| perpetual motion are there any amature inventors/scientists here
Posted: 6/10/2008 10:49:17 PM |
Perpetual motion is NOT possible.
Says who? First law of thermodynamics? But First Law speicifies a closed system.. do we know enough about our world and all the energies in it to point which system is and is not closed? That's just one possible explanation..
I have filed several patents in the past, in other areas of science, and I can assure you the patents office will not accept any claims relating to perpetual motion.
That's BAD. They won't even look at it even though you PAY them to do so, simply because they don't believe it will work? That, if true, actually gives some validity to OP's claim...
I have dabbled with these machines in my teens but had to finally accept the basic laws of physics are absolutely correct. Its impossible to get more out than you put in! You get nothing for free in this life! : )
Me, too. I invented my first perpetuum mobile at 7, what age were you? :-) Pity it did not work, is not it? | |
|
| |
| perpetual motion are there any amature inventors/scientists here
Posted: 6/13/2008 10:26:04 AM |
Says who? First law of thermodynamics? But First Law speicifies a closed system.. do we know enough about our world and all the energies in it to point which system is and is not closed? That's just one possible explanation..
Says every experiment that anyone has ever performed under enough scrutiny to exclude fraud. Your argument regarding a ``closed system'' is specious. A closed system, by definition is one into and out of which, no energy flows. Since the obvious claims for any perpetual motion machine is that it runs without adding more and more energy to keep it running and that it runs without losing energy, it would appear that the requirements for a closed system have been met by the claimants. | |
|
| perpetual motion are there any amature inventors/scientists here
Posted: 6/13/2008 12:55:09 PM | im smiling proudly at my generator, and i dont want to make money off it.....
using a 5k watt generator head and a vw tdi turbo rebuilt with a ball bearing 10 inch shaft into the head, using compressed air from a 5 gallon tank to a smaller 1 inch compressor tube to send the air back into the tank... its been 9 days and still working have only seen a 2psi drop in that time frame | |
|
| perpetual motion are there any amature inventors/scientists here
Posted: 6/15/2008 4:33:47 AM | | Does the generator have a load drawing 5 kW of power connected to it? If there is no load drawing power, you have a 0 kW generator and your compresed air is supplying a little power to heat the bearings. Try connecting your A/C compressor to the generator and see how long the compressed air supply cools your house. For a reference, 5 kW is equivalent to 220 V at a little over 22 Amps and a 1 Ton A/C unit is about 3.5 kW. | |
|
| perpetual motion are there any amature inventors/scientists here
Posted: 6/15/2008 7:42:21 AM | | Well electrical PM is not posable i can tell you that much, the origional theory was to have an inductor and capacitor dischaging/demagnetizing on eachother which in theory was sapose to create small increased in power over time but they so small the an wireing /load would negate the effect and cause losses. | |
|
| perpetual motion are there any amature inventors/scientists here
Posted: 6/16/2008 5:56:25 PM |
look at the big bang "therory" that may have created our universe from basicly nothing
Did something change since I studied the Big Bang? I can't recall anyone claiming that the universe came from nothing. Before the BB, matter as we know it did not exist but there was mass there. The mass was in the form of plasma, basically a soup of subatomic particles that hasn't cooled enough to allow the parts to form atoms. Nothing indicates that the universe came from nothing.
But since we're here some time after the BB and the universe has decided to act the way it does, we're stuck with physical laws. You can't create energy. You can't make a system that is 100% efficient either. (That would be a good first step for anyone who wants to make a PPM.) | |
|
| perpetual motion are there any amature inventors/scientists here
Posted: 6/17/2008 3:20:08 AM | look at the big bang "therory" that may have created our universe from basicly nothing
That is both a fair and interesting question although the interesting part isn't relevant to this thread and is interesting because no one knows what the universe was like at the point quantum effects become important. General relativity predicts a big bang because a static universe is not a stable equilibrium. The data from high energy experiments and cosmological observations is consistent with the universe being much smaller in the past. The data are consistent to times at least as small as 10^-14 seconds after the big bang. General relativitry should be adequate to time scales as small as 10^-42 or so seconds after the big bang.Beyond that is up for grabs. The big bang according to general relativity is a timelike singularity and timelike singularities are far less well understood that spacelike singularities (i.e. black holes.) So, the big bang doesn't quite say the universe came from nothing. That argument would be in the realm of quantum theory.
