|
|
|
|
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 12/25/2008 4:08:04 PM | we have perpetual energy ... at least as far as man surviving on earth is concerned.
Its called ... the biosphere .... we just have to learn how to use it without destroying it.
For huge amounts of energy ... we have geothermal , tidal, wind, the sun.
as long as the earth survives ...and in the case of the sun ... even longer these free energy sources will exist .
Our challenge is to limit our consumption to the amount we are able to harvest.
at present the west is over consuming [selfish and greedy with little concern for our children's children's children] | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 1/7/2009 11:28:09 AM | >>Aldo Costa's perpetual motion wheel has not stopped turning under it's power since built except when he applies his handbrake or when strongs winds oppose the wheel's direction, (due to its size) but the wind only stops it temporarily then it starts again under its own power !<<
Not even Aldo Costa himself claims this. While his wheel is certainly a work of art, and recalls the 19th-Century visual vocabulary of the Eiffel Tower or the Crystal Palace, its most enduring effect seems to be the resistance of his family and community toward his spending more money on a truly gigantic version that may, but most likely won't, "work".
As something of an eccentric myself, I have a soft spot for dreamers and those willing to devote their lives to unpopular or even hopeless causes. I am not, however, willing to suspend my capacity for disbelief or logic no matter how much I am exposed to comments like, "All I can say is REAL scientific discoveries will never be used for the benefit of the general public or the people of the world (mandkind) !!!". After all, the historical record and our daily lives speak otherwise. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 1/7/2009 2:25:18 PM | Mainstream scientists (or most people for that matter) are NOT educated in antigravity, electrogravity research or gravitational propulsion systems.
As a scientist, I'm also not educated in the various ways alchemists believe they can turn lead into gold. Based on the science which has proven to be correct, my judgment regarding the potential for success in that endeavor is that it's nil, regardless of what secret materials are stirred into a special cauldron or the secret words one chants while doing it. Therefore, I choose to pursue my own path to discovery based on my own judgment and leave alchemy to those with the courage of their convictions to pursue it. If they don't believe in their own ideas enough to pursue them, they are just whining if they object to me pursuing my own ideas over their empty claims. In science, it's put up or shut up.
Scientists have done experiments in ``anti-gravity.'' I happen to know someone who did an experiment to try and determine if anti-protons ``fall up.'' Just because the experiments are created to exploit what is considered the best way to observe an effect instead of what you think is best, doesn't mean they aren't looking for the effect.
Physics has come to a standstill since quantum was added to the vocabulary and went off in an opposite direction.
John Wheeler wrote an article prior to his death in which he noted that quantum theory is responsible for 38% of the U.S. GDP, and growing. Pursuing theories which arise from quantum theory can only be considered a standstill by someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Science has been responsible for more destruction of everything than any other disaster,
Science is the study of how nature works. If you attribute science and/or scientists to destruction then you are really pissed off at nature for giving us the means for destruction and/or scientists for discovering that. In addition, you are contradicting your own (rather empty) argument about science not being open to discovering anything new. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 1/7/2009 8:23:11 PM | Abelian wrote:
Science is the study of how nature works. If you attribute science and/or scientists to destruction then you are really pissed off at nature for giving us the means for destruction and/or scientists for discovering that. In addition, you are contradicting your own (rather empty) argument about science not being open to discovering anything new.
Trulio:
However in the pursuit of science, some destruction occurs. Examples are many including the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as many 'peaceful' atmospheric atomic bomb tests....including the Aleutian Islands.
Other examples which are relevant include the use of animal test models for a wide range of scientific tests including pesticides, vaccines, drugs, vivisection, et cetera.
While the consequences of some scientific tests and trials may be destructive, the least we can say is that the more harmful and destructive were 'incidental' consequences. But many were not...but were motivated by selfish and insensitive impulses.
When the US destroyed the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the harmful effects of radiation on human life were studied, but no one who was injured was compensated or treated. even though tens of millions of dollars spent resulted in much greater knowledge of the harmful effects of atomic radiation. Injured and dead civilians were simply studied by a flock of doctors, but not attempt was made to heal the sick.
The problem though was that there was no consent obtained from the innocent, civilian subjects to become subjects.
Has the majority of species and habitats benefited from the expansion of knowledge obtained by the human species with regard to science? I think not....and the proof of that is that the Clovis culture, the first inhabitants of North America, killed off and made extinct over 30 species of the most beautiful and precious animal species. That was 10,000 years ago, now the depletion.
The exact definition of what is science is really not clear since the term derives from a classical latin term meaning:
"Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" or "knowing") is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works"
The subject therefore also includes experience, and much of history includes experience of war, famine, plaque, and other troubles, not simply a disciplined study of the laws of nature, which is a form of discovery, and so on.
