PDA

View Full Version : perpetual motion , Overunity and free energy nuts all over the web.



oldbikerdude37
07-18-2010, 05:39 PM
Here is a prime example. This bozo thinks magnets alone will make a wheel spin forever. I say its bull I bet they spin the wheel with an air hose off to the side where you dont see it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0oUaPZ_wF8&NR=1

Bmyers
07-18-2010, 05:43 PM
Want to really PO these people ask them too hook their motors up to a dyno

saltmine
07-18-2010, 05:45 PM
Somewhere out there, in La-La land, there is somebody who actually has found perpetual motion. Eventually he will make it public to the world, or give up in frustration because nobody will believe him.

I'd rather invent a Phase-Conjugating Microwave Propulsion System, with the option for FTL travel. That can lift 24,000 metric tons with the energy from one flashlight battery.

wierdscience
07-18-2010, 05:48 PM
Never any free energy to be found,just lots of free time wasted.:rolleyes:

Liger Zero
07-18-2010, 05:56 PM
Former employer of mine fell for one of those "free fuel from water" scams... even went so far as to work out a production arrangement with the scammer.

You had your plastic cube, with two kinds of "special metal" disks in stacks. You poured in a special "catalyst liquid" that caused severe burns when spilled. You ran 12 volts DC through it, and you collected the gas and pumped it into your intake manifold.

To make this work you needed a big water tank, the reactor I described above, wiring, plumbing and an IQ of less than zero to make it all work.


We manufactured about 200 kits, which he shipped. Never heard back from the scammer, and the company tanked (the one I was working at) tanked in October of that year.. :rolleyes: There were other reasons the company tanked but spending all that money on a production line and not getting paid... hastened our demise.

dp
07-18-2010, 05:58 PM
Here we go again - this topic is evidence of perpetual motion. It belongs on this list:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

Black_Moons
07-18-2010, 05:59 PM
saltmine: Simple, Heres a winch with a 10,000,000:1 gear down ratio running off a 1.5v electric motor.
Still working on the faster then light travel option... maybe if I cut the rope while holding the load over the nearest black hole.
To bad it only moves the load at 0.000000000000000001mph, Damn physics.

macona
07-18-2010, 06:05 PM
l "catalyst liquid" that caused severe burns when spilled. You ran 12 volts DC through it, and you collected the gas and pumped it into your intake manifold.




Sounds like Hydrogen Peroxide.

goose
07-18-2010, 06:05 PM
Why couldn't there be a perpetual motion machine? Are we not ourselves examples of one? Are we not perpetually falling towards Earth? What energy keeps us here? The centrifugal force of the Earth turning should fling us off into space. No? Why is this energy never consumed. Conservation of energy does not apply?

We have so little understanding.............

MotorradMike
07-18-2010, 06:12 PM
Savvy group here. Good news.

People who believe they can get more out than they put in are impossible to convince otherwise. Explaining/arguing/proving, is a complete waste of time. Best to smile and walk away.

I saw a University in Australia sucked into this somehow. All they would say as a comment was "We strongly advise against investment until the concept is proven".

dp
07-18-2010, 06:18 PM
We have so little understanding.............

True for some of us, that's for sure.

John Stevenson
07-18-2010, 06:57 PM
It needs to be based on the vacuum flask.
there are a lot of unanswered questions there, it keeps cold things cold and hot things hot, but how does it know ?? ..

tyrone shewlaces
07-18-2010, 07:00 PM
... but how does it know ?? ..

It doesn't.
It just does.

gnm109
07-18-2010, 07:13 PM
The same fellow who developed the perpetual motion machine also designed a carburetor many years ago. It allowed an automobile to get more than 200 mpg. A large automobile manufacturer bought it up from him very cheaply by cheating him with fine print in the purchase contract and then supressed it, thus proving irrefutably that the oil companies are in a conspiracy with the automakers that continued to this day.

(Where's my tinfoil hat?)

Too_Many_Tools
07-18-2010, 07:36 PM
Here is a prime example. This bozo thinks magnets alone will make a wheel spin forever. I say its bull I bet they spin the wheel with an air hose off to the side where you dont see it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0oUaPZ_wF8&NR=1

And they usually want to sell it to you with an Ebay Buy It Now. ;<)

TMT

Your Old Dog
07-18-2010, 07:42 PM
Savvy group here. Good news.

People who believe they can get more out than they put in are impossible to convince otherwise. Explaining/arguing/proving, is a complete waste of time. Best to smile and walk away..............................................

We're trying to do that now with wind turbines!! :D

Toolguy
07-18-2010, 07:49 PM
I believe in Perpetual Motion, although I doubt that we will ever replicate it. My line of thinking is this: If matter can't be created or destroyed, only changed into other forms of matter, then all the atoms in everything have existed since the beginning. Yet they are all still moving. Also, we know that the universe itself is constantly expanding, some say at an ever increasing speed. Those two items have been going continuously for millions of years. That seems fairly perpetual to me.

jkeyser14
07-18-2010, 07:54 PM
Perpetual motion is real in theory (If you went infinitely far outside of the universe). The problem is when you factor in things like friction or intermolecular forces (or the pull of objects in space on each other). It's the people that don't understand physics who fail to realize that there's a million things to ruin perpetual motion.

jugs
07-18-2010, 07:55 PM
Somewhere out there, in La-La land, there is somebody who actually has found perpetual motion. Eventually he will make it public to the world, or give up in frustration because nobody will believe him.

I'd rather invent a Phase-Conjugating Microwave Propulsion System, with the option for FTL travel. That can lift 24,000 metric tons with the energy from one flashlight battery.

I've already done that but mine used a battery made from wire & potato's & would lift 25,000 tons, I gave up in frustration because nobody would believe me & my potato's got mashed :mad:

john
:)

gnm109
07-18-2010, 08:06 PM
Savvy group here. Good news.

People who believe they can get more out than they put in are impossible to convince otherwise. Explaining/arguing/proving, is a complete waste of time. Best to smile and walk away.

I saw a University in Australia sucked into this somehow. All they would say as a comment was "We strongly advise against investment until the concept is proven".


Well, hybrid cars just run on electricity, don't they? I mean, all you have to do is plug them in now and then and that's free, isn't it? The electricity just comes out of the plug where the cable is hooked up.......

QSIMDO
07-18-2010, 08:22 PM
You know what REALLY works?

Boobs.

Big 'uns.

The girl who was selling Fitch Fuel Catalyst to our equipment maintenance dept. has 'em with x, y & z out to ((there)) and did she ever sell a bunch of them!

Liger Zero
07-18-2010, 08:33 PM
You know what REALLY works?

Boobs.

Big 'uns.

The girl who was selling Fitch Fuel Catalyst to our equipment maintenance dept. has 'em with x, y & z out to ((there)) and did she ever sell a bunch of them!

I too have fallen prey to hypno-tit wielding sales-chicks in the past.

Them damn things ought to be illegal. :D

RB211
07-18-2010, 08:44 PM
Forget perpetual motion, I want a room temperature super conductor.

Liger Zero
07-18-2010, 08:45 PM
Forget perpetual motion, I want a room temperature super conductor.

I use that in my anti-gravity generator and cloaking device.

...made the mistake of putting them both on the same shelf now I can't find either of them until the battery for the cloaking device fails.

millwrong
07-18-2010, 08:48 PM
Are we not perpetually falling towards Earth? What energy keeps us here? The centrifugal force of the Earth turning should fling us off into space. No? Why is this energy never consumed. Conservation of energy does not apply?

We have so little understanding.............


Uhhhh....gravity,dude. That's why you never see middle aged sales ladies, and porn star men go FOR EVER!!!:D

Pherdie
07-18-2010, 09:34 PM
Here is a prime example. This bozo thinks magnets alone will make a wheel spin forever. I say its bull I bet they spin the wheel with an air hose off to the side where you dont see it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0oUaPZ_wF8&NR=1

Watch this video. At about 1:45 he lays down a metal plate which bounces up and down on its own (watch carefully). Shortly thereafter one of the 1-2-3 blocks moves 'on it's own'. It would appear there is an AC field underneath the "surface" being filmed.

Fred

spope14
07-18-2010, 09:43 PM
simple physics. takes energy to make energy, and under load, any machine consumes more energy than it outputs in one way or another. creating energy/motion results in a waste/tradeoff somewhere.

gave up even looking at perepetual /free energy stuff. the closest i came to finding a perpetual motion machine is my five year old grandson, but he sure can eat!!!!!

saltmine
07-18-2010, 10:37 PM
We had a female Snap-on tool dealer when I was still working. She was good looking, smart, outgoing, and friendly. She also outsold every other tool dealer in the area. She did, that is, until Snap-on loaded her down with way too many tools for her to move. She went out of business, had her truck repossessed, and, sort of, disappeared. She was good people, and she could sell vegetables to a tribe of cannibals.
GNM109 mentioned the "200mpg Carburator"
The mystery "200mpg carburator" actually did exist. It was designed and built by a fellow named Charles Nelson Pogue, in the 1930's. During tests, it was installed on a Ford flathead V-8 and driven almost 200 miles on four litres of gasoline, during a rainstorm.

Scientists later examined the carburator and discovered the metal alloy the carb was made of was catalyzing the fuel, and water vapor was somehow aiding the process, which explains why the car performed better when it rained.

No, auto makers and oil companies didn't buy his patent, or pay him off.
When gasoline producers started using tetraethyl lead in their fuels to boost octane ratings, the lead totally negated the effect.

In the 1950's, John R. Fish designed and produced the "Fish Carurator" which, due to it's design, offered excellent fuel atomization and metering.
Unfortunately, the adjustments were basically what killed it. The average car mechanic or hot rodder couldn't comprehend the complex carburator, and many times, a simpler carburator was substituted and the "Fish" was thrown away.

The "Fish" was endorsed and used by many professional racers in the 1950's.
It is still being manufactured. But, it's expensive, and the waiting list is six months long.

Evan
07-18-2010, 10:47 PM
The mystery "200mpg carburator" actually did exist. It was designed and built by a fellow named Charles Nelson Pogue, in the 1930's. During tests, it was installed on a Ford flathead V-8 and driven almost 200 miles on four litres of gasoline, during a rainstorm.


Assuming the original vehicle got maybe 20 mpg then the magic carb would have to somehow extract 10 times more energy from the same amount of gasoline.

Flat out impossible. See my signature.

gnm109
07-18-2010, 11:40 PM
I was only kidding about the carburetor...that's why I mentioned a tinfoil hat.

I'm pretty sure that the 200 mpg carburetor was an apocryphal story. On the other hand, the oil companies could care less how much fuel we use.

Arcane
07-18-2010, 11:40 PM
There is one thing about PM machines and that is they are often little works of art. I came across this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jy4yRrOw2Ww) on Utube and it is an interesting little garden piece. Obviously it needs a hidden pump to circulate the water up to the tank. It is as nice an ornament as many that I have seen, and with a little bit of touching up could be downright purty! :D

PeteF
07-18-2010, 11:42 PM
The mystery "200mpg carburator" actually did exist. It was designed and built by a fellow named Charles Nelson Pogue, in the 1930's. During tests, it was installed on a Ford flathead V-8 and driven almost 200 miles on four litres of gasoline, during a rainstorm.

Oh you mean this one? http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.asp

Next :rolleyes:

The Artful Bodger
07-18-2010, 11:51 PM
My brother and I had a Studebaker President Eight which could pass anything except a gas station.

We made a carburator according to Pogues patent description and fitted it to the car, we filled the sump with 10 weight oil and pumped the tires up to 90psi. We fitted water vapour injection and put toroidal magnets on the fuel lines. Then we took it for a drive.

We had gone about 100 miles when the police pulled us over because the gas tank was overflowing and gushing onto the road.

This is a true story.

oldbikerdude37
07-19-2010, 12:00 AM
Here we go again - this topic is evidence of perpetual motion. It belongs on this list:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm


Thats a funny link, I liked that alot. :D

from the link..

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/forever.gif
"It may be perpetual motion, but it will take forever to test it."
Cartoon by Donald Simanek.

Teenage_Machinist
07-19-2010, 01:06 AM
The internet is one of those places where there is no idiot filter. It's a free place for intelligence, too.

I fail to see why so many of these people think that the laws of physics are circumvented so easily. I could understand if they were using nanotech/high energy, etc.

dalesvp
07-19-2010, 06:39 AM
originally posted to Home Shop Machinist, 04/15/09
edited June 18, 2010

The concept of so-called perpetual motion has been claimed to have been investigated by conventional engineering. Classical thermodynamics deals with closed systems. Working overunity devices are open systems and hence outside the classical definition of closed systems. See Bearden's "Energy from the Vacuum" for a more precise discussion of open and closed thermodynamic systems.

Conventional science recognizes three types of so-called Perpetual Motion:

Perpetual Motion of the First Kind
(PHYS) A mechanism which, when set in motion, continues to do useful work without an input of energy, or which produces more energy than is absorbed in its operation; it violates the principle of conservation of energy.

Perpetual Motion of the Second Kind
(PHS) A device that extracts heat from a source and then converts this heat completely into other forms of energy; it violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Perpetual Motion of the Third Kind
(PHS) A device which has a component that can continue moving forever; an example is a superconductor. (McGraw-Hill Concise Encyclopedia of Science & Technology)

A critical look at each of these statements reveals
1) in the 1st it is a CLOSED system, such as a mechanical device, which of course cannot function continuously;
2) complete conversion of one form of energy into another is not likely given our current state of technology; and
3) terms have not been defined. For example what does "forever" mean? Could six to fourteen billion years be considered "forever" as in the earth spinning continuously, which it has done? Besides all that, heat is an EFFECT and not a CAUSE. What conventional engineering could do, if they weren't so anal-retentive, is to investigate such cases of CONTINUOUS motion within an OPEN system and find out why and how they are what they are and do what they do.

Of course, it is far easier to label things not understood as fraud or scam and wave them off than to admit an incomplete knowledge base; i.e., the presumption is We know everything there is to know about everything there is so stop already with the unanswerable and embarassing questions.

Thousands of engineers have checked out this particular device and not a single one can say why and how it works - even though it has been working for the past 30 or so years. Obviously they are so fanatical with their beliefs they cannot see with new eyes. I don't know why it does what it does and many of those who've actually looked at it and are honest and have integrity admit they don't know either. Of course, the pontificators already know it is a fraud so why waste their so incredibly valuable time and 'expertise' to actually investigate it?
http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:Testatika

We do know this device is an OPEN system therefore Perpetual Motion of the First Kind does not apply. Apparently there is ample outside energy coming into the system to power it - or if you have a better idea??? This device does not convert heat so Perpetual Motion of the Second Kind does not apply. Perpetual Motion of the Third Kind does not apply because none of its components can move forever (whatever that means) because being mechanical they would wear out and cease to move. Obviously what components do move are moved by an outside force made use of by its design and mechanisms. These being the case this device is NOT a perpetual motion machine in any sense of that phrase as defined by conventional and accepted engineering.

But as Galileo said "Yet it does move!"

http://pondscienceinstitute.on-rev.com/imagesCOS/BC_Comic.gif

Original article:
http://pondscienceinstitute.on-rev.com/svpwiki/tiki-index.php?page=Perpetual+Motion

A.K. Boomer
07-19-2010, 08:28 AM
Well, hybrid cars just run on electricity, don't they? I mean, all you have to do is plug them in now and then and that's free, isn't it? The electricity just comes out of the plug where the cable is hooked up.......



It is free, and if you bury the extension cord that's plugged into your neighbors house it can go on virtually forever and ever...



Anytime there's an energy crunch of some kind the PMM's get built/created/concocted at a tenfold rate, half of these guys are true blue at heart and although naive they really want to "save the world"
The other half are outright opportunist crooks,,,
Being a longtime mechanic I can't believe how many questions iv had to answer to my customers lately esp. about the "browns gas" apparatus that they were considering purchasing.
I tell them that the system does work as far as creating the gas, but it takes far more energies in electricity and therefore alternator drag then the gas produces to power it,
I then follow up with telling them to just think about it for a second --- If we could produce more fuel energies than what it took in electricity to create it then why would we even need power plants as everyone could have a little generator unit running in their basement, or all the large plants that supply us wouldn't need to burn coal or hunt down uranium, or these units could be "running" small engines overnight whilst are cars are parked - charging up Li-po's for the next days commute, or massive on demand coils could be powered to power all the needs of a gas engine and re-generator, that usually settles them down some, but then im kinda the "bad guy" cuz i just crushed their dreams.