In general relativity, it is not possible to define a globally conserved energy. The reason is rather technical, but in short, to define a quantity called energy such that it's conserved globally, it must be possible to define a global time-like Killing vector, which, in general, cannot be done on a curved manifold. A rather overly simplified rendering into english is that two observers can't define when and where an energy measurement was made if they have no way of agreeing on what ``now'' means. This is quite different from what is being claimed, which is a viloation of conservation of energy in the Newtonian sense, where everyone agrees on how much energy was someplace at some time and how much energy was there some time later. It wouldn't make sense to make the claim otherwise. | |
|
| perpetual motion are there any amature inventors/scientists here
Posted: 6/17/2008 9:06:33 PM | | While perpetual motion might be possible. Energy changes form, it can't be created or destroyed. It only changes form. This type of machine might be able to convert energy from its surroundings into the output of energy but it can't create energy. It might be able to create a high Mechanical Advantage and efficiency ratio. I have a friend in Overland Park that has created a device that splits the hydrogen atom in water in a small device that he has invented that will change the way we develop and use batteries and run automobiles. This device is real, I have seen it hooked up to an automobile and run it. I have also seen it power electronics. It is also very small. | |
|
| perpetual motion are there any amature inventors/scientists here
Posted: 6/17/2008 10:47:26 PM | | It's not possible to build a perpetual motion machine that runs off of it's own output. However if you think of something like a fire, you add a match and get a flame bigger than what you started with. It's possible that somewhere within his machine he has a chemical reaction or something that makes it temporarily look like that is the case. | |
|
| perpetual motion are there any amature inventors/scientists here
Posted: 6/18/2008 12:59:01 AM |
I have a friend in Overland Park that has created a device that splits the hydrogen atom in water in a small device that he has invented that will change the way we develop and use batteries and run automobiles. This device is real, I have seen it hooked up to an automobile and run it. I have also seen it power electronics. It is also very small.
Splitting hydrogen and oxygen from water is an old technology, the problem is that when you burn the hydrogen (which bonds it back with the oxygen) it does not produce as much energy as breaking the water to begin with. | |
|
| perpetual motion are there any amature inventors/scientists here
Posted: 6/18/2008 4:33:54 AM | CharlesEdm, even if you can't create "new energy", that does not mean that perpetual motion or "free energy" is imposssible. Look at what we can do with ones and zeros today? I bring that up because on the surffice, on and off switches aren't very impressive. You wouldn't think you could do much with them, would you? Yet our world wouldn't be what it is today if we didn't figure it out.
Energy is all around us in one forn or another, the static you see on your TV is evedeince of that. Now imagine creating a device that creates a vortex of sorts to draw in otherise non-usable energy. Would you be "creating engergy"? No, but you could have that effect, even if it's really just drawing in or borrowing pre-existing energy from somewhere else in the universe. | |
|
| perpetual motion are there any amature inventors/scientists here
Posted: 6/18/2008 5:18:32 AM |
Look at what we can do with ones and zeros today? I bring that up because on the surffice, on and off switches aren't very impressive. You wouldn't think you could do much with them, would you? Yet our world wouldn't be what it is today if we didn't figure it out.
Nothing to do with energy creation.
Energy is all around us in one forn or another, the static you see on your TV is evedeince of that. Now imagine creating a device that creates a vortex of sorts to draw in otherise non-usable energy. Would you be "creating engergy"? No, but you could have that effect, even if it's really just drawing in or borrowing pre-existing energy from somewhere else in the universe.
Ummmmm once again this isn't perpetual motion. Finding a new energy, lets call it I don't know. "magic" lets say you have a machine that uses "magic" it doesn't mean that you have a perpetual motion device, you just have a "magic" device.
