User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 6:54:15 AM EDT
[#1]
Mechanical Engineering magazine did an article on perpetual motion machines a number of years ago. The most ambitious one they showed was actually provided with a brake for when it started generating too much energy. Gotta admire the inventor's confidence on that one! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 7:02:54 AM EDT
[#2]
And try putting a load on it.
That's not how this works.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 9:58:30 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok, the folks harping on the supremacy of various laws of physics are making a very great fundamental error, one that assumes we operate from a position of complete knowledge. We do not. The Laws of Newtonian mechanics are a systemized picture of our understanding of the physical world at a given time. Certain parts of Newtonian Mechanics were later superceded by Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Quantum Mechanics introduced even more "laws" But we have a number of clearly evident facts that point out our understanding is STILL very incomplete, and it is even quite possible certain laws we assume are always true are only true in certain cases. For example, why is it that the amount of matter FAR exceeds the amount of antimatter? That seems to violate at least two absolute laws physicists assert to be absolutely true at all times. Regarding perpetual motion, energy from nothing or free energy, why do people ALWAYS fall back to Newton's laws, which have no mechanism to address the constant creation and annihilation of particles and antiparticles at the quantum level? Free energy could indeed be drawn from the quantum vacuum, there are laws of attraction which people can measure in a laboratory setting caused by this particle interaction at the quantum level, which could power a device. How many of our brightest minds, Einstein and others, had to fight through the entrenched institutionalized arrogance in our scientific community before they were taken seriously? Perhaps a little humility would cause us to discover many new technologies. I believe it was Lord Kelvin who said around 1900, that science had discovered everything there was to discover. There were no new things to be invented. Had he shut his arrogant mouth, he would have seen Einstein and Planck sitting in the waiting room, waiting for their appointment to change the world. Maybe because the OP showed a mechanical device? Get lost in your theories though...I'll stick with the reality of friction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 10:04:34 AM EDT
[#4]
we were house shopping one time and there was a homeowner that didn't leave for our tour of it. He decided to start talking with us about free energy.
He was so simple he hooked a car battery to a small (computer style) 12v fan. Told me it has been running for over a week and that the government forces industry to purposely drain batteries so we have to keep buying them. If we would just wire up our own stuff then batteries would last forever. I just starred at him a bit. I didn't really think I understood his thoughts correctly, but yes, he was that simple. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 10:07:06 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are two kinds of people: those who understand the first law of thermodynamics, and hippies.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Power out = (power in - losses)... There are two kinds of people: those who understand the first law of thermodynamics, and hippies. This. First law of thermodynamics. Not going to happen. And second law of thermodynamics says the things that do happen, may not happen the way your were hoping when you drew it out before testing it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 10:12:09 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cool science lab projects to play around with magnetic fields, but nothing more. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, and no free energy. I subscribe to this, but I also subscribe to the notion that we don't know everything. People used to believe that the earth was absolutely flat. That was taken as fact.....until it wasn't. Who's to say that 200 years down the road we won't find some way to get MORE energy out of something than we put in? Don't tell me it's impossible. I know it is, with the laws of physics as we know them right now. But, physics is a weird animal. We just don't know everything about how our universe works.....far from it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 10:35:53 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I subscribe to this, but I also subscribe to the notion that we don't know everything. People used to believe that the earth was absolutely flat. That was taken as fact.....until it wasn't. Who's to say that 200 years down the road we won't find some way to get MORE energy out of something than we put in? Don't tell me it's impossible. I know it is, with the laws of physics as we know them right now. But, physics is a weird animal. We just don't know everything about how our universe works.....far from it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Cool science lab projects to play around with magnetic fields, but nothing more. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, and no free energy. I subscribe to this, but I also subscribe to the notion that we don't know everything. People used to believe that the earth was absolutely flat. That was taken as fact.....until it wasn't. Who's to say that 200 years down the road we won't find some way to get MORE energy out of something than we put in? Don't tell me it's impossible. I know it is, with the laws of physics as we know them right now. But, physics is a weird animal. We just don't know everything about how our universe works.....far from it. There is a finite amount of energy in the universe. It is really that simple. All power generation does is convert one form of energy to another. While a microtransaction might appear to generate more power output than its input, that is because the scope is not large enough. Fission reactions generate a large amount of power from very little input power (that which starts the reaction) but on a macro scale the input power is always greater. The energy was always there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 10:42:05 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is a finite amount of energy in the universe. It is really that simple. All power generation does is convert one form of energy to another. While a microtransaction might appear to generate more power output than its input, that is because the scope is not large enough. Fission reactions generate a large amount of power from very little input power (that which starts the reaction) but on a macro scale the input power is always greater. The energy was always there. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cool science lab projects to play around with magnetic fields, but nothing more. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, and no free energy. I subscribe to this, but I also subscribe to the notion that we don't know everything. People used to believe that the earth was absolutely flat. That was taken as fact.....until it wasn't. Who's to say that 200 years down the road we won't find some way to get MORE energy out of something than we put in? Don't tell me it's impossible. I know it is, with the laws of physics as we know them right now. But, physics is a weird animal. We just don't know everything about how our universe works.....far from it. There is a finite amount of energy in the universe. It is really that simple. All power generation does is convert one form of energy to another. While a microtransaction might appear to generate more power output than its input, that is because the scope is not large enough. Fission reactions generate a large amount of power from very little input power (that which starts the reaction) but on a macro scale the input power is always greater. The energy was always there. Yep, and physics also tells us that singularities can't exist either......yet black holes are commonly accepted. My point is that our "hard and fast laws" are only laws because we don't have any further knowledge to tell us otherwise. To think that we know everything about physics/energy is completely asinine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 10:46:25 AM EDT
[#9]
Some of those gadgets were impressive and will run for quite a while before grinding to a halt.
The ones that required the addition of energy hand via movement to keep them going; not so much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 10:48:35 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep, and physics also tells us that singularities can't exist either......yet black holes are commonly accepted. My point is that our "hard and fast laws" are only laws because we don't have any further knowledge to tell us otherwise. To think that we know everything about physics/energy is completely asinine. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cool science lab projects to play around with magnetic fields, but nothing more. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, and no free energy. I subscribe to this, but I also subscribe to the notion that we don't know everything. People used to believe that the earth was absolutely flat. That was taken as fact.....until it wasn't. Who's to say that 200 years down the road we won't find some way to get MORE energy out of something than we put in? Don't tell me it's impossible. I know it is, with the laws of physics as we know them right now. But, physics is a weird animal. We just don't know everything about how our universe works.....far from it. There is a finite amount of energy in the universe. It is really that simple. All power generation does is convert one form of energy to another. While a microtransaction might appear to generate more power output than its input, that is because the scope is not large enough. Fission reactions generate a large amount of power from very little input power (that which starts the reaction) but on a macro scale the input power is always greater. The energy was always there. Yep, and physics also tells us that singularities can't exist either......yet black holes are commonly accepted. My point is that our "hard and fast laws" are only laws because we don't have any further knowledge to tell us otherwise. To think that we know everything about physics/energy is completely asinine. Poor example if you ask me. Singularities have never been observed and black holes are theorized, not observed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 10:51:57 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Poor example if you ask me. Singularities have never been observed and black holes are theorized, not observed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cool science lab projects to play around with magnetic fields, but nothing more. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, and no free energy. I subscribe to this, but I also subscribe to the notion that we don't know everything. People used to believe that the earth was absolutely flat. That was taken as fact.....until it wasn't. Who's to say that 200 years down the road we won't find some way to get MORE energy out of something than we put in? Don't tell me it's impossible. I know it is, with the laws of physics as we know them right now. But, physics is a weird animal. We just don't know everything about how our universe works.....far from it. There is a finite amount of energy in the universe. It is really that simple. All power generation does is convert one form of energy to another. While a microtransaction might appear to generate more power output than its input, that is because the scope is not large enough. Fission reactions generate a large amount of power from very little input power (that which starts the reaction) but on a macro scale the input power is always greater. The energy was always there. Yep, and physics also tells us that singularities can't exist either......yet black holes are commonly accepted. My point is that our "hard and fast laws" are only laws because we don't have any further knowledge to tell us otherwise. To think that we know everything about physics/energy is completely asinine. Poor example if you ask me. Singularities have never been observed and black holes are theorized, not observed. They have never been directly observed, because we can't see them. We can however see the energy that they emit, and that has been observed. It's not a poor example regardless. It still proves the point that we are basically in the infancy of physics. To think that everything we hold as "law" now will withstand the test of time against further knowledge is laughable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 10:58:41 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryThat got a chuckle out of me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 11:00:42 AM EDT
[#13]
There is only one workable design.
