| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 3/31/2008 7:11:49 PM | | Perpetual energy (And motion) 'machines' simply do not, and cannot exist. They defy the law of conservation of energy. A machine cannot deliver more energy than is required to run it. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 3/31/2008 7:35:22 PM | | I'm glad to find a forum where people can discuss things like this. Everyone here so far has some valid points and are on the right track for the most part. I would encourage all to not ignore the known laws and established theories, but to perhaps reinterpret and extropolate, using great imagination regarding the application of said laws and theories. In regards to cold fusion? I believe this is a misnomer for two known phenomenon; namely the Casimir effect and Van Der Walls forces respectively. That, however does not take away from the existance and usability of these forces and their respective energies. I find myself going down this particular avenue in search of applications and new technologies to exploit these overlooked effects.And believe me when i say there are limitless applications for this particular type of energy and its attendant effects, namely involving a squeezed vacuum in a quantum mechanical system. I am loath to go into specifics, but i do believe the current laws and theories support a framework to revolutionize propulsion with these two forces and effects. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 7/16/2008 8:19:51 PM |
I once pondered in my sleep that I could make some kind of rotating mechanism if I could find some kind of magnet shield that moved with the rotation. The shield would go up as the magnets came near. And the shield would go down as the mechanism rotated past the magnet and get propelled by the magnetic energy.... So the shield would have to be in synch with the rotation. Seems viable to me. What about you?
It's an intriguing idea, but has a drawback. Either the magnets or the shield has to be connected to something as they rotate, an axle, say. This would then in turn be connected to a base or similar. As the machine roates, there would be friction between the axle and the base, causing loss of energy. Hence - no perpetual motion.
On the subject of patents (from Wikipedia):
With the exception of cases involving perpetual motion, a model is not ordinarily required by the Office to demonstrate the operability of a device. If operability of a device is questioned, the applicant must establish it to the satisfaction of the examiner, but he or she may choose his or her own way of so doing. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 8/24/2008 10:51:38 AM | Stan Meyer invented the water car which used a process called super electolysis. There are also others which invented overunity motors now used to produce oxyhydrogen gas to run generators on plain water to make all the electricity they want for nothing. The oil companies are using these processes now. One link is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWQE6Tm-VAw&NR=1
also www.byronnewenergy.com
http://www.freeenergy.ws/electrolysis.html
http://freeenergynews.com
also google Joe Cell
XOGEN.com
overunity water heater
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOM2GnQluJk&=related
" " " " " =yh_-DUKQ4Uw&NR=1
There are hundreds on youtube and the first will lead to very many if it's still on there. If not this is the youtube vid I started with and just watched and searched from there
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWOxnXKB8VQ
All the other stuff is very eye opening. But wait there's more !!! Sorry I don't have them all on hand right now but will be happy to locate and pass on if you run out on the other sites.
Thankyou all  | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 8/24/2008 11:00:09 AM | | Sorry, forgot to mention, they DO NOT contradict the laws of thermodynamics. Only the other 'known/taught' physics. Which are well short of what is real. Also Telsa invented a system which collected electricity freely from the atmosphere and was able to transport it through the air to any of his collection towers from his transmitting towers. They stopped it because they could not meter the amount people used and could not charge them money for the electricity, so it was hidden away with all the other good stuff. Capitalist scum are to blame !!! | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 8/24/2008 7:05:10 PM | | This is a sad state of our society when even a basic physics and chemistry class would give enough illumination to understand why it is impossible. And yet there are people who still are gullible enough to believe crackpot claims. | |
|
Agapis
|
Joined: 3/20/2008
Msg: 82 | |
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 8/25/2008 1:22:16 PM |
It's a sphere that now houses a museum dedicated to a modern-day Leonardo Davinci (Bucky they called him), someone who devoted his life to inventing environmentally friendly inventions. He found a way to build incredibly strong dome-shaped houses that were more energy efficient than the ones we currently have and could be built at half the cost.
yes, Bucky in question is R.Buckmister Fuller, and the dome you are referring to is a geodesic dome.
as for people misunderstanding the conservation laws, it IS possible to get more energy than you put in. the closer u get inside the atom, the stronger the forces u encounter.
