...then i have to conclude that it is creating heat and friction and overcoming it, not out of nothing, but out of gravity.

Hey Dutty, you ever fly in an airplane? I can imagine you would be one of masses in the turn of the century scientific community flaunting their degrees while blasting the Wright brothers and the hundred of other "flying machine quacks". Why? Because the laws of fluid dynamics had not been discovered yet.

I find it amusing how much time "scientists" spend caring about what others choose to do with their time and stifling the ideas of those who dare to challenge the norm.