The bottom line is people want to feel like they have the "inside scoop"
One friend handed me about a hundred page write up on how to build your own browns gas apparatus - he insisted I go through it and get back to him,
he already felt like he was ahead of the game because it was a friend of his that spent the 80 bucks for the plans and these were just copied on a printer (such a waste of good paper)
The "documents" were given to me almost in a kind of "secrecy"
So I took them home, made sure I knew what it was about by skimming the pages, let them sit on the shelf for a week and them gave them back to him and told him same thing, Although disappointed at first - he then felt comfortable with my decision:rolleyes:

Evan
07-19-2010, 08:32 AM
A critical look at each of these statements reveals
1) in the 1st it is a CLOSED system, such as a mechanical device, which of course cannot function continuously;

A mechanical device is not a closed system nor is a truly closed system possible except as a thought experiment. All systems in this universe are a part of the universe and are continuously affected by the various properties of the universe. Just to name a few, there is gravity which cannot be excluded from a system and the possibility of energy transfer via gravity waves. There are trillions of neutrinos flooding every cubic metre of space at all times and occasional interactions occur. They cannot be shielded except by many light years thickness of lead. There are also as yet undiscovered but strongly suspected "other" effects such as the possibility of WIMPS (Weakly Interactive Massive Particles), Dark matter and a host of related possible phenomena.

2) complete conversion of one form of energy into another is not likely given our current state of technology; and

Complete conversion exists and is well known. The interaction of mirrored antiparticles produces complete annihilation of matter with a subsequent conversion to energy.in the form of photons. That however is not relevant since there is always loss due to symmetry breaking. It is symmetry breaking that gives a direction to the arrow of time and makes it impossible to reverse entropy.


Symmetry considerations dominate modern fundamental physics, both in quantum theory and in relativity. Philosophers are now beginning to devote increasing attention to such issues as the significance of gauge symmetry, quantum particle identity in the light of permutation symmetry, how to make sense of parity violation, the role of symmetry breaking, the empirical status of symmetry principles, and so forth. These issues relate directly to traditional problems in the philosophy of science, including the status of the laws of nature, the relationships between mathematics, physical theory, and the world, and the extent to which mathematics dictates physics.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/symmetry-breaking/



It is these concepts that are usually not understood that lead to the belief that "over unity" and "perpetual motion" devices may be possible. The universe not only forbids it but makes it impossible to cheat in any way. While the Universe itself may be the ultimate Free Lunch the rules by which it functions ALWAYS cloak any possible phenomena that would in some way reveal a contradiction.

3) terms have not been defined. For example what does "forever" mean? Could six to fourteen billion years be considered "forever" as in the earth spinning continuously, which it has done? Besides all that, heat is an EFFECT and not a CAUSE. What conventional engineering could do, if they weren't so anal-retentive, is to investigate such cases of CONTINUOUS motion within an OPEN system and find out why and how they are what they are and do what they do.

Such phenomena have been well investigated. The Earth is slowing down in it's rate of spin, the Moon is drifting further away as momentum is transferred, the Sun is burning it's fuel and the Universe is expanding. There are no cases of continuous motion to investigate. All such apparent cases show precisely the expected characteristics and obey the easily calculated parameters that are in accord with the energies and masses involved.

J Tiers
07-19-2010, 08:36 AM
it's even simpler...........

"if it looks too good to be true, it IS too good to be true... and so it is NOT true".

That works for investments, and it works for "free energy".

No matter how much you wish, there STILL ain't no free lunch in this world. But people continue to think they can con the system and get one.

Evan
07-19-2010, 08:49 AM
Thousands of engineers have checked out this particular device and not a single one can say why and how it works - even though it has been working for the past 30 or so years. Obviously they are so fanatical with their beliefs they cannot see with new eyes. I don't know why it does what it does and many of those who've actually looked at it and are honest and have integrity admit they don't know either. Of course, the pontificators already know it is a fraud so why waste their so incredibly valuable time and 'expertise' to actually investigate it?


Nobody has ever been permitted to actually examine how the machine runs. The most that has been permitted is to watch it from a distance which is of course useless and does not qualify as an "examination". It meets all requirements for being a hoax. It has met none that would show otherwise. The fact that it moves is proof of nothing other than it has an energy input. There are many ways to build a motor and not all of them require the use of windings and magnets.

rotate
07-19-2010, 09:24 AM
No matter how much you wish, there STILL ain't no free lunch in this world. But people continue to think they can con the system and get one.

Religion has been supremely successful at this and look at how many happy customers they have.

It never ceases to amaze me how gullible people are, especially when it comes to childish wishes.

Abner
07-19-2010, 09:34 AM
Water Injection Engine-

There is a local machine shop teacher who worked on WWll fighter planes. He is familiar with water injection to boost performance. He mentioned they did this to their cars after returning stateside but they added lead to gasoline which killed the process. So yes there is something to it, 200mpg(?) I haven't seen that yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_%28engines%29

...increased compression and improved performance...

Deja Vu
07-19-2010, 10:29 AM
Here's an example of another perpetual motion machine....
....as long as the sun keeps burning and the rain keeps falling..
http://www.mastergardenproducts.com/waterwheel8.jpg

Evan
07-19-2010, 11:08 AM
There is a local machine shop teacher who worked on WWll fighter planes. He is familiar with water injection to boost performance. He mentioned they did this to their cars after returning stateside but they added lead to gasoline which killed the process. So yes there is something to it, 200mpg(?) I haven't seen that yet.


Water injection works by turning the engine into a partial steam engine, that's all. It uses some of the heat of combustion to flash boil the water creating additional cylinder pressure. It is also not sensitive to TEL in the gas and is very hard on the engine.

Rich Carlstedt
07-19-2010, 11:12 AM
Why do people persist on getting a free lunch,ie PM machines ?
I don't doubt that some are close to low energy consumption, but the fact that these machines challenge Einsteins' E=MC2 formula proves most of these fellows lack common sense in the laws of Physics

Even the water injection issue is nothing more than better control of burn in IC engines and is not "free" energy, only more efficient use of available energy

dp
07-19-2010, 11:44 AM
Water injection works by turning the engine into a partial steam engine, that's all. It uses some of the heat of combustion to flash boil the water creating additional cylinder pressure. It is also not sensitive to TEL in the gas and is very hard on the engine.

Indeed it was (hard on the engine). Oldmobile used water/alcohol injection in the early Cutlass models. As a perspiring student working for an Olds dealer in the 1960's I converted quite of few of those turbo engines to carburetors. It was good money.


All '62 Cutlasses offered a 185-bhp "Power-Pack" V-8, but greater interest surrounded another new derivation. This was the turbocharged Jetfire hardtop coupe, which shared honors with Chevy's 1962 Corvair Monza Spyder as America's first high-volume turbocar. With blower, the Jetfire V-8 churned out a healthy 215 bhp -- the long-hallowed "1 hp per cu. in." ideal -- but carbon buildup with certain grades of fuel necessitated an unusual water-injection system (actually, a water/alcohol mix).

While the Jetfire was remarkably fast (0-60 mph in about 8.5 seconds, top speed around 107 mph), the water-injection proved unreliable. As a result, Olds abandoned turbos for 1964 in favor of a conventional 330-cid V-8 of 230-290 bhp; at the same time, Buick's new 155-bhp 225-cid V-6 became base power for the F-85 line.

saltmine
07-19-2010, 12:05 PM
I had one. It was a 1963 F-85 Olds Jetfire with a four-speed.

Adding alcohol to the water was only to prevent the water from freezing in colder climates. Alcohol by itself has a pretty low BTU. You have to use a lot of it to make the same power as gasoline.

But, the water/alcohol injection was needed to cut down on detonation.
More than once, I had to "feather-foot" it home after the water tank went dry.

Thae little F-85 was incredibly fast, and I knew it was going to get me into trouble eventually, so, I traded it for a street bike.

Lew Hartswick
07-19-2010, 01:26 PM
my potato's got mashed :mad:

john
:)

That's the best way to use potatoes anyway, along with some gravy.
...lew...

thedieter
07-19-2010, 04:23 PM
This has been fun reading...

Wasn't there a concept for PM years ago that consisted of two vacuum chambers connected by a hole? With an atom in only one of the chambers it made the pressure higher so the atom moved to the other chamber which increased the pressure in that chamber so the atom moved to the other chamber endlessly?

Best regards, Jack

Liger Zero
07-19-2010, 04:29 PM
This has been fun reading...

Wasn't there a concept for PM years ago that consisted of two vacuum chambers connected by a hole? With an atom in only one of the chambers it made the pressure higher so the atom moved to the other chamber which increased the pressure in that chamber so the atom moved to the other chamber endlessly?

Best regards, Jack

Ok... but what are you going to power with the motion of just one atom?

thedieter
07-19-2010, 04:35 PM
I don't think a PM has to power anything, just run forever without external energy input.

The atom which has mass moves through, space which is the definition of work so it fits the requirements.

Best regards, Jack (chuckling to self)

The Artful Bodger
07-19-2010, 04:36 PM
Water injection was common in tractors and similar engines of the 30's. Massey Harris for example had a very popular 'Pacemaker' model which used water injection. It allowed the engine to use low grade fuels including kerosene and turpentine without detonation. I used to drive one as a kid on the farm. The drill was to start on petrol then apply manifold heating (from the exhaust) and switch to the alternate fuel, advance the ignition until it began to ping then turn on the water, when the pinging stopped advance the ignition some more and add more water. It was practical on a tractor because a lot of the time was spent with a constant load therefore not really suitable for a road vehicle.

However, with modern electronic controls it may be possible to 're-invent' the system and thereby get back to burning cheap fuels.

BTW, jet turbine aircraft have also used 'water-methonal' to augment thrust at take off, I believe it tends to erode the turbine blades and its use is/was strictly controlled.

Adding methanol to the water helped to mix it with the fuel, the tractor used a simple spray bar in the manifold heat exchanger and so did not need the methanol.

gregl
07-19-2010, 04:53 PM
Those of you who doubt perpetual motion have obviously never been around small children.

dp
07-19-2010, 05:11 PM
Those of you who doubt perpetual motion have obviously never been around small children.

I have a new kitten like that.

oldbikerdude37
07-19-2010, 05:16 PM
Those of you who doubt perpetual motion have obviously never been around small children.

One good car ride and they crash and burn, kids and dogs are both like that.

Im glad that this thread has some interesting content and ideas that worked and did not work.

While I dont think we will ever see free energy or see a machine that does overunity it is good to think we machinist could make things more efficient.

oldbikerdude37
07-19-2010, 05:17 PM
I have a new kitten like that.


pics or video would be cool, my cats are all old and boring.

Forestgnome
07-19-2010, 05:55 PM
I don't know...the concept of free energy seems as valid as dark matter. With one, you use energy that doesn't fit the equations, with the other, you invent something out of nothing to make the equations fit. A wave of the magic wand, and you have...science!

ldn
07-19-2010, 06:21 PM
This has been fun reading...

Wasn't there a concept for PM years ago that consisted of two vacuum chambers connected by a hole? With an atom in only one of the chambers it made the pressure higher so the atom moved to the other chamber which increased the pressure in that chamber so the atom moved to the other chamber endlessly?

Best regards, Jack

Without an input of heat, eventually the atom will stop moving at all.

Evan
07-19-2010, 07:41 PM
The presence of an atom in a vacuum does not produce any sort of pressure. Pressure is a result of atoms bouncing off the the walls of a container and each other. The shorter the mean free path the higher the pressure. If it were possible to have just one atom in a container then the mean free path would be whatever the path length is in the direction of motion.

It would average out to zero in the long run as the atom would move about randomly. As long as the walls of the container were above absolute zero the atom would receive a kick of kinetic energy every time it "touched" the atoms in the container walls. Since the container cannot be held at absolute zero (nothing can) the atom will continue to receive energy from the container walls and will continue to move inside the container and somtimes it will pass to the other side.

But, there is a catch and it is a catch that requires an understanding of quantum mechanics. An atom may have different energy levels but those energy levels are not a smooth range of levels. They are discrete levels of energy and the atom may change between levels in quantum jumps. It may not occupy any in between levels. This behaviour is completely averaged out to a smooth continuum of energy values when large numbers of atoms are considered. When it is just a single atom then the situation changes.

It was predicted by Einstein that there would be a lowest possible energy level below which an atom could not go. At that lowest energy level a group of atoms would all be in the same state, something that is impossible at any higher energy level. This has been discovered to be true and the name given this effect is the Bose-Einstein Condensate. Atoms at this energy level cannot contribute energy to anything and even lose their identity as individual particles of matter. A Bose-Einstein Condensate effectively contains zero kinetic energy.

This is the probable fate of the universe. The universe is expanding and evidence exists that the rate of expansion is increasing. Eventually the universe will expand so much that interactions between atoms will be so few that all the matter in the universe will fall into the lowest energy level and form a universe wide Bose-Einstein Condensate. When that happens it will represent the heat death of the universe. It will be a microscopic fraction of a degree above absolute zero but because of the restricted possible energy states that matter may occupy the temperature is effectively zero.

That is when the atom in the container will stop moving.

ieezitin
07-19-2010, 08:19 PM
Certainly science will give us perpetual motion that works in environments which contains elements that cause friction.

Perpetual motion exists in space, a unit of energy exerted to a mass in space will push that mass at the speed and velocity at the original time of contact.

The closest we have to friction elimination and power output exists on ships today that use frozen bearing electro magnetic housings.

The Japanese are perfecting this technology, it’s been rumored that they can propel a 100,000 tanker across the pacific on about 2000 gallons of diesel.

Imho think out of the box. The universal law is an action that will create an reaction, if you put 123 in and achieve your desired effect and get 456 out 123 still exists but changed to 456 perpetual motion!!!!!.

Its simple.


A sore Anthony.

Dr Stan
07-19-2010, 08:36 PM
I teach an intro to tech class and students trying to cite PM machine type BS got so bad I had to add the following to the assignment guidelines:

Urban Legends

In previous classes a few students (very few) have attempted to use urban legends and conspiracy theories in the Discussion Board and in Virtual Field Trip Reports. This is not a class in contemporary culture, political science, the Twilight Zone, or similar fields of study. This is AMS 210 Intro to Technology and is a general science credit. As such, urban legends and conspiracy theories do not belong in this class. There are plenty of web sites one can visit to where one can immerse oneself into such topics.

FDR was not forewarned of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the US Government did not store explosives in the OKC Federal Building or the Twin Towers. Nor has there ever been a 100 MPG carburetor, or similar “technologies”. Last, but not least, mankind did not domesticate dinosaurs as some claim with a straight face.

DB posts and/or VFTR’s referring to urban legends and conspiracy theories fall into the No Credit category. I also recommend that you read the syllabus, specifically the Course Objectives and Course Topics as one will see that urban legends and conspiracy theories are not included in either of these sections.

Evan
07-19-2010, 08:37 PM
Perpetual motion exists in space, a unit of energy exerted to a mass in space will push that mass at the speed and velocity at the original time of contact.


Not even there or then. Space isn't empty, not even in the intergalactic abyss. The atmosphere is exceedingly rare but it still exists there and will present a tiny amount of friction. There are other effects as well. Gravity in particular presents loss mechanisms that transfer energy from any object with relative motion to all other objects in the universe.

There truly is no free lunch. You cannot win or even break even. The game is rigged so the house always wins.


Imho think out of the box. The universal law is an action that will create an reaction, if you put 123 in and achieve your desired effect and get 456 out 123 still exists but changed to 456 perpetual motion!!!!!.


Rule number 1: Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

That means you cannot get out more than you put in, ever. The most you can do is to use x amount of energy to move X*2 amount of energy from one place to another. Energy may be transformed and moved by using less energy than the amount manipulated. No amount of energy can create new energy. To move energy from A to B there must be some source of energy at A. Thinking outside the box is only an expression for creative thinking. Creative thinking cannot create energy.

Arcane
07-19-2010, 09:15 PM
Who needs perpetual motion when you've got the Air Car! :D

Tata Motors to introduce Air Car - Is it the next big thing? Tata Motors is taking giant strides and making history for itself. First the world's cheapest car and now it is also set to introduce the car that runs on air, compressed air.
http://co106w.col106.mail.live.com/mail/SafeRedirect.aspx?hm__tg=http://65.55.40.7/att/GetAttachment.aspx&hm__qs=file%3d07e1c48d-0434-4d8d-94e8-659a51149959.jpg%26ct%3daW1hZ2UvanBlZw_3d_3d%26nam e%3dM0Q3MzgzNDdCNjFBNEJEOThDRTQ0QkIxQjYzMkY2NTIuan Bn%26inline%3d1%26rfc%3d0%26empty%3dFalse%26imgsrc %3dcid%253aAA439A0A27C74079B79A54BFD984A2CB%2540ho me18fe4d74df&oneredir=1&ip=10.12.138.8&d=d3950&mf=0&a=01_36d9a61fddff18617cafb896c1f49114575eba41ae6e0 8abe8969cba8f5226b5
http://co106w.col106.mail.live.com/mail/SafeRedirect.aspx?hm__tg=http://65.55.40.7/att/GetAttachment.aspx&hm__qs=file%3d9c6ae119-2ef7-45e4-ae82-edbe92b74522.jpg%26ct%3daW1hZ2UvanBlZw_3d_3d%26nam e%3dM0RDRjE3Q0FBMkI0NDc2NUJFRjBENEVFN0E0Mzg3QjAuan Bn%26inline%3d1%26rfc%3d0%26empty%3dFalse%26imgsrc %3dcid%253a6D2E5A8C237248D3BBE85F2249A97F7F%2540ho me18fe4d74df&oneredir=1&ip=10.12.138.8&d=d3950&mf=0&a=01_36d9a61fddff18617cafb896c1f49114575eba41ae6e0 8abe8969cba8f5226b5

With spiraling fuel prices it is about time we heard some breakthrough!
India's largest automaker Tata Motors is set to start producing the world's first commercial air-powered vehicle.