Just because you can make up a "magic" device in your head, doesn't mean it can exist either. but non of the things purposed in here come even close to working. You're not going to get your "magic" device through fuel cells. | |
|
| |
| perpetual motion are there any amature inventors/scientists here
Posted: 6/18/2008 3:02:14 PM |
even if you can't create "new energy", that does not mean that perpetual motion or "free energy" is imposssible.
That's a non-sequitur. perpetual motion and so-called free energy by definition, means creating ``new energy'' as you put it.
Look at what we can do with ones and zeros today?
I'm not sure why you think that is a big deal. binary, like any number base, is a means of representig a number. Binary is used in computers because it's the natural language for a machine constructed from elements that have two states. If you had elements with 100 different states, base 100 would be the natural way to do arithmetic in a machine. | |
|
| perpetual motion are there any amature inventors/scientists here
Posted: 6/19/2008 10:00:02 AM | Ummmmm once again this isn't perpetual motion. Finding a new energy, lets call it I don't know. "magic" lets say you have a machine that uses "magic" it doesn't mean that you have a perpetual motion device, you just have a "magic" device.
I find your sarcasm amusing...
lets just put it this way...there is alot of stuff we don't know about the Universe. Can you agree with that?
Even today it's easy to see why the human race took 6000 years to get where we are today. People blame the lack of science on religion, yet science has created it's own domatic vew of nature. The human mind often need to find a box to crawl into. When we get over that hurtal, we will be unstopable.
I realize that my belief of the concept is based more on faith than evedice. Assuming that you don't consider our galaxy or the solar system to be perpetualy moving. Long after our star dies, the outer planets will continue to revolve around the gravitational pull of it's remains, or the black hole it will create. As far as I know the nuclear fusion of the sun has little or nothing to do with it's gravitational pull. | |
|
| perpetual motion are there any amature inventors/scientists here
Posted: 6/19/2008 10:44:02 AM |
lets just put it this way...there is alot of stuff we don't know about the Universe. Can you agree with that?
Sure, but we know enough to know that perpetual motions can't be built using any of the usual matter anyone knows about or has ever predicted. But, we aren't talking about building a machine out of some new form of matter. (In that case, we also know what restrictions we can place on its properties, since it hasn't been found in accelerators, despite the fact that everyday, accelerators produce matter which has not existed naturally in the universe since about 10^-14 seconds after the big bang.) We do know what kind of matter can be produced at energies up to about 180 TeV. We also know how the electromagnetic, the strong, the weak and gravitational forces work at the limits of precision we can determine from experimental data. That rules out ANY new force that can affect the matter we know about significantly enough to have been observed, much less be exploited to use as a power source. For example, quantum electrodynamics (QED) agrees with experimental data to 13 decimal places. QED explains all chemical and mechanical features of everything around you, so any anomally has to be at a level of less than one part in 0.1 trillion. Hardly enough to make up for the frictional losses of a bearing. | |
|
| perpetual motion are there any amature inventors/scientists here
Posted: 6/19/2008 10:57:50 AM |
Assuming that you don't consider our galaxy or the solar system to be perpetualy moving.
If you are familiar with Newtonian mechanics, you will recall that momentum is conserved, so that inertial motion can't be altered without applying a force. In Galilean (and Special ) relativity, spacetime is flat and inertial motion is motion in a straight line. A straight line is a geodesic in a flat spacetime. In geberal relativity, the force of gravity is replaced by spacetime curvature. There are no straight spacetime lines, but inertial motion is still motion along a geodesic. (An example of a geodesic in two dimensions is a meridian on a globe. If two people start at the north pole and walk at a constant velocity until they meet at the south pole, each will see the other change velocities, since the two people have to start out moving away from each other and then back towards each other, yet no force acts to change their direction.) In general relativity, the motion of the planets, stars, galaxies, etc., occur along geodesics in spacetime, so the motion is inertial, which does not require any force to act for their motion to continue. | |
|
Home
login 
