Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

perpetual motion , Overunity and free energy nuts all over the web.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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.
    Free software for calculating bolt circles and similar: Click Here

    Comment


    • Indeed, we are apes.
      Todd

      Comment


      • Originally posted by dp
        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.
        Originally posted by dp
        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!
        Last edited by Ed.; 07-22-2010, 12:21 AM.

        Comment


        • 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%.
          Free software for calculating bolt circles and similar: Click Here

          Comment


          • 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.
            Todd

            Comment


            • 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.
              Free software for calculating bolt circles and similar: Click Here

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Evan
                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/arti...987568,00.html

                Comment


                • 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.
                  Todd

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Evan
                    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??

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by dp
                      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/arti...987568,00.html
                      I know some of those guys
                      "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Ed.
                        So the question we have to ask is, did we end up with the better deal??
                        Somebody somewhere got screwed on the deal.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Ed.
                          So the question we have to ask is, did we end up with the better deal??
                          It might be too early to tell. Planet of the Apes, anyone?
                          Todd

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by lazlo
                            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
                            Last edited by Ed.; 07-22-2010, 12:50 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Todd Tolhurst
                              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.
                              "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did."

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by lazlo
                                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? 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.
                                Last edited by Ed.; 07-22-2010, 01:14 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X