The Air Car, developed by ex-Formula One engineer Guy Ngre for Luxembourg-based MDI, uses compressed air, as opposed to the gas-and-oxygen explosions of internal-combustion models, to push its engine's pistons. Some 6000 zero-emissions Air Cars are scheduled to hit Indian streets by August 2010.

The Air Car, called the MiniCAT could cost around Rs. 3,50,000 ($ 8177) in India and would have a range of around 300 km between refuels.

The cost of a refill would be about Rs. 85 ($ 2).
The MiniCAT which is a simple, light urban car, with a tubular chassis that is glued not welded and a body of fiberglass powered by compressed air. Microcontrollers are used in every device in the car, so one tiny radio transmitter sends instructions to the lights, indicators etc.

There are no keys - just an access card which can be read by the car from your pocket. According to the designers, it costs less than 50 rupees per 100Km (about a tenth that of a petrol car). Its mileage is about double that of the most advanced electric car (200 to 300 km or 10 hours of driving), a factor which makes a perfect choice in cities where the 80% of motorists drive at less than 60Km. The car has a top speed of 105 kmph. Refilling the car will, once the market develops, take place at adapted petrol stations to administer compressed air. In two or three minutes, and at a cost of approximately 100 rupees, the car will be ready to go another 200-300 kilometers.
http://co106w.col106.mail.live.com/mail/SafeRedirect.aspx?hm__tg=http://65.55.40.7/att/GetAttachment.aspx&hm__qs=file%3daf780e95-f152-4d9a-9d28-d3484714b858.jpg%26ct%3daW1hZ2UvanBlZw_3d_3d%26nam e%3dQTQwNDc0MDExOUMzNEE5QzlBQzNCRUY5MDJGN0MyRjcuan Bn%26inline%3d1%26rfc%3d0%26empty%3dFalse%26imgsrc %3dcid%253a04188AB334AF48B3AA17206242D231B9%2540ho me18fe4d74df&oneredir=1&ip=10.12.138.8&d=d3950&mf=0&a=01_36d9a61fddff18617cafb896c1f49114575eba41ae6e0 8abe8969cba8f5226b5
As a viable alternative, the car carries a small compressor which can be connected to the mains (220V or 380V) and refill the tank in 3-4 hours. Due to the absence of combustion and, consequently, of residues, changing the oil (1 litre of vegetable oil) is necessary only every 50,000Km).

Toolguy
07-19-2010, 09:30 PM
I hope Lucas Electric isn't involved. If they are, they will be crashing into everything and littering the roadsides.

J Tiers
07-19-2010, 10:36 PM
This thread NEEDS this link:

http://www.webexhibits.org/bogus/index.html

rolland
07-20-2010, 01:05 AM
Many years ago when I was in high school ( a long time ago) we had a neighbor that owned a propane plant. He fitted a VW bug with a propane set up and put the tank in the rear space behind the rear seat. Since that was fairly new, at least to us he had a lot of fun by pulling into a gas station and asking if he could use the water hose and would proceed to fill the gas tank under the hood. Then with a dramatic flair reach into his pocket and take out two small white pills, drop them in the tank and drive off.
As young kids we were very impressed as was some adults.

Teenage_Machinist
07-20-2010, 02:07 AM
That's really funny.

As to the Air Car: I am a little skeptical. Not saying it cannot work, but I think it seems like a maintenance problem due in part to the extreme high pressure and need for very efficient pneumatic motors. Possibly dangerous.
It could also be pretty good.
I'm also skeptical about the low recharge cost - you still ahve to pay for electricity. And the range it gets is not really overwhelming for electric cars, though it's very good.


My favorite right now is electric cars, the way nanotech batteries are developing.

One different issue, though. THere's this guy I know who told me about some variation of the pneumatic car and he said it just needs to be pumped with a "nailgun compressor"(For five hours? Unlikely that this works at only 300 PSI!) and then that it can go indefinitely because "it recycles it's exhaust into the input". I tried to call the PM, but he did not get it and told me to read the source. He did not even realize that it was PM. THen he compared the BS exhaust recycling to a cyclic engine where each cycle of the engine automatically starts the next one (like a gas engine or an automatic weapon).

He also talked about a car which is powered by a fuel cell which is fueled by a built-in electrolyzer which is powered by internal batteries. Conversion inefficiency much? He claimed this would make it much more efficient. Fuel cells get regarded as a 'special power' as is nuclear power, occasionally.

Evan
07-20-2010, 05:47 AM
The Air Car, called the MiniCAT could cost around Rs. 3,50,000 ($ 8177) in India and would have a range of around 300 km between refuels.


That is because the "air car" actually runs on gasoline. If run strictly on compressed air it has a range of a couple of kilometres.

Rustybolt
07-20-2010, 08:14 AM
But only if constructed solely from two liter soda bottles.

ieezitin
07-20-2010, 09:00 AM
Evan

I did not mention if we were to create or destroy energy.

My example of 123 -456 was meant to be read as we have an amount of energy and or mass here by placing an action upon it reacts and changes to 456. Emphasis on the word Change.

Creative thinking will not create energy true, but creative thinking will use the universal abundance of energy to achieve what ever man desires.

Where I agree with you here is your right there is no free lunch, a spec smaller than a flies toenail in space if hit would absorb some energy.

While we here on earth consume our time with the age old problem of perpetual motion, all we have achieved so far is really fuel efficiency and how to max it, in the big black yonder a perpetual motion machine would be useless.

The real problem is speed and time. When man figures out speed only then will he be allowed into the other dimensions where there exists a whole set of new rules.

Anthony +1 ;)

airsmith282
07-20-2010, 09:22 AM
how about all you non belivers get off your buts make the same sorta rig and try it then you will belive.


look iam not trying to be rude well maybe a little , but it seems to me that alot of people on here ar very closed minded,

the biggest reason not to bleive in propetual motion is the simple fact that eventually one of 2 things is going to happen someday the bearing is going to wear out or the magnuts will lose power and eventually they will. but this does not prove that propetual motion is not real.. it just means that some day you got parts that need to be replaced.and not even the most advanced alien race can make something that will not one day wear out or break down, that is not physics thats FACT..

i find most people just pissed for a few reasons, they either feel someone stole their idea or they have been condition sence birth to follow one set of laws and beliefs and that nothing except whats in books is able to be done, surpise take a look around you..

boy was the world pissed when someone descoverd and proved carbon dating was false..bet alot of collectors were pissed off as well.

can a car drive it self , its up and comming thats not propetual motion its advaced techno stuff.

what technolgey is a cell phone based on any one that answer , i do but id like to hear from you guys.

when was the light bulb really invented and by who,

iam sure there are alot of thngs that have been faked but equally there as much or more thats not fake but most seem to still swear its not real, well that is how you have condition your self then you will stay that way,the church is the master of closed mindedness,

all the world knows there is a god and jesus and what jesus did onthe cross for man kind, but only 5% belive it and folow it 95% know it but deny it, or dont belive it at all.

amonge the 5% of belivers less then 2% know and belive as well that there is life out there and we are not alone in this vast universe..

amonge the world many think there is a beginning and end to the universe but there isnt, and i dont need a telescope to prove it , its simple, to understand, if there is a begining and an end then we are in a box or bubble or we dont even exist none of this is real.. but because we live and breath and think and advance we are real . so the universe is real and all thats in it and around it there for races form other planets have visited us and have helped us alonge and still do iam sure, and are here,, some are human like us just more advanced ..others are likely like the grays but just not in the public eye yet, aline abductions some are real alot are not.

so wrap your head aoround all this even the last 100 years of advancement and then you have the answer that things are not all that they seem to be.

propetual motion is real but it like all other tecnolegys has the same rule eventually it will break down and need repair . this does not mean something can not propel it self with out gas or a battery or compressed air, it just means it will one day need parts replaced, even a magnut loses energy over time..

Richard-TX
07-20-2010, 09:55 AM
.. the biggest reason not to bleive in propetual motion is the simple fact that eventually one of 2 things is going to happen someday the bearing is going to wear out or the magnuts will lose power and eventually they will...

boy was the world pissed when someone descoverd and proved carbon dating was false..bet alot of collectors were pissed off as well.



THe biggest reason to not believe in perpetual motion is that the laws prohibit it.

Carbon dating is accurate and valid withing the constraints of the test. That means that you have to test the correct material.

lazlo
07-20-2010, 10:16 AM
how about all you non belivers get off your buts make the same sorta rig and try it then you will belive.

Are you implying that you've made > Unity machine?


propetual motion is real but it like all other tecnolegys has the same rule eventually it will break down and need repair.

If you don't believe the laws of thermodynamics*, how about common sense: "There's no free ride."


*In all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state.


The universal law is an action that will create an reaction, if you put 123 in and achieve your desired effect and get 456 out 123 still exists but changed to 456 perpetual motion!!!!!

...

The real problem is speed and time. When man figures out speed only then will he be allowed into the other dimensions where there exists a whole set of new rules.

Oh, my head!: :eek:

TGTool
07-20-2010, 10:37 AM
the biggest reason not to bleive in propetual motion is the simple fact that eventually one of 2 things is going to happen someday the bearing is going to wear out or the magnuts will lose power and eventually they will. but this does not prove that propetual motion is not real.. it just means that some day you got parts that need to be replaced.and not even the most advanced alien race can make something that will not one day wear out or break down, that is not physics thats FACT..


I don't see how that works. If you've got perpetual motion doesn't absence of wear go right along with it. The PM machine will NOT in fact stop because wear is nonexistent and the magnets will never lose power because no energy is moving out of the system or they just never get tired like the rest of us. :rolleyes:

lazlo
07-20-2010, 10:42 AM
If you've got perpetual motion doesn't absence of wear go right along with it. The PM machine will NOT in fact stop because wear is nonexistent and the magnets will never lose power because no energy is moving out of the system

Exactly. The friction/heat from the bearings is a prime example of entropy, a.k.a. the second law of thermodynamics. Wear is another -- anything that wears is leaking energy.

Deja Vu
07-20-2010, 10:49 AM
Perpetual motion is akin to achieving perfection. It just ain't gonna happen. All we can do is attempt to get as close as possible, and then maintain that level of efficiency.

Evan
07-20-2010, 11:08 AM
The only reason that anybody thinks that perpetual motion is possible is because they lack enough knowledge of science. In particular they lack knowledge of the many ways that kinetic energy may be transferred to and from matter. Since perpetual MOTION by definition involves movement it then must include changes of position. All matter creates some degree of gravity that is directly proportional to it's mass. Gravity has infinite range and although it becomes weaker with distance it never vanishes completely.

Because of this every bit of matter interacts with every other bit of matter that is within the event horizon of the universe. That means that all matter in the universe is exchanging kinetic energy with all the rest of the matter by means of several mechanisms including tidal effects, most likely frame dragging effects with the possibility of gravitational abberation effects as well. So, even absent all other loss mechanisms such as bearing and friction in general there are still gravitational losses. Since it is believed (with evidence supporting) that the net angular momentum of the universe is zero then any device that has angular momentum will exchange it with all other objects via gravity and will assume, very gradually, the state equivalent of zero angular motion.

In other words, planets that spin slow down in the long term. They don't speed up overall. Orbits decay. Even light grows "tired" as it works it's way out of gravity wells.

Bottom line is that you cannot produce perpetual motion by getting rid of friction, atmospheric drag, sheilding, or by using vacuums, superconductors or any other mainipulations. There is always gravity and we know of no way to alter it, shield it nullify it or modulate it.

vpt
07-20-2010, 11:26 AM
All this talk about the 100mpg carburator made me dig up this link again. The 118 mpg fuel injection system.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/diy-modified-honda-crx-hf-118-mpg-chang-ho-kim.php

EVguru
07-20-2010, 11:34 AM
what technolgey is a cell phone based on any one that answer , i do but id like to hear from you guys.


It's based on a frequency hopping technique. The patent was held jointly by Hedy Lamarr (yes, THAT Hedy Lamarr) and George Antheil.

US 2,292,387

ADGO_Racing
07-20-2010, 11:44 AM
how about all you non belivers get off your buts make the same sorta rig and try it then you will belive.


look iam not trying to be rude well maybe a little , but it seems to me that alot of people on here ar very closed minded,

the biggest reason not to bleive in propetual motion is the simple fact that eventually one of 2 things is going to happen someday the bearing is going to wear out or the magnuts will lose power and eventually they will. but this does not prove that propetual motion is not real.. it just means that some day you got parts that need to be replaced.and not even the most advanced alien race can make something that will not one day wear out or break down, that is not physics thats FACT..

i find most people just pissed for a few reasons, they either feel someone stole their idea or they have been condition sence birth to follow one set of laws and beliefs and that nothing except whats in books is able to be done, surpise take a look around you..

boy was the world pissed when someone descoverd and proved carbon dating was false..bet alot of collectors were pissed off as well.

can a car drive it self , its up and comming thats not propetual motion its advaced techno stuff.

what technolgey is a cell phone based on any one that answer , i do but id like to hear from you guys.

when was the light bulb really invented and by who,

iam sure there are alot of thngs that have been faked but equally there as much or more thats not fake but most seem to still swear its not real, well that is how you have condition your self then you will stay that way,the church is the master of closed mindedness,

all the world knows there is a god and jesus and what jesus did onthe cross for man kind, but only 5% belive it and folow it 95% know it but deny it, or dont belive it at all.

amonge the 5% of belivers less then 2% know and belive as well that there is life out there and we are not alone in this vast universe..

amonge the world many think there is a beginning and end to the universe but there isnt, and i dont need a telescope to prove it , its simple, to understand, if there is a begining and an end then we are in a box or bubble or we dont even exist none of this is real.. but because we live and breath and think and advance we are real . so the universe is real and all thats in it and around it there for races form other planets have visited us and have helped us alonge and still do iam sure, and are here,, some are human like us just more advanced ..others are likely like the grays but just not in the public eye yet, aline abductions some are real alot are not.

so wrap your head aoround all this even the last 100 years of advancement and then you have the answer that things are not all that they seem to be.

propetual motion is real but it like all other tecnolegys has the same rule eventually it will break down and need repair . this does not mean something can not propel it self with out gas or a battery or compressed air, it just means it will one day need parts replaced, even a magnut loses energy over time..


I feel like wrapping my head:eek: .....WHO HAS THE TINFOIL?!?!?!?!? I need it over here...!:D

EVguru
07-20-2010, 11:48 AM
I feel like wrapping my head:eek: .....WHO HAS THE TINFOIL?!?!?!?!? I need it over here...!:D

That doesn't work, they send the mind control rays up through your feet!

ADGO_Racing
07-20-2010, 12:03 PM
Will it help if I wrap my feet too???

Todd Tolhurst
07-20-2010, 12:07 PM
The stupid, it burns! (http://www.plognark.com/Art/Sketches/Blogsketches/2008/thestupiditburns.jpg)

saltmine
07-20-2010, 12:22 PM
I tried that, in fact, I made a whole suit (and two pairs of pants) out of aluminum foil. Now, when I wear it, I can't hear the voices that tell me to kill everybody.

Remember the classic Curly line from a "Three Stooges" short..." I keep tryin' to think, but nothin happens."

Evan
07-20-2010, 12:47 PM
The only thing that works is this rig and he really should be wearing a beta-tritanium face screen for maximum protection. He also needs a few more ground straps.

http://metalshopborealis.ca/pics/suit1.jpg

ADGO_Racing
07-20-2010, 01:24 PM
The only thing that works is this rig and he really should be wearing a beta-tritanium face screen for maximum protection. He also needs a few more ground straps.

http://metalshopborealis.ca/pics/suit1.jpg


But couldn't you get a feed from the ground up (Or back, however you want to imagine it)???? We never really know how these alien technologies work, do we???

ckelloug
07-20-2010, 06:28 PM
If the alien technology is electromagnetic in nature then wrapping yourself in conductive metal will shield you. The beauty of science is that we can predict what happens in cases we cannot try. If we integrate electric flux inside of such a suit, we conclude that the charge from the alien mind control ray can only be on the outside of the suit and thus we are protected. Long live the Maxwell equations as they apply to the prevention of nutters and alien mind control rays!

gnm109
07-20-2010, 06:33 PM
If the alien technology is electromagnetic in nature then wrapping yourself in conductive metal will shield you. The beauty of science is that we can predict what happens in cases we cannot try. If we integrate electric flux inside of such a suit, we conclude that the charge from the alien mind control ray can only be on the outside of the suit and thus we are protected. Long live the Maxwell equations as they apply to the prevention of nutters and alien mind control rays!