look at what the National Ignition Facility (NIF) is doing.
heres my reference:
https://lasers.llnl.gov/ | |
|
Agapis
|
Joined: 3/20/2008
Msg: 83 | |
| |
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 8/25/2008 2:29:34 PM | This is still not a perpetual energy machine as it takes fuel (heavy hydrogen) to continue the fusion (not chemical) reaction. If they can get more energy out of it than they put in, then we will have a clean alternative energy source for quite a while. I'm not sure how much energy it takes to refine the heavy hydrogen out of regular hydrogen, and there is a finite (but large) supply of heavy hydrogen as well .
The hydrogen technology for fueling automobiles entails a chemical rather than nuclear reaction which means that you will always need to put more energy into breaking free the hydrogen than you will eventually get when you oxidize it again to run the engine. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 8/25/2008 4:04:16 PM | Oh god, is Solomon spouting those "oh my God, why won't this DIE?" lies again?
I think you need to consider posting in the Religion/Supernatural forum any time you feel compelled to post this crap. Stan Meyer was a con man, a liar, and a thief who could never produce even one iota of proof for his bullsh!t claims. At least his brother is sane and honest... he doesn't make any claims that his torch technology is magical, just that it works well and safely. | |
|
Agapis
|
Joined: 3/20/2008
Msg: 86 | |
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 8/25/2008 5:19:37 PM |
The hydrogen technology for fueling automobiles entails a chemical rather than nuclear reaction which means that you will always need to put more energy into breaking free the hydrogen than you will eventually get when you oxidize it again to run the engine.
obviously the cars would be electric motors, and would get their power from the mains.the national grid would be supplyed by the fusion.
as the man said, for many years. MILLIONS of years.
hydrogen is innefective as a combustible fuel, due to seperating it. unless u use platinum,which is expensive.its only a means of storing energy. fusion is the way foreward, and its closer than you think.check that web address i put, i am no crank, and all my shit is based on current science, not speculation. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 8/25/2008 6:29:05 PM | Ummm, okay, but it's a completely different technology than what the other hydrogen posters are talking about. Fusion is not perpetual motion because you're converting a certain amount of the mass of the particles into energy.
I really have no idea what you're talking about with the platinum comment, though. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 8/25/2008 8:06:39 PM |
as for people misunderstanding the conservation laws, it IS possible to get more energy than you put in. the closer u get inside the atom, the stronger the forces u encounter.
You can't violate the law of energy/momentum conservation. In order to probe smaller and smaller distances you require higher and higher energies. It's not about thermodynamics it's about the HUP. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 8/25/2008 10:01:14 PM |
no thermodynamic violations, just super efficiency from the fundamental forces.
Completely and fundamentally flawed. i.e. "wrong."
The energy comes from the conversion of some of the mass of the nucleons involved (specifically, the released neutron, in the case of T-D fusion.) | |
|
Agapis
|
Joined: 3/20/2008
Msg: 90 | |
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 8/26/2008 4:21:18 AM | you're clearly not a chemist either. ever heard of a hydrogen fuel-cell? uses platinum doesnt it? i guess you already knew that , as you were so quick to jump on my comments.
and maybe you could point out where i said that a fusion reaction was a perpetual one?
look at the title of the thread. fusion is a promising invention/discovery. | |
|
Agapis
|
Joined: 3/20/2008
Msg: 91 | |
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 8/26/2008 4:27:59 AM |
Completely and fundamentally flawed. i.e. "wrong."
listen mate, you dont even know how a hydrogen fuel cell works, so maybe you can spare me your childish summary of nuclear physics.
and how was my statement wrong? no thermodynamic violation=CORRECT.
i'll leave it to you (genius) to explain how the other half of that statement is wrong.
oh, and it's pronounced D-T fusion, and you forgot to mention where the rest of the energy comes from (not exclusivly the neutron).
get back under your bridge, you troll. | |
|
Agapis
|
Joined: 3/20/2008
Msg: 92 | |
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 8/26/2008 4:33:38 AM | and what does Heisenberg have to do with it? we dont need to measure its position and velocity, merely compress the shit out of it with lasers.
unless i misunderstand what u mean by HUP. | |
|
Agapis
|
Joined: 3/20/2008
Msg: 93 | |
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 8/26/2008 4:44:27 AM | and i never said violate any conservation law, i said that people are misinterpereting it.
there is a difference between getting ALL the energy from something, SOME of the energy from something, and MORE energy from something.
if anyone actually reads the NIF literature, they will see what i am saying.