There are many important phenomenon which "scientists" cannot understand, and can only observe, one being the ability of human communities to cooperate and coexist, with themselves and other species, and within ecosystems.
The more we profess to know regarding much of nature, the more we are found to be in total unknowing since we as a species create more problems each hour that we can solve in one year.
There is no science which is pure....
But discovery is pure...and that leads out from earlier pre-scient thinking and observing.....discovery may either be ACCIDENTAL or APPOINTED. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 1/7/2009 9:40:25 PM |
However in the pursuit of science, some destruction occurs. Examples are many including the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as many 'peaceful' atmospheric atomic bomb tests....including the Aleutian Islands.
Politicians elected by US citizens made the decision to build and deploy atomic weapons. Many scientists were convinced it was necessary, but many were not. Few considered the goal to much to do with science.
Other examples which are relevant include the use of animal test models for a wide range of scientific tests including pesticides, vaccines, drugs, vivisection, et cetera.
Although that is a valid criticism of things which take place in ``softer'' sciences, that isn't really the issue here. As soon as you start making value judgments to determine if those things are justified, you're talking about things that are irrelevant to the natural sciences. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 1/8/2009 5:49:17 PM | Yes.
However, that criticism has led to some significant changes in the way science is conducted. We now have computer models in place of live subjects, for instance. Vivisection is not practiced, as far as I know.
I think there are three divisions of science. One of these is associated with natural sciences, and usually relies on 'observation', and very little testing is carried out. We call that 'descriptive' science: taxonomy, and most natural sciences. However testing is sometimes used to make 'comparisons' in analysis but is primarily statistical.
Another division of science is primarily associated with mathematics, and can be described as 'formal logic': one subdivision is applied math and the other pure math.
Another division of science may be referred to as 'applied sciences' or 'interpretive' science...and can be a mix of the other two types of science.
Now when it comes to perpetual energy, and other inventions, it is possible that earthly mortals, like myself, to agree that the possibility of 'perpetual energy' is real.....such as conversion of water to hydrogen to create more energy...even though the laws of thermodynamics cannot support this fully.
Okay, there is serious scientific interest in the use of a rare earths to make magnetic fridges, and very little, or no energy input is required.
A heat pump must require some 'external' energy because of the mechanical action of the pump. Magnets do not supply mechanical or kinetic energy (although that has been disproven by some commentators). However, the energy used to make a magnetic fridge work is less than the energy required to run a conventional fridge.
Okay. So after a dozen or so years, the magnetic fridge is universally used, and saves millions of barrels of oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear fuels.
Now one thing about thisexample. If there are other wonderful inventions which reduce the consumption of 'finite' energy sources, then what happens over time is that non-renewable energy required is reduced.
As new sources of renewable energy increase, become more in demand, and the non-renewable sources diminish in demand (we have that happening now). Eventually the supply of non-renewable energy will exceed demand, and it is expected to remain that way for a few months or years.
Renewable energy is largely a result of the sun. The sun radiates huge amounts of energy that result in giant areas of forest and vegetation on earth. The sun causes winds on the earth, and both the moon and the sun cause tides, and rainfall as a result of 'uneven' heating of the earth causes rain and snow to fall in high elevation mountains, and plateaus, resulting in the use of hydro power.
Due to the law of conservation of momentum and energy, the consequence is that there will always be energy and momentum in the universe. The theory of 'heat death' of the universe relates to an 'occasion' that will only happen once, but will not be permanent.
I am not a physicists but did complete 2 year physics and special relativity. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 1/17/2009 1:10:19 AM | Well I have worked on a variety of ideas, theory’s that involve free energy or cheaper energy. I am currently working on a perpetual motion machine but here is the deal. If I called up CNN tomorrow and told them my machine worked they wouldn’t come. For the past 1000 years 1000's of people have claimed to have a perpetual motion machine and all of them have been lying... If you friend does have a working machine tell him to start pumping power into the grid and then he will get noticed... Until then it’s not going to get noticed. Unless you have seen the machine running with no outside power source I think he is blowing smoke.
-Jim | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 1/17/2009 10:19:38 AM | Energy production and use comes down to several basic principles.
Cost/benefit
Matching supply to demand or energy storage somewhere in between the two.
Energy transmission infrastructure
There are infinite possibilities but the devil is in the details.
The major difficulties facing alternative energy are existing hydrocarbon based infrastructure, oil/gas extraction subsidies, and a failure to account for the environmental costs.
Interestingly enough, most green energy technology to date was developed for practical reasons rather than environmental concerns. Denmark adopted wind energy for national security (to reduce it's dependence on imported energy) and Iceland, geo-thermal and hydrogen due to the high transportation costs of imported oil
Tidal/current based energy sources are definitely an option but an option among many facing the same obstacles.