I quite agree. That's why I keep a tinfoil hat hand on my hat rack in the front hall. It's comforting to know that I won't have my mind taken over by aliens when they appear. My wife has already done a good job of mind control and I certainly wish to avoid any further interference. :)

oldbikerdude37
07-20-2010, 06:42 PM
Im so glad I made this thread its been a fun read and is educational.

The closest thing I have made to PM is a top made from a large punch slug 1.562" by .500 thick. it was balenced on a wire base made from a mig welder and I hit it with an air hose till it we going very fast and to spun for 40 minutes.

Its just the crap you do when you are bored after cleaning the shop.:cool:

Evan
07-20-2010, 07:21 PM
Spinning things with air can be very dangerous. The velocity from an air nozzle may approach the speed of sound. That means the theoretical maximum rpm that your top might achieve is around 170,000 rpm. It will be less than that of course, but how much less? When does the metal come apart?

added: I just calculated the forces if the maximum possible rpm were reached. It would produce around 600,000 gees with a tensile force of close to the yield point of mild steel at 37,500 psi. With a half inch thickness you could have been close to catastrophic failure even at lower rpm.

gnm109
07-20-2010, 07:42 PM
Spinning things with air can be very dangerous. The velocity from an air nozzle may approach the speed of sound. That means the theoretical maximum rpm that your top might achieve is around 170,000 rpm. It will be less than that of course, but how much less? When does the metal come apart?


I can make a stab at answering that. When I was working for Rocketdyne as a Rocket engine mechanic in the late 1950's, early 1960's, we wold take turns operating the engines during tests at the direction of the test engineers.

All of the functions of the engines were recorded with analog Sanborn pen recorders which made a mark in ink on the paper as it rolled along. There were transducers mounted on the engine which sent varying DC signals which, when properly calibrated, would closely indicate the status of the particular functions, such as heat, pressure and speed.

The engines used a gas turbine that ran on liquid oxygen and jet fuel to drive the main turbopumps. One of the engines, unbeknownst to us, was built with the shaft between the gas turbine and the turbopump inadvertantly left out, although the inspection records of the engine, when examined later, showed that the shaft (called a "quill shaft" due to the splines on each end) had been installed when the engine was manufactured.

The engine went for a hot test and, once started, the turbine freewheeled and, after about 45 seconds, IIRC, it exloded. The resulting fire, fed by 3,000 gallons of liquid oxygen and another 1,500 gallons of JP-4 Jet fuel burned for fully three hours and removed every last piece of wiring and equipment on the test stand.

The pen for the Sanbord recorder for that function, turbine speed at mainstage, went off chart at 150,000 rpm. The sound that it made was a piercing whine not unlike the mythical Banshee.

The next morning, I was viewing the totality of the damage and I noted that several of the turbine blades had been driven into the steel I-beams of the test stand and were sticking out. When I hit them with a hammer, several of them broke off and one of them came out whole, leaving a notch in the metal that was fully one inch deep.

So, I would say that 150,000 rpm is the answer.

Wrongway
07-20-2010, 07:55 PM
From what I've read perpetual means never ending. I've also read that the universe had a starting point...the big bang...and everything is still expanding but will eventually stop and then collapse back into itself and by definition will end. Not that one has to subscribe to the big bang and all the "knowledge" we have, or don't, but with those standards perpetual motion is not possible as that motion will eventually end. Now realize that this is the opinion of a high school graduate...not a astral physicist

Evan
07-20-2010, 08:07 PM
The Big Gnab scenario is no longer thought likely. All the evidence so far is that the universe will continue expanding indefinitely until all the lights go out and everything is resting very close to absolute zero.

There is no requirement that the universe have a definite end. Nor is there any requirement or even hypothesis that it must be succeeded by anything. This may be the only reality that will ever exist anywhere and anywhen. Of course, for each individual the universe ends rather soon.

ieezitin
07-20-2010, 08:17 PM
so to finilise the end.

Bill736
07-20-2010, 10:11 PM
The "200 mpg" carburetor myth can easily be disproven. The most the "magic" carburetor could do is to provide a perfectly vaporized and controlled air/fuel mixture to the engine. An optimized propane carburetor will provide a nearly perfect vaporization . If one compares a conventional gasoline carburetor with an optimized propane carburetor, the differences in fuel efficiency are surprisingly small. That comparison has been done many times over the decades. It's also always been true that the auto manufacturers would kill for a substantial fuel economy advantage over their competitors, all else being equal.
As for examples of alleged perpetual motion machines, one has to remember that simply exerting a force does not require energy. The force due to gravity , for instance, does not imply the expenditure of energy. The exertion of a force over a distance, however, represents "work" and does require energy.
In the real world, with real machines, it's still true that you can't get something for nothing. In fact, you can't even break even.

saltmine
07-20-2010, 10:28 PM
While propane does provide perfect atomization, Bill, it also has a very low BTU rating, compared to gasoline. So, even with perfect mixing, you, in effect, have almost nothing to burn.

Hydrogen would atomize quite well and mix beautifully. Of course, hydrogen has about 13 times the energy of gasoline, per cubic foot of vapor.
Too bad it's highly explosive...Playing with it would be fun.

J Tiers
07-20-2010, 10:38 PM
If the alien technology is electromagnetic in nature then wrapping yourself in conductive metal will shield you. The beauty of science is that we can predict what happens in cases we cannot try. If we integrate electric flux inside of such a suit, we conclude that the charge from the alien mind control ray can only be on the outside of the suit and thus we are protected. Long live the Maxwell equations as they apply to the prevention of nutters and alien mind control rays!

Dunno if it's worth worrying about.... and the metal suit is fine..... it's those pesky joints that are the issue, not to mention that the 'electro"" part is OK, but the "magnetic" part may pose a problem to most such suits......... I think I could guarantee to get a strong field inside that suit, despite your best efforts......

But, a conductive vest might be rather handy if your local cops like to use their tasers and stun guns......... Tasers might be a little more of a problem, but still defeatable.

Those harmless devices have already killed a few folks..... Should be a law that every time a cop uses one, he or she should have to get a hit themselves afterward..... To remind them of what the one they had in training was like.....

saltmine
07-20-2010, 10:41 PM
Part of every cop's training when they get a Taser is to get his or her thing knocked stiff with a real Taser, so they'll know what it's like.

They offered me a Taser, once. But my instinct for self preservation forced me to turn them down.

gnm109
07-20-2010, 11:12 PM
Part of every cop's training when they get a Taser is to get his or her thing knocked stiff with a real Taser, so they'll know what it's like.

They offered me a Taser, once. But my instinct for self preservation forced me to turn them down.

At least with a Taser, the offender who is charging a policeman can sometimes be stopped without lethal force.

My son is in the California Highway Patrol and he's been Tasered several times in training. He's used a Taser on offenders several times. It usually stops them but not always. If they have a sufficient load of drugs, the Taser won't even phase them. (pun intended).

If the Taser (or rubber bullets if available) won't stop them, the only other alternatives are either a baton or resorting to deadly force with a gun.

ckelloug
07-20-2010, 11:13 PM
You got me Jerry. That damn magnetism with its annoying B fields and H fields. I think you have impaled me with your monopole lance. . .

Evan
07-20-2010, 11:19 PM
Hydrogen would atomize quite well and mix beautifully. Of course, hydrogen has about 13 times the energy of gasoline, per cubic foot of vapor.


Hmm. Hydrogen weighs 2 grams per mole. One mole of hydrogen combusted stoichiometrically produces 242 kilojoules of energy as heat.

Gasoline weighs about 120 grams per mole and produces 5500 kilojoules per mole. If we take the same weight of gasoline then that is 5500/60 or 91 kilojoules for equal weights of fuel. That is a ratio of about 2.66 to 1 in favour of H2. BUT, and it is a very big but, the only way to carry enough hydrogen to go anywhere is to liquefy it. Even then the energy density per cubic foot of liquid hydrogen vs a cubic foot of gasoline is absolutely miserable. To give the same total energy as gasoline requires about 4 times the volume of storage. That entirely negates any advantage that hydrogen has in specific energy by weight since it has such low density even as a liquid, about .07 grams per cc.

Worse yet, to make liquid hydrogen requires the energy equivalent of about 40% of the product.

Transporting it is even worse as a hydrogen tanker will hold enough fuel to fill about 60 cars and will use around half of that fuel to truck it 300 miles. An equivalent gasoline tanker will fuel 800 cars and use about 5-10 cars worth of fuel to deliver it.

Then there is the problem of where the hydrogen comes from. Currently it is made from petroleum.

Then there is the storage problem. It must be kept at nearly absolute zero to remain liquid. Other methods such a hydride storage have no chance of achieving sufficient density any time soon and cannot achieve a density higher than liquid H2. Even if you don't drive your car the fuel tank will be empty in a few days.

Hydrogen is even worse than electricity as a fuel. It isn't even a fuel since there is no free hydrogen available. It must "uncombusted" first which requires more energy than it produced when it combined with something else in the first place. Hydrogen id properly regarded as an energy storage system with remarkably poor efficiency.

It also has a dirty little secret. It produces a lot of air pollution in the form of oxides of nitrogen because the combustion temperature is so high. Also, most of the radiant energy from combusting hydrogen is in the short unltraviolet spectrum which is ideal for forming oxides of nitrogen no matter how it is combusted.

None of the density problems can be overcome no matter how the hydrogen is used as source of energy. It is what it is, the lightest and least dense element in the universe.

saltmine
07-20-2010, 11:20 PM
I prefer my own brand of Taser, GNM109. It's called a "Remmington 870, with #00 buckshot"

Guaranteed to stop almost anything.

saltmine
07-20-2010, 11:26 PM
Interesting hypothesis Evan. My bad, that's what I get for reading all of those pro-hydrogen articles out there. A lot of enthusiasm usually allows the figures to creep in favor of your favorite fuel.

I'm one of those guys who would prefer to manufacture my own, as I need it, through electrolysis. That way, you wouldn't have to drag around those bulky hydrogen cylinders everywhere.

Stan Meyer was on to something before they whacked him.

Todd Tolhurst
07-20-2010, 11:36 PM
Yeah, now you just have to drag around an extension cord.

gnm109
07-20-2010, 11:45 PM
I prefer my own brand of Taser, GNM109. It's called a "Remmington 870, with #00 buckshot"

Guaranteed to stop almost anything.


Right. They don't get up after that! I have the same shotgun but I only have dove loads.......

gnm109
07-20-2010, 11:49 PM
Very interesting what Evan says about hydrigen. There are certainly a lot of problems with it.

Another issue is containing it. Systems have to be virtually perfect to keep the small molecules inside. I never worked with Hydrogen when I was involved with rockets but we did use Helium in the control systems due to the quick operation caused by the small molecule.

Like Hydrogen, helium is very hard to contain within a system. It can find a leak most anywhere.

But, as Evan points out, there are numerous other problems with it. It's not the kind of thing that a shade-tree mechanic would be working on...

The Artful Bodger
07-21-2010, 01:53 AM
Hmmmmm.... I remember working at a place where, among other things, we 'made' hydrogen for weather baloons by mixing aluminium turnings and caustic soda in a tank and adding water. That was an interesting process, maybe someone could rig something like that up on their pickup bed and get rid of all that shop swarf!

BTW, do not let any of the many branches of the Fatherland Security Services catch a peek or they will be deciding you are engaged in biological warfare. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_weapons_laboratory

A.K. Boomer
07-21-2010, 06:46 AM
one of 2 things is going to happen someday the bearing is going to wear out or the magnuts will lose power and eventually they will.



What the hells a "magnut" ??? I can't find the definition anywhere - is it a magnesium fastener?






all the world knows there is a god and jesus and what jesus did onthe cross for man kind, but only 5% belive it and folow it 95% know it but deny it, or dont belive it at all.




What? dude - what kind of world are you living in?

We were talking about PM machines,,,

You seem like a nice guy but you really need to get on the spell check and try to find a reality check also (there's got to be a program out there for you somewhere)

Jesus was a hillbilly who pushed his luck to far with the Romans, My understanding is he flipped one of there coin tables over in some kind of a rage, You just don't stumble in from the desert and show up and do that,

He didn't "die for mankind" -- he basically pissed off the wrong people and they crucified him...

Jesus could have used a reality check in the form of self preservation...

And in getting back on topic, I do commend you in keeping an open mind ---
but it also needs to be tempered with keeping some kind of a lid on it (or even a coarse grid screen) or your thoughts will fly out of your head at random and will not make much sense to other people,
Its fine if you just want to sit in la-la land all by yourself and drip drool on your trousers - but If your actually interested in some kind of communication with other people you need to put more effort into reality,
you don't have to "adapt" to anyone else's way of thinking, but you do have to make sense...
On that note, It's impossible to create a PMM without disobeying the laws of physics and thermodynamics,
So all you need to do is find an avenue that disproves our current laws and explain rationally as to why, good luck with that,
Iv said it before on here --- your best bet is hoping something drops out of the sky in the form of a totally new element - something that we would consider "magical" - kinda like that sparkly crap that's always flying around at the tip of tinkerbells wand....

Ed.
07-21-2010, 06:50 AM
Hi All, As I have a bit of time to kill at the moment and I feel like expanding on this subject, so this post will probably be quite long. Anyway the question is about over unity or perpetual motion motors or systems and are they possible? Now most of the replies are saying that it is not possible to ever do that, and anybody who claims to have one is a suspect character or cheating some how.

Now anyone who lives in the 21st century should know that history is chock full of truism's that the smartest and brightest minds of the time said will never be able to be done, anyone who disagreed was either ridiculed, burned at the stake or locked up as being a fruit cake, a fraud or a danger to society.

What we can do is based on what we understand and know or can work out. If I had the ultimate knowledge of the universe's secrets then I could state categorically either yes or no. However as I do not, I am not that naive to think that I have the ability to say no, it can't be done and to try to convince other people about something I do not know much about with my limited knowledge.

For example: going back in history:

1) The earth is flat and if you try to travel past the horizon you will fall of the edge;
Yes, like that happened.

2) The earth is the center of the universe and all the stars revolve around it.

Earth is a small planet revolving around a smallish star in a galaxy of about 100 billion stars and apparently there are billions of galaxies.
If you disagreed with this one you would have been tried for heresy and probably burned at the stake at some point in our old history.

3) Man isn't designed to go faster than 30MPH.

This was about the time cars were invented, now with a bit more knowledge and technology our astronauts accelerate past 7g's and travel at 17000 MPH.

3) To make a city destroying big bomb, you would need an enormous amount of explosives.

Obviously the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would disagree. it took about 140lb of uranium of which 1.38% was actually converted to energy which made a 14 kiloton explosion, (equivalent of using 14000 tons of T.N.T) Now they have a 50 Megaton Hydrogen bomb and only about 20ft long and capable of flattening and vaporising at least 200 miles. So how much energy went in and how much came out? And I would hate to find out how much energy 1 KG of antimatter would create, and yes they are working on it with very tiny atomic sized amounts currently being produced in Labs. At least for now. :mad:

4) You could never "see" inside a human body without cutting into it or know what is inside sealed metal containers.
M.R.I, C.A.T or Ultrasound, anyone? and X.ray for metal

5) The atom is the smallest particle and you can't do much with it.
Now we know that isn't true, it is made up of electrons, protons, neutrons and a host of sub atomic particles and now we have developed nano motors using atom sized components.

6) TV sets have come down from big CRT units to being printed on a sheet of plastic. Hard drives have come down from the size of a dishwasher holding 20MB to a chip about the size of a .5cm square holding 16GB.

7) Laser light, it doesn't exist anywhere in nature, yet we use it everywhere now.


I could go on and on but it just goes to show, that the more we know and understand, the more we prove things can be done, it just needs to be researched and studied and in time it might be possible to succeed. Now to state that you can't get more energy out then you put it I think is incorrect, we just might have to have to do it a different way to do something.

To relate to the people reading on this forum and as a very rough example:

To lift and hold up a large chunk of steel in the air would require energy and with gravity being constant. Let say as an exercise, you wanted to lift up a 50lb piece of steel of the ground and keep it in the air and off the ground. You could manually lift it and hold it but eventually you would have to drop it as you would be constantly burning up energy fighting gravity. The longer you hold it the more energy is required. Alternatively, you could use a lever bar and something to act as a pivot and then lift it off the ground and just sit on the other end, that would keep it off the ground, at least till your bum got sore and you got off.
You used less of your body energy and achieved the same result and holding it up that way for ten or ninety minutes minutes wouldn't matter as your body weight would counterbalance the gravity acting on the steel weight, and you wouldn't have expended any more energy. You used gravity against gravity. You could also tie the end of the lever bar to a base of a tree or fixed structure and that 50lb metal would sit suspended until you removed the rope, no more energy expended. An electro magnet coupled to a battery would consume a lot more energy, first you would use energy to lift it up and as long as the electromagnet kept using energy it would hold up the 50lb metal weight, eventually the battery goes flat and the weight falls. You might have used several thousands of watts. But what happens if you use a strong permanent magnet attached to the underside of a metal frame, once you use some energy to get the metal weight up into the air there is no further expenditure of energy. Once it's up it doesn't require any further energy, ....EVER. So in effect you have just saved using several thousand watt of energy less doing the same job.