Let me explain. If you drop a slice of bread with honey on it, it always lands honey side down. When cats are dropped, they always land feet down. So to make a perpetual motion machine strap a slice of bread with honey on it to the back of a cat (the unhoneyed side of the bread is in contact with the cat). Then drop the cat-bread with honey assembly from three feet, and voila! The assembly falls to with six inches of the ground and begins rotating as the mutually exclusive forces of cat feet and honeyed bread come into play. Add a means to capture the energy generated from what was described a "rotating cat array", build enough of them, and we power all humanity for all time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 11:07:08 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ok, the folks harping on the supremacy of various laws of physics are making a very great fundamental error, one that assumes we operate from a position of complete knowledge. We do not. The Laws of Newtonian mechanics are a systemized picture of our understanding of the physical world at a given time. Certain parts of Newtonian Mechanics were later superceded by Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Quantum Mechanics introduced even more "laws" But we have a number of clearly evident facts that point out our understanding is STILL very incomplete, and it is even quite possible certain laws we assume are always true are only true in certain cases. For example, why is it that the amount of matter FAR exceeds the amount of antimatter? That seems to violate at least two absolute laws physicists assert to be absolutely true at all times. Regarding perpetual motion, energy from nothing or free energy, why do people ALWAYS fall back to Newton's laws, which have no mechanism to address the constant creation and annihilation of particles and antiparticles at the quantum level? Free energy could indeed be drawn from the quantum vacuum, there are laws of attraction which people can measure in a laboratory setting caused by this particle interaction at the quantum level, which could power a device. How many of our brightest minds, Einstein and others, had to fight through the entrenched institutionalized arrogance in our scientific community before they were taken seriously? Perhaps a little humility would cause us to discover many new technologies. I believe it was Lord Kelvin who said around 1900, that science had discovered everything there was to discover. There were no new things to be invented. Had he shut his arrogant mouth, he would have seen Einstein and Planck sitting in the waiting room, waiting for their appointment to change the world. There is no such thing as free energy. Only different energy sources. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 11:08:56 AM EDT
[#15]
If there are any physics "laws" involved, we should get the people of Ferguson on this issue...god knows they will try to break it, just cause its racist and shit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 11:12:12 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yep, and physics also tells us that singularities can't exist either......yet black holes are commonly accepted. My point is that our "hard and fast laws" are only laws because we don't have any further knowledge to tell us otherwise. To think that we know everything about physics/energy is completely asinine. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Cool science lab projects to play around with magnetic fields, but nothing more. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, and no free energy. I subscribe to this, but I also subscribe to the notion that we don't know everything. People used to believe that the earth was absolutely flat. That was taken as fact.....until it wasn't. Who's to say that 200 years down the road we won't find some way to get MORE energy out of something than we put in? Don't tell me it's impossible. I know it is, with the laws of physics as we know them right now. But, physics is a weird animal. We just don't know everything about how our universe works.....far from it. There is a finite amount of energy in the universe. It is really that simple. All power generation does is convert one form of energy to another. While a microtransaction might appear to generate more power output than its input, that is because the scope is not large enough. Fission reactions generate a large amount of power from very little input power (that which starts the reaction) but on a macro scale the input power is always greater. The energy was always there. Yep, and physics also tells us that singularities can't exist either......yet black holes are commonly accepted. My point is that our "hard and fast laws" are only laws because we don't have any further knowledge to tell us otherwise. To think that we know everything about physics/energy is completely asinine. And they have been observed, the same way atoms have been observed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 11:12:23 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bull. All of or physical laws were given by men who by definition on have limited knowledge. Many of our inventions today would not exist if the inventors thought the way you stated in red. Case in point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser "Townes reports that several eminent physicists—among them Niels Bohr, John von Neumann, Isidor Rabi, Polykarp Kusch, and Llewellyn Thomas—argued the maser violated Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and hence could not work.[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser#cite_note-14][14][/url] In 1964 Charles H. Townes, Nikolay Basov, and Aleksandr Prokhorov shared the Nobel Prize in Physics, "for fundamental work in the field of quantum electronics, which has led to the construction of oscillators and amplifiers based on the maser–laser principle". All those guys would even agree that perpetual motion machines are bullshit of an exponential order. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 11:50:56 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok, the folks harping on the supremacy of various laws of physics are making a very great fundamental error, one that assumes we operate from a position of complete knowledge. We do not. The Laws of Newtonian mechanics are a systemized picture of our understanding of the physical world at a given time. Certain parts of Newtonian Mechanics were later superceded by Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Quantum Mechanics introduced even more "laws" But we have a number of clearly evident facts that point out our understanding is STILL very incomplete, and it is even quite possible certain laws we assume are always true are only true in certain cases. For example, why is it that the amount of matter FAR exceeds the amount of antimatter? That seems to violate at least two absolute laws physicists assert to be absolutely true at all times. Regarding perpetual motion, energy from nothing or free energy, why do people ALWAYS fall back to Newton's laws, which have no mechanism to address the constant creation and annihilation of particles and antiparticles at the quantum level? Free energy could indeed be drawn from the quantum vacuum, there are laws of attraction which people can measure in a laboratory setting caused by this particle interaction at the quantum level, which could power a device. How many of our brightest minds, Einstein and others, had to fight through the entrenched institutionalized arrogance in our scientific community before they were taken seriously? Perhaps a little humility would cause us to discover many new technologies. I believe it was Lord Kelvin who said around 1900, that science had discovered everything there was to discover. There were no new things to be invented. Had he shut his arrogant mouth, he would have seen Einstein and Planck sitting in the waiting room, waiting for their appointment to change the world. No - we're saying that these laws have held true for hundreds of years*, and anyone making the extraordinary claim that they are false should expect to present extraordinary evidence that they are in fact correct. * at the macro scale - behavior of subatomic particles and forces are not addressed here, only their aggregates. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 11:55:40 AM EDT
[#19]
The "you only believe science is correct because somebody else told you it's correct" types are impossible to argue with.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 12:10:58 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Derp. Physisists predicted black holes' existence using... Physics. And they have been observed, the same way atoms have been observed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cool science lab projects to play around with magnetic fields, but nothing more. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, and no free energy. I subscribe to this, but I also subscribe to the notion that we don't know everything. People used to believe that the earth was absolutely flat. That was taken as fact.....until it wasn't. Who's to say that 200 years down the road we won't find some way to get MORE energy out of something than we put in? Don't tell me it's impossible. I know it is, with the laws of physics as we know them right now. But, physics is a weird animal. We just don't know everything about how our universe works.....far from it. There is a finite amount of energy in the universe. It is really that simple. All power generation does is convert one form of energy to another. While a microtransaction might appear to generate more power output than its input, that is because the scope is not large enough. Fission reactions generate a large amount of power from very little input power (that which starts the reaction) but on a macro scale the input power is always greater. The energy was always there. Yep, and physics also tells us that singularities can't exist either......yet black holes are commonly accepted. My point is that our "hard and fast laws" are only laws because we don't have any further knowledge to tell us otherwise. To think that we know everything about physics/energy is completely asinine. And they have been observed, the same way atoms have been observed. So much derp. 
A black hole itself can never be observed.....because it's an infinitely small point. For all intents and purposes it doesn't even exist, that's how small it is. We can only observe the energy that emits from a black hole. And yes "physisists" (you me physicists?) predicted black holes, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't go against our laws of physics....which they do. Literally, the laws of physics as we know them break down at the event horizon. Every physicist will say this, because it is accepted as fact. Does that mean black holes do not exist? Nope. We are all but certain that they do exist now, because we can observe the energy they emit and the gravitational lensing they cause. My point again is that the "laws of physics" as we know them are subject to change, as evident by black holes. They break our laws of physics, yet they exist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 12:21:58 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So much derp. A black hole itself can never be observed.....because it's an infinitely small point. For all intents and purposes it doesn't even exist, that's how small it is. We can only observe the energy that emits from a black hole. And yes "physisists" (you me physicists?) predicted black holes, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't go against our laws of physics....which they do. Literally, the laws of physics as we know them break down at the event horizon. Every physicist will say this, because it is accepted as fact. Does that mean black holes do not exist? Nope. We are all but certain that they do exist now, because we can observe the energy they emit and the gravitational lensing they cause. My point again is that the "laws of physics" as we know them are subject to change, as evident by black holes. They break our laws of physics, yet they exist. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I subscribe to this, but I also subscribe to the notion that we don't know everything. People used to believe that the earth was absolutely flat. That was taken as fact.....until it wasn't. Who's to say that 200 years down the road we won't find some way to get MORE energy out of something than we put in? Don't tell me it's impossible. I know it is, with the laws of physics as we know them right now. But, physics is a weird animal. We just don't know everything about how our universe works.....far from it. There is a finite amount of energy in the universe. It is really that simple. All power generation does is convert one form of energy to another. While a microtransaction might appear to generate more power output than its input, that is because the scope is not large enough. Fission reactions generate a large amount of power from very little input power (that which starts the reaction) but on a macro scale the input power is always greater. The energy was always there. Yep, and physics also tells us that singularities can't exist either......yet black holes are commonly accepted. My point is that our "hard and fast laws" are only laws because we don't have any further knowledge to tell us otherwise. To think that we know everything about physics/energy is completely asinine. And they have been observed, the same way atoms have been observed. So much derp. A black hole itself can never be observed.....because it's an infinitely small point. For all intents and purposes it doesn't even exist, that's how small it is. We can only observe the energy that emits from a black hole. And yes "physisists" (you me physicists?) predicted black holes, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't go against our laws of physics....which they do. Literally, the laws of physics as we know them break down at the event horizon. Every physicist will say this, because it is accepted as fact. Does that mean black holes do not exist? Nope. We are all but certain that they do exist now, because we can observe the energy they emit and the gravitational lensing they cause. My point again is that the "laws of physics" as we know them are subject to change, as evident by black holes. They break our laws of physics, yet they exist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 12:25:00 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Damn. Black holes aren't infinitely small. The singularity is close enough to having a zero diameter that it has infinite gravity, but the reason you can't see a black hole is the area surrounding the singularity where space-time is warped in such a way that the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. It's called the "event horizon" and it can be quite large. Yes, I mentioned the event horizon. And yes they are black because light can't escape, but they are also infinitely small. All matter sucked into a black hole is squeezed into the singularity, which is both infinitely small and infinitely dense. I just thought we all knew that light couldn't escape it, hence the name black hole. All of this is irrelevant to my argument, though. We don't know physics, period. We are literally just at the beginning stages of understanding ANYTHING about our universe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 12:27:35 PM EDT
[#23]
No we don't know everything about the physical universe.
Are there large sources of energy beyond our understanding that we can tap into? Possibly. Did some tard on youtube discover it with his magnets? No. I've seen a lot of these clips and none of them demonstrate power generation. The B field is thoroughly studied and has been found to adhere to the known laws of physics countless times. If you want to find a 'free energy' source crack open a modern physics textbook and start experimenting with the unknown. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 12:30:01 PM EDT
[#24]
I wasn't aware that black holes were infinitely small and infinitely dense. If so they would all be the same horizon and radius, no?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 12:33:32 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wasn't aware that black holes were infinitely small and infinitely dense. If so they would all be the same horizon and radius, no? Do you know what the event horizon is? It's the point at which light - and therefore, information - cannot escape. Literally the point of no return. I have no idea if the radius is always the same. I suspect that it needn't be. Since density = mass / volume, an object with infinitely small volume would be infinitely dense, regardless of its mass. Therefore, a black hole with a higher mass would have a wider area inside the event horizon... or at least, that makes sense to this lay person. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 12:33:40 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wasn't aware that black holes were infinitely small and infinitely dense. If so they would all be the same horizon and radius, no? No, because the horizon size is based on the amount of mass that the singularity has sucked in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 12:35:40 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are two kinds of people: those who understand the first law of thermodynamics, and hippies. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Power out = (power in - losses)... There are two kinds of people: those who understand the first law of thermodynamics, and hippies. The First Law of Thermodynamics, is that you do not talk about the First Law of Thermodynamics... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 12:44:27 PM EDT
[#28]
We've actually got a pretty good handle on physics. Enough to know that some moron isn't going to invent a perpetual motion machine in his kitchen or LHC sized lab.
Chemistry we have less of a handle on, but appreciable enough to be dangerous. Biology is really the last frontier. We understand quite a bit, but the sheer scale of the moving parts involved in even the simplest creatures is astronomical. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 12:46:28 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: SCIENTISTS HATE THIS ONE COOL TRICK TO KEEPING YOUR HOUSE OFF THE GRID!!! I see what you did there.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 12:51:03 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
we were house shopping one time and there was a homeowner that didn't leave for our tour of it. He decided to start talking with us about free energy. He was so simple he hooked a car battery to a small (computer style) 12v fan. Told me it has been running for over a week and that the government forces industry to purposely drain batteries so we have to keep buying them. If we would just wire up our own stuff then batteries would last forever. I just starred at him a bit. I didn't really think I understood his thoughts correctly, but yes, he was that simple. Taos? 
