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

  • 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...
    Last edited by gnm109; 07-21-2010, 11:09 AM.

    Comment


    • 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
      Last edited by The Artful Bodger; 07-21-2010, 01:59 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by airsmith282

        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....

        Comment


        • 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.

          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
          Last edited by Ed.; 07-21-2010, 07:12 AM.

          Comment


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

            Comment


            • 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.
              John M...your (un)usual basement dweller

              Comment


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

                Comment


                • Originally posted by gnm109
                  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......
                  1601

                  Keep eye on ball.
                  Hashim Khan

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Evan
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ckelloug
                      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?
                      "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 Evan
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • 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?

                          Comment


                          • But the hydrogen car is already a reality.

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

                            Phil

                            Originally posted by Evan
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mad Scientist
                              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.
                              John M...your (un)usual basement dweller

                              Comment


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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X