So what I'm trying to say is, to achieve the same purpose ie; Holding a metal weight in the air for a long time can consume a lot of energy in the case of just lifting it up and holding it up for a long time, less if you use a lever and tie it down, more if you use an electro magnet and comparatively very little if you use a permanent magnet. All these methods achieve the same result but require different approaches and methods and use different amounts of energy. It alls depends on what you know and the technology at hand and what you are trying to do. There is more than one way to achieve the same result. So I think it is benificial to look at different ways of making motors, it all helps to increase our understanding and knowledge.

So getting back to the original post, is it possible? possibly, has it been done? who knows, are there fraudsters around , definitely.

Now food for thought:
Let's say that you did make a perpetual motor that didn't use additional fuel/energy once it started and hardly any moving parts to wear out, would it ever see the light of day. And let say for arguments sake, the motor you developed worked, as soon as a car manufacturer or a group of them, or a oil producer/s found out about it, they would try to buy you out and if you didn't sell to them, then they would try to tie you up in legalities in the court system as a fraud for as long as it took to send you bankrupt. They would spend $Billions if necessary to keep it off the market.

If you did sell out, then they would "develop" it forever without producing a single unit. They could not afford to have it on the market. Too much money tied up in infrastructure and the economy, employment and so forth and they already make bucket of money from the old technology. And lets face it, if a company offered you a couple of billion dollars for it, would you take it? I don't know about you but I would set the contract paper on fire signing as fast as I could! End result no motor on the market and the marketing spiel is.... It didn't work and it is impossible.

So as long as people are happy tinkering away and researching it I am all for it. Some of of the greatest discoveries have been made by accident. I say go for it!! Keep an open mind. Just don't scam or be scammed in the process!!!

To all those who disagree, "Flame away if you feel you must." and to those who are curious, the answer is No, I do not have have one in my garage and no, I am not working on any either :)

Evan
07-21-2010, 07:53 AM
First of all, making a list of things that were thought to be impossible and turned out to be possible in no way validates any other argument. The items are not related to each other nor are they related to the subject at hand.

Holding something stationary in a gravity well takes exactly zero energy. A table is a good example. Diamagnetic levititation of a paramagnetic material is another.

If you don't know what I am referring to don't feel bad since neither do most people. However, it also means you don't have enough knowledge to make an informed judgement of what is or isn't possible in that respect.


Laser light, it doesn't exist anywhere in nature, yet we use it everywhere now.


Sure it does. SCIENTISTS DISCOVER FIRST NATURAL LASER IN SPACE (http://laserstars.org/news/MWC349.html)

Deja Vu
07-21-2010, 07:59 AM
Ed said:
So as long as people are happy tinkering away and researching it I am all for it. Some of of the greatest discoveries have been made by accident. I say go for it!! Keep an open mind. Just don't scam or be scammed in the process!!!

I agree, but! Keep the objective in perspective. To go for the PM machine or apparatus one has to consider the concept of approaching infinity or being AT infinity.
Infinitely small friction, or infinite efficiency, is definitely something to strive for. But let's keep it real. Without turning physics on its ear, the tinkerer is only attempting to approach infinity....not trying to BE AT infinity.

Evan
07-21-2010, 08:20 AM
Let's say that you did make a perpetual motor that didn't use additional fuel/energy once it started and hardly any moving parts to wear out, would it ever see the light of day.

Let's go one further. Suppose that just by thinking of something I could create it from nothing into a real object made of matter. A perfect specimen of anything at all identical in makeup to any similar natural object.

Or, suppose that just by tapping my shoes together I could travel anywhere?

The problem I am illustrating is that one can ask hypothetical questions that have no bearing on reality. In that case any answers that the question draws have exactly the same relevance.

J Tiers
07-21-2010, 08:41 AM
At least with a Taser, the offender who is charging a policeman can sometimes be stopped without lethal force.



Nice theory....

In many places, it appears that the taser is viewed by the cops as something that can be used to subdue someone who is standing there badmouthing you, or a useful and harmless tool to get the attention of someone who isn't a threat, but who is just not listening hard enough......

beanbag
07-21-2010, 08:52 AM
Diamagnetic levititation of a paramagnetic material is another.

Pressure is a result of atoms bouncing off the the walls of a container and each other.



The material being levitated is the diamagnet (usually).

Atoms in a gas in a container don't need to hit each other to create pressure.

lazlo
07-21-2010, 09:09 AM
The beauty of science is that we can predict what happens in cases we cannot try. If we integrate electric flux inside of such a suit, we conclude that the charge from the alien mind control ray can only be on the outside of the suit and thus we are protected.

But would it improve your spelling?

Forestgnome
07-21-2010, 09:30 AM
The only reason that anybody thinks that perpetual motion is possible is because they lack enough knowledge of science.

There is always gravity and we know of no way to alter it, shield it nullify it or modulate it.

Exactly. "We know of no way to alter it". That doesn't mean it can't be done.

The only reason we cannot do it is because we lack enough knowledge of science.


Really, we don't know enough about forces in our world to say with confidence what can and connot be done. To do so is arrogant.

Mad Scientist
07-21-2010, 09:34 AM
As has been shown here there is no question that when considering all that we know about physics and science it is obvious that perpetual motion is impossible.

However the key words here are “all that we know”, what if maybe just per chance we don’t know all that there is to know?

philbur
07-21-2010, 09:37 AM
But the hydrogen car is already a reality.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE54A42Z20090511

Phil:)


Hmm. Hydrogen weighs 2 grams per mole. One mole of hydrogen combusted stoichiometrically produces 242 kilojoules of energy as heat.

Gasoline weighs about 120 grams per mole and produces 5500 kilojoules per mole. If we take the same weight of gasoline then that is 5500/60 or 91 kilojoules for equal weights of fuel. That is a ratio of about 2.66 to 1 in favour of H2. BUT, and it is a very big but, the only way to carry enough hydrogen to go anywhere is to liquefy it. Even then the energy density per cubic foot of liquid hydrogen vs a cubic foot of gasoline is absolutely miserable. To give the same total energy as gasoline requires about 4 times the volume of storage. That entirely negates any advantage that hydrogen has in specific energy by weight since it has such low density even as a liquid, about .07 grams per cc.

Worse yet, to make liquid hydrogen requires the energy equivalent of about 40% of the product.

Transporting it is even worse as a hydrogen tanker will hold enough fuel to fill about 60 cars and will use around half of that fuel to truck it 300 miles. An equivalent gasoline tanker will fuel 800 cars and use about 5-10 cars worth of fuel to deliver it.

Then there is the problem of where the hydrogen comes from. Currently it is made from petroleum.

Then there is the storage problem. It must be kept at nearly absolute zero to remain liquid. Other methods such a hydride storage have no chance of achieving sufficient density any time soon and cannot achieve a density higher than liquid H2. Even if you don't drive your car the fuel tank will be empty in a few days.

Hydrogen is even worse than electricity as a fuel. It isn't even a fuel since there is no free hydrogen available. It must "uncombusted" first which requires more energy than it produced when it combined with something else in the first place. Hydrogen id properly regarded as an energy storage system with remarkably poor efficiency.

It also has a dirty little secret. It produces a lot of air pollution in the form of oxides of nitrogen because the combustion temperature is so high. Also, most of the radiant energy from combusting hydrogen is in the short unltraviolet spectrum which is ideal for forming oxides of nitrogen no matter how it is combusted.

None of the density problems can be overcome no matter how the hydrogen is used as source of energy. It is what it is, the lightest and least dense element in the universe.

Deja Vu
07-21-2010, 09:37 AM
As has been shown here there is no question that when considering all that we know about physics and science it is obvious that perpetual motion is impossible.

However the key words here are “all that we know”, what if maybe just per chance we don’t know all that there is to know?

This is why we only get "glimpses" of alien existence without evidence. They are waiting for us to discover the error in our physics understanding. :D

lazlo
07-21-2010, 09:44 AM
Exactly. "We know of no way to alter it". That doesn't mean it can't be done.

The only reason we cannot do it is because we lack enough knowledge of science.

Or lack enough common sense, which would tell you that you can't get more work out of a machine than the energy you put into it ;)

Evan
07-21-2010, 10:06 AM
The material being levitated is the diamagnet (usually).



Observation of kinetic diamagnetism and paramagnetism in bismuth (http://www.jetpletters.ac.ru/ps/1505/article_23004.pdf)

Magnetic levitation of diamagnetic and paramagnetic substances (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TJJ-4N5CXN1-D&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1407387451&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=bf84dc876b893633323d39909ceddc25)


But the hydrogen car is already a reality.


Yes, of course. There is no rule to prohibit you from building something that is impractical, inefficient and/or uneconomic.

Evan
07-21-2010, 10:18 AM
Exactly. "We know of no way to alter it". That doesn't mean it can't be done.

The only reason we cannot do it is because we lack enough knowledge of science.


Really, we don't know enough about forces in our world to say with confidence what can and connot be done. To do so is arrogant.


There is no need to know "everything" to place limits on what is possible. All we need to know is where some limits are, not all of them. Not knowing something does not invalidate what we do know. In particular, "The only reason we cannot do it is because we lack enough knowledge of science." is nonsense. The fact that we do not know how to alter gravity does not imply that it can be done. We know enough from our attempts to characterise it that it is most likely that it cannot be done. There is no reason at all to think otherwise.

"Really, we don't know enough about forces in our world to say with confidence what can and connot be done. To do so is arrogant."

We know a great deal about the forces in our world. We know where many of the limits exist. We can use that knowledge to predict where the bounds are on processes we don't fully understand. You don't need to know much about gravity to confidently predict that nobody will ever be able to high jump 50 feet using only unaided muscle power.


As has been shown here there is no question that when considering all that we know about physics and science it is obvious that perpetual motion is impossible.

However the key words here are “all that we know”, what if maybe just per chance we don’t know all that there is to know?

See above.

philbur
07-21-2010, 10:28 AM
Impractical, inefficient and/or uneconomic are all relative terms. That's exactly what was said when the IC engine was in competition with the horse and carriage.

All energy sources for motive power have pros and cons. If you compare them with only the pros for gasoline of course the alternatives do not look as interesting, but gasoline IC engines for a world population heading toward 8 billion and beyond is one huge con against gasoline, basically it becomes impractical and uneconomic (if you include the cost of clean-up) and the IC gasoline engine has never ever been particularly efficient in any case.

Phil:)


Observation of kinetic diamagnetism and paramagnetism in bismuth (http://www.jetpletters.ac.ru/ps/1505/article_23004.pdf)

Magnetic levitation of diamagnetic and paramagnetic substances (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TJJ-4N5CXN1-D&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1407387451&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=bf84dc876b893633323d39909ceddc25)



Yes, of course. There is no rule to prohibit you from building something that is impractical, inefficient and/or uneconomic.

Todd Tolhurst
07-21-2010, 10:31 AM
Impractical, inefficient and/or uneconomic are all relative terms. That's exactly what was said when the IC engine was in competition with the horse and carriage.
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
-- Carl Sagan

Evan
07-21-2010, 10:41 AM
All energy sources for motive power have pros and cons. If you compare them with only the pros for gasoline of course the alternatives do not look as interesting, but gasoline IC engines for a world population heading toward 8 billion and beyond is one huge con against gasoline, basically it becomes impractical and uneconomic (if you include the cost of clean-up) and the IC gasoline engine has never ever been particularly efficient in any case.


Hydrogen isn't a source of energy. It is an energy storage and transfer medium and as such is very inefficient. It is much more economic to use the original source of energy directly, such as charging batteries or using methane to power an engine instead of reforming it into hydrogen gas and then losing nearly all of the resulting energy as waste heat in the process.

Ed.
07-21-2010, 11:54 AM
First of all, making a list of things that were thought to be impossible and turned out to be possible in no way validates any other argument. The items are not related to each other nor are they related to the subject at hand.

Holding something stationary in a gravity well takes exactly zero energy. A table is a good example. Diamagnetic levititation of a paramagnetic material is another.

If you don't know what I am referring to don't feel bad since neither do most people. However, it also means you don't have enough knowledge to make an informed judgment of what is or isn't possible in that respect.



Sure it does. SCIENTISTS DISCOVER FIRST NATURAL LASER IN SPACE (http://laserstars.org/news/MWC349.html)

Hi Evan, I disagree with your point in paragraph 1, that the items I listed are not related to the subject at hand. The point I was making was just because we haven't been able to make something up to now with the knowledge and science that we have, doesn't mean it wont be possible at some later stage when we acquire more knowledge and understanding even if our current science and knowledge says it can't be done or won't work.

The points I listed were merely statements that have been taken as set in stone at some point in time only to be disproved and made to work at a later period. What we know now at this point in time may prove to be incorrect either in the near or far future.

But unless we continue to experiment on these ideas then we will never know if we can or not, but we shouldn't give up just because the general consensus or current knowledge is against it.

The second point you maybe right, I may not know as much about what your subject to which you are referring to but I suspect it is a means of suspending a material, with some sort of magnetic property within a magnetic flux field of some sort. The diamagnetic material aligning itself perpendicular to a magnetic field due to the characteristics of the diamagnetic material resisting magnetic lines of force trying to go though it, where as the paramagnetic material aligns itself with the magnetic field due to the field passing more readily though it. The aim of all this is to suspend the object within the magnetic field by positioning strong magnets in appropriate positions to balance it and keep it levitated using the magnetic forces of attraction or repulsion. ie as in the scene in the movie Avatar with the little sample of the so called "Unobtainium" floating above a display base.

Your third point only confirms what I said before, the given thinking at the time I read about lasers, (a long time ago) stated that Laser light doesn't exist in nature, (which it still doesn't as far as I know, at least not naturally on Earth,). But mankind's evolving science still managed to create it and put it to use. Many decades later we now discover it does exist in other parts of the galaxy as we now have better equipment and knowledge to observe deeper into space and to understand what it is we are observing.

So what is taken as fact now may be disproved at sometime in the future, Our entire technology has constantly had revised from year to year. So saying that an over unity or perpetual machine is not possible because of this or other theory should not stop people from experimenting. Theories and facts keep getting changed.
I just like to keep an open mind and I wouldn't put anyone down just because they are trying to do it. Because I don't have the secrets of the universe locked in my head I cannot say it is, or isn't possible to create such a device but I think people should keep trying. So I don't feel bad that I don't have that knowledge.

So therefore, by someone thinking it can, may not mean it is possible, as well as thinking that it can't be done doesn't mean that it isn't possible. Nothing is guaranteed and only time will tell.

Motors have developed over time, early plane motors were developed from piston driven engines driving a propeller, then turbo prop engine- a turbine driving a Prop. and then the jet engine with no external prop. If you had said to an aircraft engineer at the time they first made a aircraft motor, that you wanted an engine with no propeller and developed 25000 lb thrust, they would have said you're nuts, and if you had said that you wanted one to do Mach 12 and have no moving parts they would have called the funny van. But here we are, decades later working on scram and ram jets doing just that.

Electrical motors may have some technological hurdles that needs to be overcome to achieve perpetual motion. So maybe if we devote more time and effort to develop a PM motor it just might happen, it may be something simple that nobody has thought of before ie; the Scram jet, no major moving parts and Mach 12 speed, scientifically sound in theory but a few hurdles to overcome first, so our technology will still need to improve a bit to get it to manufacturing stage, but it will go nowhere without experimentation :) Ramjets have been made and work just fine.

By the way, just because I may not know as much on your particular topic in depth in paragraph 2 doesn't invalidate my reasoning or ideas. You are jumping to conclusions without all the facts. My not knowing possibly as much about your field of interest does not prove that I have no other knowledge pertaining to this subject, and therefore also by your reasoning I am not knowledgeable enough to make an informed opinion on this particular subject (PM motors). Wrong on all counts! :) For your info, I started studying lasers when I was 10 and magnetics when I was about 13 years old and that was 43 years ago.

A.K. Boomer
07-21-2010, 11:55 AM
There is no need to know "everything" to place limits on what is possible. All we need to know is where some limits are, not all of them. Not knowing something does not invalidate what we do know.

Yeah but if your missing links your missing links, Not knowing something sometimes can invalidate what we do know, esp. if its a critical link - and how would you know about it being critical if you don't know about it?




The fact that we do not know how to alter gravity does not imply that it can be done.