Barry | |
|
| |
| |
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 1/17/2009 10:53:38 PM | | What progress has lately been made on anigravity? If we can create it there sure is a lot of money to be made from it. I beleive with or without funding, discorvery is stll one hundred years away. Big challange requiring billions in research money spread over many years. That requires deep pockets. May be we should call Bill Gates. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 1/18/2009 10:14:22 AM | OP, you have posted an interesting topic to share ideas and comments. There are many things in science that have yet to be discovered. I am making the assumption that your "promising inventions" phrase is only related to "energy" inventions?
I have just discovered this thread and have not yet read all of the previous comments.
My belief in perpetual energy is that it can exist. I view gravity as a "force" that can be used or harnessed to power a so called "perpetual" motion machine or to create electricity by using piezoelectric devices and other devices. I have some ideas using the force of gravity with something else to create "perpetual motion" that I don't want to discuss until I have had some time to research and experiment with it.
The force of gravity is currently used with water to create electrical power at Niagara Falls and at many dams. As long as there is water used with the force of gravity, there is "perpetual motion" that creates electricity by use of turbine generators. Take the water away and perpetual motion stops. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 1/18/2009 11:02:36 AM | wow. Orion, you REALLY don't understand what "perpetual motion" means and implies.
Hydroelectric is in no way "perpetual motion," it's trading potential and kinetic energy for electrical... at a significant loss. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 1/18/2009 12:12:36 PM | Actually desertrhino, I do in fact know what "perpetual motion" means and implies. If I take the term "perpetual motion" literally, then it means movement that goes on forever. From a science standpoint, a perpetual motion machine cannot exist due to the law of conservation of energy.
Most people who discuss perpetual motion machines are taking the term "literally" as to them, it means movement that goes on forever. But in reality, nothing goes on forever. Even the revolving planet Earth is viewed by some as being a perpetual motion machine. Earth had a beginning and will some day have an ending.
Harnessing potential or kinetic energy for motion can be "literally" viewed to power so called perpetual motion machines. A so called perpetual motion machine will in time break down due to wearing of parts. Why waste potential and kinetic energy? Gravity, light, lightning, water flowing down hill, the waves of oceans, wind and other forms of potential or kinetic should not be wasted but should be used.
That water that powered the turbine generators will in time seek its own level and in time return as water vapor back into the atmosphere, come down as rain and again power the generators. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 1/18/2009 12:29:59 PM | Yeah, but this thread is all about "actual" perpetual motion, and there have been numerous posts claiming the same or some very close variant thereof.
So, you are at the very least badly off-topic, re-defining the terms to suit your thoughts on the matter, rather than discussing the ridiculousness of the perpetual motion ideas so far proposed. Perhaps your first post would have been better-phrased thus: "the closest we can get to perpetual motion is harnessing the renewable sources of energy on this planet, like hydroelectric."
But hey, YMMV.
 | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 1/18/2009 1:11:20 PM |
Yeah, but this thread is all about "actual" perpetual motion
I went back to the OP and read the comments again and did not see the word "actual" in the title. But I will agree that "the closest we can get to perpetual motion is harnessing the renewable sources of energy on this planet, like hydroelectric."
The part of the OP title is also "promising inventions" which I take to mean inventions that can be used such as alternative energy machines. This to me means harnessing the available potential and kinetic energy available for use by mankind.
I was going to start up a new thread about perpetual motion or energy but found this thread to post my comments and opinions to. Had I started a new thread, it would have been deleted by the moderators for being redundant since similar threads are already in existence. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 1/18/2009 1:47:09 PM | Looks at telsa..then the FBI (ye sure that will get me in trouble).
Sure you may get me and all my worldly possessions
crams muffins in gob and spits crumbs.
It says society is dilated by those few ;)
if you get my drift here.... and lets face it almost no-one will | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 1/18/2009 5:13:05 PM | Actually Barry, Denmark is an exporter of oil. I just found this out. It is a net exporter of fossil fuels.
Currently there is much interest in providing more and better public transportation. in Canada. This would reduce demand for gasoline, diesel and therefore reduce reliance on a finite energy source which may reach $200 per barrel by the end of this decade.
Secondly, increased public mass transportation, reduces the cost of private transportation since: roads have fewer cars and trucks, therefore less time in congestion, less cost of fuel, less use of fuel, fewer fatalities and injuries, cleaner air, et cetera.
Of course the auto industry may not desire that as an outcome. Some auto manufacturers will have to close....
There is a form of 'perpetual energy' and that is energy from the sun, and energy from the heat of the earth, deep down. These forms of energy are perpetual in that they will provide near infinite sources of energy....