MORE energy is RELEASED than is used to start/sustain the reaction = POSSIBLE!
getting more energy than is inherent in the mass = IMPOSSIBLE (due to conservation of mass/energy).
i hope that clears it up. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 8/26/2008 6:08:01 AM | and what does Heisenberg have to do with it? we dont need to measure its position and velocity, merely compress the shit out of it with lasers.
My apologies, I thought that you were implying that there was a violation of the energy/momentum conservation law...
But regarding Heisenberg, you mentioned that "the closer u get inside the atom, the stronger the forces u encounter. ", by this I assumed that you were referring to the strong nuclear force that binds protons and neutrons together. In order to do this, to "compress" particles at these distances I mean, the change in a particles momentum becomes more uncertain as the wave function becomes confined to a smaller region and this in turn requires you to expend larger and larger amounts of energy... you may not have realized it but we are talking about the HUP here...just an fyi...other than that, I know nothing about fusion...
| |
|
Agapis
|
Joined: 3/20/2008
Msg: 95 | |
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 8/26/2008 7:08:35 AM | yes, i was refering to the strong nuclear force. (i should have put it in context,i.e compared to inter molecular forces involved in chemicle combustion of hydrogen).
im also aware of the massive role HUP plays in physics at this level. just not sure how it would be a problem. use more energy, surely?
anyway, good answer. had me reaching for my google lol. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 8/26/2008 7:22:45 AM | | Hey, no worries, I am learning something new from this thread too. So what are the current roadblocks standing in the way of making fusion a cost-effective solution for today's energy problems? Are we talking about years or decades? | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 8/26/2008 7:59:37 AM | Troll? *laughter*
In the context: "hydrogen is innefective as a combustible fuel, due to seperating it. unless u use platinum,which is expensive."
Platinum doesn't overcome the inherent inefficiency of splitting water then recombining it later, which is how your comment is phrased. It simply reduces the inefficiency of the combustion step. Besides which, pretty much every currently-used fuel cell design uses a platinum-group metal as a catalyst. You think adding platinum at higher cost is some unusual approach?
Nice approach to discussion, though... y'know, as long as you're throwing around that "childish" adjective. Grow up. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 8/26/2008 8:23:34 AM | | I'm trying to find links to show how compressing an atom requires more and more energy because of hup, but I'm not having much success. The logic basically goes like this, in order to compress the atomic nuclei (i.e. protons and neutrons) you need a very small wavelength (from your laser), but the smaller the wavelength, the more energy the packets must have (i.e. Energy = Planck's Constant*speed of light/wavelength), this energy is transferred to the protons/neutrons which in turn changes their speed and direction by a significant amount. So when you are trying to break the nuclear bonds of something as small as nucleons or even hadrons, you need more and more energy. But I am assuming that since fusion is a promising source of energy, the amount that you would need to put in to break the bonds and fuse the nucleons would be less than what is released...otherwise why even pursue the technology, no? | |
|
Agapis
|
Joined: 3/20/2008
Msg: 99 | |
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 8/26/2008 11:21:44 AM | hey troll, you've been rumbled.
which Police Academy you work at?
Police Academy 1, 2 or even the epic Police Academy 4:citizens on paTROLL?
and just what is your point? you seem to be awfully hung up on semantics. so hung up in fact, you're not even aware that you're agreeing with me. you're own approach to discussion is totally semantic. much more like a lawyer, than a scientist. oh, wait, you work in legal.
say "hi" to Officer Mahoney for me. you ****ing comedian. Isn't there a Richard Dawkins forum you should be trolling somewhere? | |
|
Agapis
|
Joined: 3/20/2008
Msg: 100 | |
| |
Home
login 