Agreed -- but it also does not imply that it can't be done either - maybe for the moment, but we are mere hillbillies compared to a hundred or thousand years from now - if you think weve taken it as far as we can take it then that's where your thinking is flawed and in fact this part of the equation does not end with just gravity manipulation but just about anything else you can possibly think of - not to bring up the God thing again - but your trying to disprove something that you cannot possibly do, you see - just like God it can't be disproved - but there is the possibility that it can be proved,

Your statement has to hold water for eternity --- that's a pretty long time,

If you claim you know what's going to be going on even 100,000 years from now (if we survive) then congrats as you see about 1,000 times further then the most intelligent science/tech. predictors of our time, your really somebody special:rolleyes: ---


We know enough from our attempts to characterise it that it is most likely that it cannot be done.

at this moment


There is no reason at all to think otherwise.

Ohhh yes there is --- its called time...


You don't need to know much about gravity to confidently predict that nobody will ever be able to high jump 50 feet using only unaided muscle power.




On what planet? ----------------- :D

Evan
07-21-2010, 12:19 PM
Your statement has to hold water for eternity --- that's a pretty long time,


No it doesn't. What we know now has passed a huge number of validity checks. Making comparisons to the early ages of scientific investigation is invalid as we did not have any sort of refined understanding of how to investigate scientific matters. Thomas Edison is the exemplar in that domain.


Yeah but if your missing links your missing links,

What is missing is constrained by what we already know. There is exactly zero chance that we will discover something that will invalidate all we know now. You might as well give up science entirely if you believe that. Of course, many have done just that. :rolleyes:


On what planet?

Any planet. Unaided also means no space suit. A planet with low enough gravity to allow such a jump will have no atmosphere. :D

dp
07-21-2010, 12:38 PM
Hi Evan, I disagree with your point in paragraph 1, that the items I listed are not related to the subject at hand. The point I was making was just because we haven't been able to make something up to now with the knowledge and science that we have, doesn't mean it wont be possible at some later stage when we acquire more knowledge and understanding even if our current science and knowledge says it can't be done or won't work.

Being wrong once is generally wrong enough. It doesn't help to be wrong twice, and a third go could make people think you've discovered the perpetual Wrong machine.

As pointed out there is no relationship between your examples - which were actually perceptions of phenomenon and not properties of physical processes - and perpetual motion. It is impossible in our physical realm not because we don't know how, but because the physics don't allow for it.

enginuity
07-21-2010, 12:45 PM
The problem with perpetual motion is that it is a false goal. If you are only focused on developing a perpetual motion machine I doubt very seriously you will discover anything of useful value because perpetual motion is such a false goal.

People like the Wright Brothers, Newcomen, Stirling, Frank Whittle, and Robert Goddard all were develop ideas that worked within the physics framework. They were all very "crackpot" ideas at the time they developed them, but they all worked within the constraints that we live in.

Similarly Einstein and his theory of relativity brought us into the Nuclear age, but he worked within the constraints that we live in.

Perpetual motion IS a crackpot idea. True nuclear fusion is not. People who work on perpetual motion machines unfortunately usually are completely ignorant and think they can develop something that works outside of laws that constrain our universe.

Instead of working on perpetual motion, read some beginners physics books. Then take a methodical approach to solving a problem. Ignore what the nay sayers say. But do it with an educated, practical viewpoint.

That's what the Wright Brothers did. That's what Goddard did. That's what Burt Rutan does today. People will always criticize good engineers as crackpots.

Don't forget that Perpetual motion is not obtainable, but there are many other problems worth working on.

Evan
07-21-2010, 01:03 PM
Motors have developed over time, early plane motors were developed from piston driven engines driving a propeller, then turbo prop engine- a turbine driving a Prop. and then the jet engine with no external prop. If you had said to an aircraft engineer at the time they first made a aircraft motor, that you wanted an engine with no propeller and developed 25000 lb thrust, they would have said you're nuts, and if you had said that you wanted one to do Mach 12 and have no moving parts they would have called the funny van. But here we are, decades later working on scram and ram jets doing just that.



Funny thing about engines, we still predominantly use the original Otto cycle engine as developed over 100 years ago. We haven't yet discovered anything that is better in all respects as a prime mover for automobiles. Sure it is a refined version but the principle remains the same.

As for jet engines, I don't think Hero would have been the least bit surprised, amazed yes, but not surprised. He
lived over 2000 years ago in Alexandria.

http://www.sussexsteam.co.uk/HeroMovie1.wmv

lazlo
07-21-2010, 01:11 PM
But unless we continue to experiment on these ideas then we will never know if we can or not, but we shouldn't give up just because the general consensus or current knowledge is against it.

Maxwell's Relations mathematically derive/define the Laws of Thermodynamics as classical and quantum mechanics at the atomic level. It's not conjecture, or consensus, anymore than Einstein mathematically derived the equivalence of mass and energy.


Electrical motors may have some technological hurdles that needs to be overcome to achieve perpetual motion.

The biggest hurdle electrical motors have to overcome to achieve perpetual motion is reality :)

Evan
07-21-2010, 01:14 PM
The speed of light in a vacuum also falls directly out of Maxwell's equations as a function of the permittivity of a vacuum.

Arcane
07-21-2010, 01:22 PM
It's good to know that regardless of how much new information is discovered about the world around us, that no one will ever be able to discover an application of that knowledge that will give mankind the ability to do something that has never been done before.

Todd Tolhurst
07-21-2010, 01:31 PM
It's good to know that regardless of how much new information is discovered about the world around us, that no one will ever be able to discover an application of that knowledge that will give mankind the ability to do something that has never been done before.

That's a dishonest misrepresentation of what has been said. Why bother saying such a thing?

wb2vsj
07-21-2010, 01:57 PM
Slightly - OT A group of MIT engineering students took to task the "Tin Foil Hat" myth and actually showed that it did the opposite of that the kooks wanted it to do.

Good and entertaining reading here:

http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/

Arcane
07-21-2010, 02:00 PM
That's a dishonest misrepresentation of what has been said. Why bother saying such a thing?


Let me rewrite that with a little more clarity, just for you, Todd.

It's good to know that regardless of how much new information is discovered about the world around us, that no one will ever be able to discover an application of that knowledge that will give mankind the ability to do something that has never been done before.

Todd Tolhurst
07-21-2010, 02:09 PM
The sarcasm was drippingly obvious. I fail to see how that adds any weight to the comment.

A.K. Boomer
07-21-2010, 06:12 PM
Any planet. Unaided also means no space suit. A planet with low enough gravity to allow such a jump will have no atmosphere. :D


Didn't know we couldn't wear spacesuits - guess I forgot to read the fine print :rolleyes: - Ok - how bout planet earth -- oh maybe around 3/4 way down to the center with an insulated ceramic tube to jump inside of:D --- Now what? we can't use ceramic tubes???:rolleyes:

Deja Vu
07-21-2010, 06:17 PM
Didn't know we couldn't wear spacesuits - guess I forgot to read the fine print :rolleyes: - Ok - how bout planet earth -- oh maybe around 3/4 way down to the center with an insulated ceramic tube to jump inside of:D --- Now what? we can't use ceramic tubes???:rolleyes:

I think you could use another toke from your bong, there, Boomer.
Keep that imagination active! :D

A.K. Boomer
07-21-2010, 08:11 PM
What is missing is constrained by what we already know. There is exactly zero chance that we will discover something that will invalidate all we know now. You might as well give up science entirely if you believe that. Of course, many have done just that. :rolleyes:




Gawd,,, If you stop to think about it for a second - I bet you that's exactly what they said,,, You know - the old ghosts from the past that thought the world was not only shaped like a pancake but so much of an important pancake (perhaps blueberry?) that everything else revolved around it.

Perspective is my "Bong" deja, and it contains the magic smoke of reality...;)

The Artful Bodger
07-21-2010, 08:39 PM
Perpetual motion is so far away from us that we cannot even conceive how it might be obtained, but on the other hand there is plenty of scope for tapping into the various 'free' energy sources that nature has been kind enough to provide for us.

Wind and water power are long established methods of harnessing the energy of nature and I believe there is plenty of scope for further development in both, tidal too.

In most places the atmosphere has a considerable gradient in static electricity voltage which could conceivably be tapped for power although probably at only miniscule levels in any practical system.

Solar radiation, which drives the atmosphere and hence wind and water power, can be more directly utilised via photo voltaic cells and there is still plenty of scope for advances there.

And so on, the list of potential alternatives to burning fossil fuels is considerable.

Evan
07-21-2010, 09:12 PM
There is really only one source of energy on this planet and it is solar power. It powers the weather and the rain, this causes rivers to run. It feeds the plants that were laid down millions of years ago and crushed into coal, oil and gases. It makes the wind blow and of course the radiant energy can be captured directly or turned into electricity.

Tides are also a result of the gravity of the Sun and the Moon. This planet and all the rest are the product of the death of an earlier generation of stars. The first generation of stars had no planets as there were no heavy elements until they were made by fusion in those stars. However, the heaviest element a star can make while it is undergoing the main sequence of stellar eveolution is iron.

The radioactive elements on this planet are a form of solar power as all of them were made by supernovas as dying suns exploded. Not only is the uranium and other fissionable material on the surface made of star stuff but the heat of the Earth's mantle and core is almost entirely generated by radioactive decay so even geothermal power is solar power only one step removed.

airsmith282
07-21-2010, 09:19 PM
There is really only one source of energy on this planet and it is solar power. It powers the weather and the rain, this causes rivers to run. It feeds the plants that were laid down millions of years ago and crushed into coal, oil and gases. It makes the wind blow and of course the radiant energy can be captured directly or turned into electricity.

Tides are also a result of the gravity of the Sun and the Moon. This planet and all the rest are the product of the death of an earlier generation of stars. The first generation of stars had no planets as there were no heavy elements until they were made by fusion in those stars. However, the heaviest element a star can make while it is undergoing the main sequence of stellar eveolution is iron.

The radioactive elements on this planet are a form of solar power as all of them were made by supernovas as dying suns exploded. Not only is the uranium and other fissionable material on the surface made of star stuff but the heat of the Earth's mantle and core is almost entirely generated by radioactive decay so even geothermal power is solar power only one step removed.


so are we to asume you belive in the big bang theroy, or are you and eveloutionest, aka the ape theory..

Deja Vu
07-21-2010, 09:23 PM
Well, Ev, in that case, in order to achieve PM we'll have to figure out how to stoke the fire(so to speak) using the seemingly unlimited resourcesof the universe....and then "jump" universes before our existing one deteriorates. :D

We'll just use our future generations to perpetually keep the system going....

Todd Tolhurst
07-21-2010, 09:33 PM
so are we to asume you belive in the big bang theroy, or are you and eveloutionest, aka the ape theory..
The two have very little to do with each other. The Big Bang is a theory of the origin of the universe. Evolution is a theory of, as Darwin put it, the origin of species.

Of course, both are the standard theories in their fields, having been repeatedly supported by observation and experiment, and making testable predictions.

dp
07-21-2010, 09:33 PM
Solar radiation, which drives the atmosphere and hence wind and water power, can be more directly utilised via photo voltaic cells and there is still plenty of scope for advances there.

And so on, the list of potential alternatives to burning fossil fuels is considerable.

Indeed there is - it's called night sky radiation, and it is the largest waste of energy on the planet. Every bit of energy we receive from the sun that is not used for maintaining our global temperature and which is not sequestered into plants and other earth processes is radiated back out into space as if it had no value.

That can be exploited.

rotate
07-21-2010, 09:45 PM
so are we to asume you belive in the big bang theroy, or are you and eveloutionest, aka the ape theory..

Please tell us that you're just being a troll.

The Artful Bodger
07-21-2010, 10:52 PM
Indeed there is - it's called night sky radiation, and it is the largest waste of energy on the planet. Every bit of energy we receive from the sun that is not used for maintaining our global temperature and which is not sequestered into plants and other earth processes is radiated back out into space as if it had no value.

That can be exploited.

Would that increase the nett energy absorbed from the sun and tend to increase the temperature of the earth?

Bill736
07-21-2010, 10:58 PM
While propane does provide perfect atomization, Bill, it also has a very low BTU rating, compared to gasoline. So, even with perfect mixing, you, in effect, have almost nothing to burn.

Hydrogen would atomize quite well and mix beautifully. Of course, hydrogen has about 13 times the energy of gasoline, per cubic foot of vapor.
Too bad it's highly explosive...Playing with it would be fun.

Note that I said " fuel efficiency", and not simply miles per gallon. The density and heating value of the fuels must certainly be considered before arriving at an efficiency comparison between any two carburetors using different fuels.
Propane powered cars are remarkably consistent in performance, and we used to keep one in our laboratory solely as a means of running a quick calibration check on our dynamometer equipment for exhaust emissions and fuel economy calculations. We also ran some test engines on hydrogen, and it may yet become a popular fuel choice for automobiles , although the earlier enthusiasm for hydrogen seems to have leveled off.

Evan
07-21-2010, 11:54 PM
so are we to asume you belive in the big bang theroy, or are you and eveloutionest, aka the ape theory..

The Big Bang is the only hypothesis that fits the available evidence reasonably well. There are no actual theories of how the Universe began since we cannot make objective tests to simulate the actual moment it came into being. That information is not preserved in the visible record as it is beyond our event horizon due to the inflationary period of the expansion of the very early Universe. Also, prior to the decoupling of energy and matter there is no available mechanism that would reveal itself billions of years later as a clue to the nature of the first moment.

What is the "ape theory"? We are not decended from apes, the theory of evolution has never proposed that.

Todd Tolhurst
07-21-2010, 11:55 PM
Indeed, we are apes.

Ed.
07-22-2010, 12:02 AM
Being wrong once is generally wrong enough. It doesn't help to be wrong twice, and a third go could make people think you've discovered the perpetual Wrong machine.

As pointed out there is no relationship between your examples - which were actually perceptions of phenomenon and not properties of physical processes - and perpetual motion. It is impossible in our physical realm not because we don't know how, but because the physics don't allow for it.

Being wrong once is generally wrong enough. It doesn't help to be wrong twice, and a third go could make people think you've discovered the perpetual Wrong machine.

As pointed out there is no relationship between your examples - which were actually perceptions of phenomenon and not properties of physical processes - and perpetual motion. It is impossible in our physical realm not because we don't know how, but because the physics don't allow for it.

I do not consider myself wrong and I think that you misunderstood the point I was making. I have formed my views on this subject based on the knowledge I have and nothing I have read to this point in time has changed them. In the future that may change but today there are as they are.
I listed those examples to highlight the fact that the current understanding of those times stated that these things could not be done, this was based on peoples understanding of science based on the physical scientific laws of the time. Anyone who tried to differ was ridiculed or ostracized. Only to have these laws proved wrong or modified at a later time. This is exactly the same situation we have now as being stated on this thread. That something cannot be done because our understanding of science and it's physical laws state that it is impossible, and anyone attempting it should be ridiculed for trying. Now if you don't understand this point I am making, then please reread this paragraph.

Also, in case you didn't read my previous posts in their entirety,

No, I do not have a PM motor in my garage and No, I am not working on one either. I have an open mind on this subject and if someone wants to try this then it's their time, effort and recourses, so good luck to them. If nothing else they will learn something new in the process.

You stated in your second paragraph that my examples were "actually perceptions of phenomenon and not properties of physical processes". I listed references to the development of aircraft engines. The development of these motors was actually based on physical scientific laws at the time and not perceptions, and those laws were changed and modified by our increasing understanding of science and engineering, and this came about because people tried to improve engines and "think outside of the square." If they stopped every time someone ridiculed them then this world would be vastly different. Now if you still don't understand the point I am making, then again, please reread my first paragraph in this posting.

Whether or not we actually achieve over unity I don't know, what I do know is that if we don't try then I know we won't. We may not achieve pure over unity but at least if we keep trying we may succeed in producing a vastly improved and more efficient motor, which in my mind is a good thing. So again I say to anyone contemplating this, "Go for it." As a general rule in any given situation, if nothing changes then it will usually stay the same.

If anyone doesn't agree with my views on the posts I made then that is fine, you are entitled to your views and express them as much as I am. This is just my 2 cents worth. So if what I wrote offends you or you heartily disagree with everything I said, then simple, just don't read or respond to my posts, after all this is a forum. Have a nice day!

Evan
07-22-2010, 12:12 AM
We also ran some test engines on hydrogen, and it may yet become a popular fuel choice for automobiles , although the earlier enthusiasm for hydrogen seems to have leveled off.


For good reason too. There is NO PRACTICAL WAY to carry enough hydrogen to power a compact automobile for more than a couple of hundred kilometres or so. It will not fit, period. Using liquid hydrogen, the densest form, requires a "gas tank" four times larger than using gasoline. If you have a compact car that carries 40 litres of gasoline in a cheap blow molded polyethylene tank you will need a very expensive cryogenically insulated tank that holds 160 litres to equal the range of gasoline, and it will still be empty if you park it for a week.