How can the sun be harnessed to produce liquid fuel for say airlines? Well the sun's energy powers photosynthesis as well as electricity. Okay, if there is a substitute for wood in wood frame housing, then that wood can be used to make ethanol, or methanol. Even jet fuel can be produced from plants.
There is already a great substitute for wood frame houses (stick frame house), and that is autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC). ACC has been used for 70 years, and is the most common building material in the developed world. For example, 70% of the residential homes in Japan are made from AAC. The AAC insulates because it is aerated. The main ingredient is not even cement, but rather fly ash from coal fired electric plants, a waste produce resulting from the combustion of coal...other sources are fine pond residues, quartz sand.
Even if some trees and biomass are utilized for the production of ethanol, or used to make electricity, the remaining forest will act as a large carbon sink, acting to mitigate climate change associated with high emissions of CO2 from coal, gasoline and diesel. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 1/18/2009 5:22:07 PM | I suspect that there is a perpetual motion invention. I have viewed several hydro (water motors) fueled products on Youtube....but the physicists in me wonders about these....When H2o is used as a fuel, the process still requires electricity to release the hydrogen gas. So the initial electricity has to be exogenous to the system, even if the motion caused by the burning of hydrogen provides power.
This still is not really perpetual motion because the H20 formed in the universe, in our galaxy must have been formed by the sun. Hydrogen gas released into the trophosphere escapes into outer space and is lost from the biosphere. So the water that has formed on earth is truly finite. Much of the meteors and stuff that enters the earth's atmosphere is made of ice, or frozen water. So there is some input of hydrogen from space.
Magnetic fridges are partly perpetual motion machines, but these also require some exogenous energy.
So the only perpetual motion machines I am aware of are in fact powered by the sun. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 8/25/2009 3:30:15 PM |
First off, I'm not a physicist, so my understanding of motors and engines is quite limited, but someone in Ottawa thinks he has stumbled onto a unique discovery:
He's created a motor that does not slow down when it produces energy, it speeds up. He's been lambasted for referring it to as a perpetual motion machine (a bit of a misnomer), but he does believe that if perfected it could be used to create vehicles and energy sources that no longer rely on oil......
There's one way to tell if he's full of it, submit it to the Nobel Committee, if it's real there's a prize with his name on it, but I wouldn't hold my breath. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 8/29/2009 8:00:26 AM | well folks .... the headder said it ..... perpetual energy .... not motion .... energy
and other promising inventions .
so stop the bickering over a perpetual motion machine that cannot possibly give us anything because all of its resources would be dedicated to perpetual motion.
no work could be done
no energy harvested
it would need it all to remain perpetual in motion.
if life was actually created .... then life may be the closest to a perpetual motion [biological] machine... still ... the argument is mute.
we want promising perpetual energy
ie. solar, wind, geothermal, tidal [gravity] ... these all exist ... they just need more tweaking for better efficiency
the perpetual part is alway a problem because of friction causing wear and therefor parts replacement and maintenance shutdowns.
even solar has uv breakdown problems and cleaning etc.
storage and transportation of power are the other big problems
batteries need to be manufactured and maintained and replaced and disposed of.
copper and aluminum for power lines is a dirty smelting process and so is the insulation manufacturing and the towers and poles and switchgear etc. etc.
the sun is a nuclear furnace and provides us with all of our energy
but for life preserving safety [among other]reasons is millions of miles away in a secluded part of space. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 9/1/2009 6:33:35 AM | Ah hey, folks, all we've got to do is dig out the Ancients' arctic outpost and use their ZedPM and we'll have all the energy we'll ever need.
Oh wait! That's science fiction...hmm. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 9/1/2009 7:12:45 AM |
How does a motor not slow down when it produces energy? Well for one thing, my car motor does not slow down while it produces energy at idle, for a start.
You mean {gasp} it burns fuel to keep turning? Lord have mercy.
Or are you still making completely unsubstantiated claims to have an "oxyhydrogen" powered car that requires no further energy inputs in the way of fuel or plugging in?
 | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 9/1/2009 4:28:39 PM | The programme regarding Stanley Meyer was aired 1994 on the BBC/CBC
The programme Equinox "It runs on water" UK 1995
Sadly Stanley is dead, they say it was an Anurysem? or poison? I guess he got close to the truth hey?  | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 9/1/2009 7:26:16 PM | Drop a long tube to the deepest regions of the Mariana Trench - about 7 miles deep. Attach a reverse osmosis membrane to the submerged end of the tube and fill it up with fresh water. The pressure difference between the fresh water column and the seawater would be well over 1000psi. Enough to force pure water from the sea into the tube and squirt it out on the surface with a pressure of several hundred psi.
| |
|
|
|
Home
login 
