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

  • The material being levitated is the diamagnet (usually).

    Observation of kinetic diamagnetism and paramagnetism in bismuth

    Magnetic levitation of diamagnetic and paramagnetic substances

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

    Comment


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

      Comment


      • 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

        Originally posted by Evan
        Observation of kinetic diamagnetism and paramagnetism in bismuth

        Magnetic levitation of diamagnetic and paramagnetic substances



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

        Comment


        • Originally posted by philbur
          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
          Todd

          Comment


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

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Evan
              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
              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.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Evan
                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 ---

                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? -----------------

                Comment


                • 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.

                  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.
                  Last edited by Evan; 07-21-2010, 01:09 PM.
                  Free software for calculating bolt circles and similar: Click Here

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Ed.
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • 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.
                      www.thecogwheel.net

                      Comment


                      • 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
                        Last edited by Evan; 07-21-2010, 01:06 PM.
                        Free software for calculating bolt circles and similar: Click Here

                        Comment


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

                          Comment


                          • The speed of light in a vacuum also falls directly out of Maxwell's equations as a function of the permittivity of a vacuum.
                            Free software for calculating bolt circles and similar: Click Here

                            Comment


                            • 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.
                              Location: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Arcane
                                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?
                                Todd

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X