Another not so minor item is that if you run out of fuel you will have to be towed to a fueling station. No other reasonable alternative exists.

If we assume that half the range is an acceptable compromise then we double the number of filling stations required to drive places since everyone will be filling up twice as often.

But it becomes much worse. To deliver the same energy equivalent of hydrogen to the fueling stations will require 4 times as many trips by delivery vehicles to twice as many stations. Pipelines will need triple the existing capacity to deliver enough H2.

The well to wheel efficiency of H2 powered internal combustion engines (ICE) is around -300 percent assuming methane as the fuel source. Even using fuel cells it is still -100% meaning that for every kilogram of H2 used to make the wheels turn another kilogram was used up. If the same amount of methane is used to generate electricity to charge batteries in an electric vehicle the efficiency is around +50%.

Todd Tolhurst
07-22-2010, 12:16 AM
Yes, hydrogen is the perfect dream fuel, except for its numerous gotchas that render it an engineering nightmare. There is a reason liquid hydrocarbons have been supreme for over a century: there is simply nothing better. At least not yet.

Evan
07-22-2010, 12:20 AM
Indeed, we are apes.

There is only about a 2 percent difference between the DNA of a chimp and our own.

My point of course is that we and the great apes are decended from a common progenitor that was neither human or ape. The branch was a long time ago with hairy apes taking one path and the relatively hairless naked ape another.

However, I sometimes meet people that are living proof that Neaderthal and Cro Magnon were able to interbreed.

dp
07-22-2010, 12:24 AM
However, I sometimes meet people that are living proof that Neaderthal and Cro Magnon were able to interbreed.


It may not be impossible :)

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1987568,00.html

Todd Tolhurst
07-22-2010, 12:30 AM
This is just a semantic matter, of course. The term "ape", as used in casual conversion, means non-human apes; we exclude ourselves from the category. From a biological perspective, we are undeniably apes. I use the word in the technical sense.

You are correct, of course, that our common ancestor with the (other) modern apes was neither human nor a modern ape. Many people mischaracterize evolution as claiming that "humans are descended from monkeys", which, in addition to completely confusing monkeys with apes, misses the point that the (other) modern apes are not our great-great-great-grandparents, but our cousins.

Ed.
07-22-2010, 12:30 AM
There is only about a 2 percent difference between the DNA of a chimp and our own.


So the question we have to ask is, did we end up with the better deal?? :D

lazlo
07-22-2010, 12:31 AM
However, I sometimes meet people that are living proof that Neaderthal and Cro Magnon were able to interbreed.It may not be impossible :)

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1987568,00.html

I know some of those guys :)

dp
07-22-2010, 12:33 AM
So the question we have to ask is, did we end up with the better deal?? :D

Somebody somewhere got screwed on the deal.

Todd Tolhurst
07-22-2010, 12:36 AM
So the question we have to ask is, did we end up with the better deal?? :D

It might be too early to tell. Planet of the Apes, anyone? :eek:

Ed.
07-22-2010, 12:45 AM
I know some of those guys :)

Me too. I wake up every morning, go to the bathroom and there is this old, slouching, hairy thing looking back at me from the mirror with a glazed look in the eyes :D

lazlo
07-22-2010, 12:53 AM
You are correct, of course, that our common ancestor with the (other) modern apes was neither human nor a modern ape.

The great apes split off from our sub-family (Homininae) about 8 million years ago. Chimps and humans shared the same tribe (Hominini) until about 4 million years ago.

So 98.4% of our DNA is common with a Chimpanzee, but to put that in perspective, all mammals have 90% of their DNA in common, and we have 70% of the same DNA as a slug (more so for politicians), and 60% of the same DNA as a banana. Basically, all life shares a common infrastructure.

Ed.
07-22-2010, 01:11 AM
The great apes split off from our sub-family (Homininae) about 8 million years ago. Chimps and humans shared the same tribe (Hominini) until about 4 million years ago.

So 98.4% of our DNA is common with a Chimpanzee, but to put that in perspective, all mammals have 90% of their DNA in common, and we have 70% of the same DNA as a slug (more so for politicians), and 60% of the same DNA as a banana. Basically, all life shares a common infrastructure.

Are you sure about the politician part, I thought that they were in a category of their own, somewhere between rock slime and mould. Animated ooze perhaps? :D or maybe next to leaches, 'cause they suck the life out of everyone with their policies. oops. sorry I was confusing them with bankers and stock brokers.

gnm109
07-22-2010, 09:50 AM
The great apes split off from our sub-family (Homininae) about 8 million years ago. Chimps and humans shared the same tribe (Hominini) until about 4 million years ago.

So 98.4% of our DNA is common with a Chimpanzee, but to put that in perspective, all mammals have 90% of their DNA in common, and we have 70% of the same DNA as a slug (more so for politicians), and 60% of the same DNA as a banana. Basically, all life shares a common infrastructure.


You never met my last boss before I became self-employed. He was nearly 100% Chimpanzee.

Evan
07-22-2010, 10:02 AM
You never met my last boss before I became self-employed. He was nearly 100% Chimpanzee.

I have seen plenty of guys like this.

http://ixian.ca/pics7/neander.jpg

gnm109
07-22-2010, 10:04 AM
I have seen plenty of guys like this.

http://ixian.ca/pics7/neander.jpg


Good heavens. Where did you get that picture! That's him! :D

A.K. Boomer
07-22-2010, 10:08 AM
Come on, you give that guy a clean shave and dress him up in an armani and he would blend right in with the rest of the crowd:p

He actually looks a little like Albert E. if you ask me...

ikdor
07-22-2010, 10:14 AM
So 98.4% of our DNA is common with a Chimpanzee, but to put that in perspective, all mammals have 90% of their DNA in common, and we have 70% of the same DNA as a slug (more so for politicians), and 60% of the same DNA as a banana. Basically, all life shares a common infrastructure.

Hmm, that is quite a feat for the banana to encode 60% of 3 billion base pairs in only 600 million ones :rolleyes:

Igor

saltmine
07-22-2010, 10:15 AM
"It's real! A real chimney-pansy!"


"That's no chimp, you chump, that's a gorilla!

Evan
07-22-2010, 10:29 AM
Hmm, that is quite a feat for the banana to encode 60% of 3 billion base pairs in only 600 million ones

Not if 60% of the banana is the same as ours.

Mad Scientist
07-23-2010, 11:57 PM
OK so we have proven that perpetual motion is impossible, at least as far as we know. So along a somewhat similar line would anyone care to describe how the great pyramid was built?

saltmine
07-23-2010, 11:59 PM
It was a kit.

gnm109
07-24-2010, 12:00 AM
OK so we have proven that perpetual motion is impossible, at least as far as we know. So along a somewhat similar line would anyone care to describe how the great pyramid was built?


I could tell you but I'd have to.....ahh....never mind. :D

Evan
07-24-2010, 01:19 AM
It was a publics works project to keep employment up. There is nothing particularly difficult about it's construction. It's just not something we see done today. Instead of 5 to 10 thousand workers we use a few hundred and big machines. The Egyptians knew about levers and winches, they used simple winches on their sailing vessels. They also had a limited supply of tool steel recovered from nickel-chromium-iron meteorites.

Video Man
07-24-2010, 01:54 AM
It needs to be based on the vacuum flask.
there are a lot of unanswered questions there, it keeps cold things cold and hot things hot, but how does it know ?? ..
It doesn't "know", the vacuum prevents heat transfer from the hotter side to the colder, whichever side of the flask that may be...basic thermodynamics....:eek:

dp
07-24-2010, 02:23 AM
It doesn't "know", the vacuum prevents heat transfer from the hotter side to the colder, whichever side of the flask that may be...basic thermodynamics....:eek:

Dr. Spencer explains it with pictures: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/

A.K. Boomer
07-24-2010, 07:35 AM
It doesn't "know", the vacuum prevents heat transfer from the hotter side to the colder, whichever side of the flask that may be...basic thermodynamics....:eek:



Usually when a British sense of humor flies over someone's head there's a few tentacles that catch --- but nothing? really??? :eek:

Your Old Dog
07-24-2010, 08:02 AM
I hope Lucas Electric isn't involved. If they are, they will be crashing into everything and littering the roadsides.

Hey hey! Don't knock Lucas. They made the best headlights (Lucas Flamethrowers) I ever had for a vehicle. Totally awesome :D

Evan
07-24-2010, 08:20 AM
Lucas flamethrowers were legendary and still are. Illegal in California even back then as they were basically aircraft landing lights.

lazlo
07-24-2010, 09:17 AM
OK so we have proven that perpetual motion is impossible
So along a somewhat similar line would anyone care to describe how the great pyramid was built?

Aliens, of course.


Or maybe it was just a lot of friggin slaves. ;)

airsmith282
07-24-2010, 09:25 AM
It was a publics works project to keep employment up. There is nothing particularly difficult about it's construction. It's just not something we see done today. Instead of 5 to 10 thousand workers we use a few hundred and big machines. The Egyptians knew about levers and winches, they used simple winches on their sailing vessels. They also had a limited supply of tool steel recovered from nickel-chromium-iron meteorites.

no ne acutually knows how they were built,even eqyptians of today have no idea how they were built, can you tell us how it is we have pymirds in many other places over the world and who built them cause no other human on earth knows that one either,not to mention they are all the same distance apart from not only each other but also with stone henge as well as some carving looking deal on a mountian and so on , the pyamids are a mystery just as the ancient eqyptians are as well, you would think that the knowledge would have been passed down over the years but it never was..

there is alot of spectulation on how they were built but there is no one that can really tell us how, also how the stones where shaped and moved and so on , you ever been to eqypt and seen how tall some of thoes things are no way in hell any amount of men can lift or move thoes stones that high up with out some sort of cranes or something, and wood aint that stronge..

they were the most advance in building some how but its long forgotten...

loose nut
07-24-2010, 09:27 AM
They weren't slaves, they where "citizens" that had to do compulsorily work for the Pharaohs and were paid (food and Speedos etc) for it. After awhile their jobs got outsourced to the Israelite's

Everything went OK until they tried to unionize and then where chased into the desert and got lost for 40 years.

gary350
07-24-2010, 09:44 AM
I have never believed in perpetual motion machinest but I know a man that built one that actully works. I had to see it for my self to believe it.

Here is how it work. Tie a string to a brick and put the center hole of the brick on a broom handle. Hold the broom handle parallel to the ground buy holding the other end of the broom handle with your hand. The weight of the brick makes it impossible to hold it there by hand but if you pull the brick up to your hand with the string now you can hold the broom handle parallel to the ground with no problem at all. If you put 2 broom handles end to end attached to a rotating shaft with a brick at the tip of the left handle and a brick at the center of the right handle the weight of the brick on the left handle will pull the handle down and make the shaft turn. If you put several broom handles on the drive shaft and pull the bricks back and forth at the correct time there is always a brick at the tip of 1 broom handle while all the other bricks are at the center or moving toward or away from the center. The weight of that 1 brick at the tip end keeps the shaft turing.

OK so this guy built a machine that looks like spokes of a big wheel. He has a weight on each spoke with a ball bushing on each weight so it slides very easy on the shaft. He has a device that will pull each weight from the end of the shaft to the center then push it back to the end at the correct time. All this is mounted on a drive shaft so the spokes can rotate like a wheel. The main drive shaft turns a generator that powers the motor that rotates the wheel and moved the weights. You have to give this device a spin by hand to get it going once the generator starts producing enough electricity to keep itself turning and the weights moving it runs on its own. A perpetual motion machine is a do nothing machine.

lazlo
07-24-2010, 09:56 AM
They weren't slaves, they where "citizens" that had to do compulsorily work for the Pharaohs and were paid (food and Speedos etc) for it.

That's a recent theory. I watched the Nat Geo documentary about it. But even if it's true, I think it's hair splitting to differentiate between conscription and slaves to build the pyramids.


After awhile their jobs got outsourced to the Israelite's

According to the Old Testament, the Jews were slaves in Egypt.

Todd Tolhurst
07-24-2010, 10:08 AM
According to the Old Testament, the Jews were slaves in Egypt.

The Old Testament is poor history.

According to the Old Testament, God created the creatures of the deep on the fifth day, and the animals of the land on the sixth day. before creating man. (Genesis 1:21 - 1:31).

But also according to the Old Testament, God created man first (Genesis 2:7) and then created all the animals afterward to keep man company and have man name them (Genesis 2:19).

gnm109
07-24-2010, 10:11 AM
Hey hey! Don't knock Lucas. They made the best headlights (Lucas Flamethrowers) I ever had for a vehicle. Totally awesome :D


I remember the Lucas electricals on my old Matchless motorcycle. They were as bright as the sun....and when the motor dropped to an idle, the sun would set. :D

Evan
07-24-2010, 10:25 AM
That's a recent theory. I watched the Nat Geo documentary about it. But even if it's true, I think it's hair splitting to differentiate between conscription and slaves to build the pyramids.


There has been a lot of new evidence come to light in recent times that points to more of a public works project than anything else. The climate at that time was a lot more benevolent than it is now and it did not take many farmers and fisherman to support the population. Consequently there were a lot of people with time on their hands and a major project was a good way to keep them busy and the money circulating. There were undoubtedly conscripts involved, probably quite a few that were sentenced to a period of community service for minor offences. There were probably also slaves as it was routine to take oppenents in warfare and keep them as slaves. Most likely was that the majority of the workers were volunteers much the same as volunteering for military service, especially if it provided an exemption from the military.

They have found actual records of the names of competing construction teams that tried to outdo each other in whatever task they were assigned. The kitchens and other service areas have also been excavated and it appears they were well fed. The size of the workforce can be estimated by the size of the support facilities and it seems to have been in the thousands, not tens of thousands.

lazlo
07-24-2010, 10:37 AM
There has been a lot of new evidence come to light in recent times that points to more of a public works project than anything else.

According to the Nat Geo documentary, the new theory is that each family in Egypt was required to send one male to work on the pyramids. The conditions were appalling, and their payment was food, and a primitive barracks to sleep at the site. Judging by the size of the graves near the work camps, worker fatality was very high.

The reason the work teams were competing was because they would get more food.

Herodotus, the famous Ancient Greek historian, reported that 100,000 men built the Great Pyramid. National Geographic reports that some modern Egyptologists estimate as low as 30,000, depending on productivity estimates: the blocks weigh 1 1/2 tons each, and it takes 25 men to pull such a block up a ramp by brute force, less depending on how sophisticated they were with their rigging gear/efforts.

The Egyptian records recovered from that time indicate that the workforce was composed of "Crews" -- each of which had 2,000 men. Each crew had two "gangs", each gang had 5 "Zaa" (200 men each). Herodotus translated "Zaa" as "phyloi" meaning tribe or brotherhood.

In any event, the pyramids, the Parthenon et al are great examples of what you can get done with a bunch of highly motivated laborers, and no TV or Internet. No perpetual motion required :)

gnm109
07-24-2010, 10:39 AM
As this thread sort of winds along, I'm moved to comment that I agree wtih those who say that perpetual motion is impossible.

Having said that, I do however know that perpetual inactivity is not only possible, it's often achieved in industry. My old boss, for example could sit in his chair and never move som much as a muscle for the three hours a day he usually blessed us with his presence in the office. I presume that he was able to do this even when not observed. :)

ADGO_Racing
07-24-2010, 11:28 AM
For good reason too. There is NO PRACTICAL WAY to carry enough hydrogen to power a compact automobile for more than a couple of hundred kilometres or so. It will not fit, period. Using liquid hydrogen, the densest form, requires a "gas tank" four times larger than using gasoline. If you have a compact car that carries 40 litres of gasoline in a cheap blow molded polyethylene tank you will need a very expensive cryogenically insulated tank that holds 160 litres to equal the range of gasoline, and it will still be empty if you park it for a week.

Another not so minor item is that if you run out of fuel you will have to be towed to a fueling station. No other reasonable alternative exists.

If we assume that half the range is an acceptable compromise then we double the number of filling stations required to drive places since everyone will be filling up twice as often.

But it becomes much worse. To deliver the same energy equivalent of hydrogen to the fueling stations will require 4 times as many trips by delivery vehicles to twice as many stations. Pipelines will need triple the existing capacity to deliver enough H2.

The well to wheel efficiency of H2 powered internal combustion engines (ICE) is around -300 percent assuming methane as the fuel source. Even using fuel cells it is still -100% meaning that for every kilogram of H2 used to make the wheels turn another kilogram was used up. If the same amount of methane is used to generate electricity to charge batteries in an electric vehicle the efficiency is around +50%.


The best way to use hydrogen is as a compound. Such as anhydrous ammonia (NH3) it is already a mass produced chemical compound, and the distribution network is already in place.

http://www.enginebuildermag.com/Article/1488/engintel_does_hydrogen_offer_green_energy_opportun ities_to_keep_ic_engine_alive.aspx

dp
07-24-2010, 12:46 PM
In any event, the pyramids, the Parthenon et al are great examples of what you can get done with a bunch of highly motivated laborers, and no TV or Internet. No perpetual motion required :)

Sounds like your typical union shop.

dp
07-24-2010, 01:06 PM
The best way to use hydrogen is as a compound. Such as anhydrous ammonia (NH3) it is already a mass produced chemical compound, and the distribution network is already in place.

http://www.enginebuildermag.com/Article/1488/engintel_does_hydrogen_offer_green_energy_opportun ities_to_keep_ic_engine_alive.aspx

Can you imagine all the hazmat crews that would require t clean up a car wreck in a place like Seattle where it rains all the time? A little of that goes a long way. Rescue crews would have to wait for moon suit crews to certify the NH3 tanks are secure before they could treat the injured, and nobody in their right mind would stand near the wreckage even if they heard babies crying in the wreckage. If the wreck happens in a tunnel, all bets are off.

That's just a bit too green.

Some years ago I was working on an ammonia tanker in Portland, OR, installing some electronics. It was quite late when my helper and I finished the job so we spent the night on the ship in the infirmary - with the captain's permission. The next morning we got up and made our way to the wheel house. It and the entire ship were abandoned. We walked out onto the port wing and saw moon suits cleaning up a major spill. There was NH3 frozen to the tanks, the ground, and all over the catch basin. We'd learned in the next few moments that all of that area of Portland had been evacuated, and the two of us were the only ones for miles around without moon suits. In the evacuation the crew had forgotten about us, and nobody did a nose count or walk-around. Fortunately for us the wind carried all the fumes toward the city, and where we were on the ship was well above the plume.

A smaller version of one of those in my garage below my bedroom is not on my going green schedule :)

MikeHenry
07-24-2010, 01:16 PM
We have so little understanding.............

Some of us have less than others it seems.

loose nut
07-24-2010, 01:22 PM
That's a recent theory. I watched the Nat Geo documentary about it. But even if it's true, I think it's hair splitting to differentiate between conscription and slaves to build the pyramids.


According to the Old Testament, the Jews were slaves in Egypt.


Not originally, that came later and Chinese workers are almost the same thing and jobs are outsourced to them.

I don't put much stock in what is written in the bible, thousands of years of revisionism and deliberate modification to support the Churches power base have left it a woeful history at best.

dp
07-24-2010, 01:22 PM
I remember the Lucas electricals on my old Matchless motorcycle. They were as bright as the sun....and when the motor dropped to an idle, the sun would set. :D

The three-position headlamp switch is marked "Off - Dim - Flicker" on Lucas provisioned bikes.

saltmine
07-24-2010, 03:04 PM
Joseph Lucas, "Prince of darkness".

One thing I remember is Lucas' disdain for fuses.

The other was the famous Zeiner diode, safely mounted below the headlamp on my Triumph. Sailing down the road on a warm, moonless, summer night when the nut on the stud holding the Zeiner diode to the frame worked loose.

FLASH and I suddenly was blinded, and then had no lights whatsoever. The Zeiner diode was used to soak up any excess voltage the generator produced, When the diode came loose, the bulbs became flashbulbs. Fortunately, the road was wide and straight, with no traffic.

Yes, I always carried an extra bulb in my pocket.... Ever had to change a headlamp bulb when you're seeing purple spots...in the dark?

Arcane
07-24-2010, 03:11 PM
J

FLASH and I suddenly was blinded, and then had no lights whatsoever.

You think that was bad....what about the poor guy you were just about to meet coming towards you! :D

dp
07-24-2010, 03:12 PM
Joseph Lucas, "Prince of darkness".

One thing I remember is Lucas' disdain for fuses.

I thought every switch and connector was a fuse.

That zener idea was a classic.

saltmine
07-24-2010, 05:37 PM
You're right about that DP. When I had my TR-4, I soon discovered it only had three thirty amp fuses...in the whole car.

That's when I learned the Joseph Lucas "Magic Smoke" theory of electricity.

As long as the "Magic Smoke" was inside the wires and various accessories, everything worked. If the "Magic Smoke" escaped, the part was no longer usable.

I still have a left-over 1/2 gallon jar of "OEM Lucas Electrical Smoke".


http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu155/saltmine_album/lucas.jpg See, I told you I still got it.

gnm109
07-24-2010, 05:52 PM
I had a BSA Gold Star Catalina Scrambler that used a Lucas Racing Magneto. You would have thought that a "racing magneto" would be waterproof, eh? Not this one.

I foolishly took it to a ar wash and used a high pressure soap gun to clean the bike.....after that, the magneto was DOA.

I had to disassemble it completely and put the armature in the oven for an hour at low heat. A bit of epoxy on the loose varnish here and there after the moisture was burned off and it worked again. Amazing.

Mad Scientist
07-24-2010, 08:35 PM
According to the Nat Geo documentary, the new theory is that each family in Egypt was required to send one male to work on the pyramids. The conditions were appalling, and their payment was food, and a primitive barracks to sleep at the site. Judging by the size of the graves near the work camps, worker fatality was very high.

From what I’ve read it is claimed that there were 2,500,000 stones used in the pyramids construction and these stones weighed from 2.5 tons upward. Also it is claimed that this public works project required 25 years to complete.
Ok so let’s play with these numbers.

25 times 365 give us the total number of days or 9125.

Then if we divide 2,500,000 by 9125 we get the number of stones that would need to be set in place every day or 274.

If we assume they worked a 10 hour day that means 27.4 stones per hour.

With 60 minutes in an hour that works out to approximately one stone every 2.2 minutes.

So what this tells us is that these old Egyptians went to their favorite stone quarry dug out a 2.5 ton or greater stone with copper and stone and maybe a few iron tools then dragged it to the construction site and levered it into place and all the while maintaining a average of one stone every 2.2 minutes day in and day out for 25 years....


When viewed from this perspective we can see just what a truly amazing feat this was. :eek:

oldbikerdude37
07-24-2010, 08:50 PM
From what I’ve read it is claimed that there were 2,500,000 stones used in the pyramids construction and these stones weighed from 2.5 tons upward. Also it is claimed that this public works project required 25 years to complete.
Ok so let’s play with these numbers.

25 times 365 give us the total number of days or 9125.

Then if we divide 2,500,000 by 9125 we get the number of stones that would need to be set in place every day or 274.

If we assume they worked a 10 hour day that means 27.4 stones per hour.

With 60 minutes in an hour that works out to approximately one stone every 2.2 minutes.

So what this tells us is that these old Egyptians went to their favorite stone quarry dug out a 2.5 ton or greater stone with copper and stone and maybe a few iron tools then dragged it to the construction site and levered it into place and all the while maintaining a average of one stone every 2.2 minutes day in and day out for 25 years....


When viewed from this perspective we can see just what a truly amazing feat this was. :eek:

yea and 3,000+ years later we still have no clue how they did it. just some good guesses.

lazlo
07-25-2010, 01:57 PM
there were 2,500,000 stones used in the pyramids construction and these stones weighed from 2.5 tons upward. Also it is claimed that this public works project required 25 years to complete.

So what this tells us is that these old Egyptians went to their favorite stone quarry dug out a 2.5 ton or greater stone with copper and stone and maybe a few iron tools then dragged it to the construction site and levered it into place and all the while maintaining a average of one stone every 2.2 minutes day in and day out for 25 years....

When viewed from this perspective we can see just what a truly amazing feat this was. :eek:

Cool analysis! :)

So consider Herodotus's report of 100,000 men, and modern experiments show that 25 average Egyptians (not athletic types who moved stone for a living), can move an equivalent replica stone with simple rope and wooden rollers. The distance they're moving the blocks is inversely proportional to the number of blocks moved (i.e., most of the blocks are on the base layer, very few blocks at the pinnacle), but let's assume that 25-man crew can move their block to where ever it needs to go in a 10 hour shift:

100,000 men / 25 man crews = 4,000 blocks each day, or 6 blocks laid each minute, or a block laid every 10 seconds. They'd be done in a little over a year :)

But let's factor in the modern Egyptologist estimate of 30,000 men, with 15 man professional crews using somewhat more advanced tackle to move each block. Further, the granite blocks were hewn in the Aswan quarry (the quarry camps have been discovered and mapped, and the tools recovered) and shipped by boat down the Nile, so let's figure half the 30,000 men were working on quarry and shipping operations. Let's also double the amount of time to hoist the block in place to 2 days.

So 15,000 men, with 15 man crews taking 2, 10-hour days to hoist their blocks, = 500 blocks laid per day. That works out to 2,500,000 blocks laid in 13.7 years.

In other words, you can easily see how it was done with a motivated set of laborers. For a similar feat, the main portion of the Great Wall of China was built in 9 years. Supposedly the core of the Great Wall is filled with the bodies of the workers who died building it...

CountZero
07-25-2010, 02:54 PM
Supposedly the core of the Great Wall is filled with the bodies of the workers who died building it...

What I heard was they are buried next to the wall, they wouldn't want the integrity of the wall compromised after the bodies decomposed...

jugs
07-25-2010, 07:08 PM
From what I’ve read it is claimed that there were 2,500,000 stones used in the pyramids construction and these stones weighed from 2.5 tons upward. Also it is claimed that this public works project required 25 years to complete.
Ok so let’s play with these numbers.

25 times 365 give us the total number of days or 9125.

Then if we divide 2,500,000 by 9125 we get the number of stones that would need to be set in place every day or 274.

If we assume they worked a 10 hour day that means 27.4 stones per hour.

With 60 minutes in an hour that works out to approximately one stone every 2.2 minutes.

So what this tells us is that these old Egyptians went to their favorite stone quarry dug out a 2.5 ton or greater stone with copper and stone and maybe a few iron tools then dragged it to the construction site and levered it into place and all the while maintaining a average of one stone every 2.2 minutes day in and day out for 25 years....


When viewed from this perspective we can see just what a truly amazing feat this was. :eek:

When viewed from my perspective, I can just see what truly amazing feet I have. :D

john
:)

saltmine
07-25-2010, 08:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazlo
Supposedly the core of the Great Wall is filled with the bodies of the workers who died building it...


Kinda like the Hoover Dam on the Colorado River....

Evan
07-25-2010, 10:10 PM
Of course we have a clue how they did it. Hard work using simple and well known methods is how they did it. It isn't miraculous, just awe inspiring.

What we see now does not resemble how it appeared as built. The great pyramid was faced with white marble to present a smooth unbroken exterior. It would have been absolutely unclimbable securing the importance of the Pharaoh as a god. Later, the marble was robbed for other projects, not the least of which were hundreds of smaller pyramids that served as graves for various important people in later Egyptian society.

The Artful Bodger
07-25-2010, 11:07 PM
Of course we have a clue how they did it. Hard work using simple and well known methods is how they did it. It isn't miraculous, just awe inspiring.

What we see now does not resemble how it appeared as built. The great pyramid was faced with white marble to present a smooth unbroken exterior. It would have been absolutely unclimbable securing the importance of the Pharaoh as a god. Later, the marble was robbed for other projects, not the least of which were hundreds of smaller pyramids that served as graves for various important people in later Egyptian society.

Hmmmm, not sure I can agree there Evan. The most famous of the pyramids kept its skin until about 1000ad and much of the alabaster (not marble) covering is on the hill top in the mosque of Mohammad Ali.

Evan
07-26-2010, 01:37 AM
The name Alabaster used to refer to a type of marble. There may be some confusion over what the pyramid was actually faced with. As usual, just about anything that is reported about the pyramids is subject to some suspicion as to the accuracy.

The one thing we do know is that there is nothing about the construction of the pyramids that is somehow "impossible". They exist so that is obviously not the case. Invoking various "explanations" such as help from aliens and other fantasies is just plain ridiculous. There is nothing unique about the pyramids compared to similarly difficult projects have been undertaken at widely removed locations around the world except for scale. Far larger stones have been moved by the ancients using well known methods that require no modern equipment or technology.

There are methods to easily move blocks of hundreds of tonnes using only manual methods. By laying down a series of logs like railway cross ties at the correct spacing a square block can be rolled over the logs with the corners of the block dipping between the logs and the flats rolling over the tops of the logs. The logs may even be replaced by low stone walls for long term use. When the stone is moved in this manner instead of skidding the amount of effort required is greatly reduced and the speed greatly increased.

See this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCvx5gSnfW4&feature=related

The Artful Bodger
07-26-2010, 03:44 AM
There is not much excuse for now knowing what some of the pyramids were faced with as some still have a bit of the facing intact.

Evan
07-26-2010, 07:07 AM
Perhaps not, but the confusion is real. The facing is frequently reported as being marble.



The pyramids were originally not as we know them today - they were covered by a facing, like marble or pink granite.

http://www.ancientworldegypt.com/pyramids.html

Rustybolt
07-26-2010, 08:31 AM
According to my copy of "The Secrets of the great Pyramids" they-the ones at Cheops- were faced with white limestone that had been planed absolutely smooth. I think Herodotus mentioned limestone as well.

Mad Scientist
07-26-2010, 10:18 AM
See this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCvx5gSnfW4&feature=related
That is an interesting video. It shows what one man can do with simple tools and leverage.
OK so now I would like to see what he and a whole bunch of this friends can do. I want them to take one of his large stones move it 20 miles then set it up all by hand and within 2.2 minutes.

Evan
07-26-2010, 10:43 AM
2.2 minutes is a red herring. The pyramids were built by work gangs working in parallel, not serially. 1000 gangs of men have (according to your calculations) a day and a half to do the job, each gang. They have even longer if the blocks were larger and split to smaller blocks on site.

lazlo
07-26-2010, 10:57 AM
See this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCvx5...eature=related
That is an interesting video. It shows what one man can do with simple tools and leverage.

That is a cool video! He quotes in the video that he can move a 1 1/2 ton block 300 feet/hour (by himself!). They show him moving a barn. Multiply by 30,000 men... ;)

I need to look him up next time I move machinery :)

dp
07-26-2010, 11:20 AM
That is a cool video! He quotes in the video that he can move a 1 1/2 ton block 300 feet/hour (by himself!). They show him moving a barn. Multiply by 30,000 men... ;)

I need to look him up next time I move machinery :)

I've been watching his web site for several years and it looks like his enthusiasm has waned. Or he's out of cash for buying concrete. But his solutions are amazing. Particularly the means for rolling blocks. The idea for it would be obvious to anyone who has rolled a square block in the sand. Left behind is the rough form necessary to recreate the rails from wood.

mayfieldtm
07-26-2010, 01:10 PM
I think it would be really cool project to restore and Reface one of the Pyramids.
Might give the People there something to do and be proud of instead of blowing each other up and sucking on Hashish all day.
They could get the marble from the 'Mosque of Mohammad Ali' that Artful Bodger was talking about.
What would the cost be at today's rates?
I heard recently that about the bottom 1/4 or so of the Pyramid was of a Darker Color.

Tom M.

A.K. Boomer
07-26-2010, 01:11 PM
I don't know about the pyramid thing and how many guys it took but for a one man show this guys pretty tough to beat for consistent horsepower output, he's been going ever since Iv been out here and even way before that (40+ years)

This Castle is not very far from where i live - iv watched it grow over the years to epic proportion, It really is awe inspiring...
I do worry about it structurally and definitely fear tremors when im way up there...

Jim is a total trip to talk to, very eccentric and lots of conspiracy theory's but a very nice guy also,,, Don't even get him started on the "Gubbermint"!

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06211/709125-37.stm

Mad Scientist
07-26-2010, 02:34 PM
2.2 minutes is a red herring. The pyramids were built by work gangs working in parallel, not serially. 1000 gangs of men have (according to your calculations) a day and a half to do the job, each gang. They have even longer if the blocks were larger and split to smaller blocks on site.
Well I think it should be obvious that the pyramid was not built one stone at a time. But if the time estimate to build it and the number of stones in it are correct then whatever method they used they still had to set one stone in place every 2.2 minutes. So even if they had 1000’s of groups of “X” men each, then just keep out of each others way would have been a feat in itself. It seems to me that the areas around the pyramid and the quarry would have resembled a giant “traffic jam” and not very conducive to the production rates needed.

I don’t claim to know how they did it but all the current explanations I’ve see come up short.

Evan
07-26-2010, 03:06 PM
The precise detail of the construction will never be known but the fact remains that the pyramids exist and were built by men. Details such as time frames and the numbers of workers are only guesses. Not enough remains in the archeological record to provide definitive answers. We also don't even know the exact level of technology they used and that can make a very big difference.

Placing stones at the bottom of the pyramid is the easiest and the quickest. The area and room to work is at a maximum and the lifting is at a minimum. As it grows in height the area and therefore the number of stones diminished approximately by the inverse square while the total weight to be lifted diminished by the inverse cube.

Calculating the rate at which stones must be placed as an overall average ignores the realities of the construction.