I once had a customer who wanted me to make her car electric and put a fan on the roof that would run a generator so it could charge the battery to keep driving forward. she was dead serious 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 12:51:21 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We've actually got a pretty good handle on physics. Enough to know that some moron isn't going to invent a perpetual motion machine in his kitchen or LHC sized lab. Chemistry we have less of a handle on, but appreciable enough to be dangerous. Biology is really the last frontier. We understand quite a bit, but the sheer scale of the moving parts involved in even the simplest creatures is astronomical. We actually don't. We still don't even know how our galaxies stay together. Scientists invented "dark matter" to reconcile why our spinning galaxies don't fling stars off into space. We invented an invisible material that no one has proof of, just to reconcile what could probably be considered a very basic principle to future generations. Sure, we have a good grasp on physics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 12:55:15 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, because the horizon size is based on the amount of mass that the singularity has sucked in. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I wasn't aware that black holes were infinitely small and infinitely dense. If so they would all be the same horizon and radius, no? No, because the horizon size is based on the amount of mass that the singularity has sucked in. Yes, I was in 8th grade once. You're statements contradict though to me. Infinite gravity, but mass based on how much it has sucked in. Anyway, whatever, youtube can provide me answers if I get bored. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 12:56:51 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Taos?
I once had a customer who wanted me to make her car electric and put a fan on the roof that would run a generator so it could charge the battery to keep driving forward. she was dead serious Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
we were house shopping one time and there was a homeowner that didn't leave for our tour of it. He decided to start talking with us about free energy. He was so simple he hooked a car battery to a small (computer style) 12v fan. Told me it has been running for over a week and that the government forces industry to purposely drain batteries so we have to keep buying them. If we would just wire up our own stuff then batteries would last forever. I just starred at him a bit. I didn't really think I understood his thoughts correctly, but yes, he was that simple. Taos?
I once had a customer who wanted me to make her car electric and put a fan on the roof that would run a generator so it could charge the battery to keep driving forward. she was dead serious To be fair devices like that help cars drive longer/faster all the time. Formula 1 cars have devices that harvest kinetic energy from braking, store it, then release that energy on command. Those same systems can be tuned to make a car travel further easily. It isn't perpetual motion, but we can "scavenge" energy pretty easily. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 12:57:59 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, I was in 8th grade once. You're statements contradict though to me. Infinite gravity, but mass based on how much it has sucked in. Anyway, whatever, youtube can provide me answers if I get bored. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I wasn't aware that black holes were infinitely small and infinitely dense. If so they would all be the same horizon and radius, no? No, because the horizon size is based on the amount of mass that the singularity has sucked in. Yes, I was in 8th grade once. You're statements contradict though to me. Infinite gravity, but mass based on how much it has sucked in. Anyway, whatever, youtube can provide me answers if I get bored. They are not infinite gravity. Otherwise, everything in the universe would get sucked into them at the speed of light. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 1:00:25 PM EDT
[#35]
This has derailed, I read the original line wrong. Carry on.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 1:04:11 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why waste all that effort. He could just hook up a hydro generator on the output side of a pump where water also runs downhill. Dump a bucket of water in, pull the plug, and viola'. Free energy, right? Ram pump |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 1:04:20 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We actually don't. We still don't even know how our galaxies stay together. Scientists invented "dark matter" to reconcile why our spinning galaxies don't fling stars off into space. We invented an invisible material that no one has proof of, just to reconcile what could probably be considered a very basic principle to future generations. Sure, we have a good grasp on physics. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
We've actually got a pretty good handle on physics. Enough to know that some moron isn't going to invent a perpetual motion machine in his kitchen or LHC sized lab. Chemistry we have less of a handle on, but appreciable enough to be dangerous. Biology is really the last frontier. We understand quite a bit, but the sheer scale of the moving parts involved in even the simplest creatures is astronomical. We actually don't. We still don't even know how our galaxies stay together. Scientists invented "dark matter" to reconcile why our spinning galaxies don't fling stars off into space. We invented an invisible material that no one has proof of, just to reconcile what could probably be considered a very basic principle to future generations. Sure, we have a good grasp on physics. Again, as it is germane to the subject at hand, our understanding is pretty good. Unless you can demonstrate some peer-reviewed research suggesting some type of flaw in the laws of thermodynamics that isn't performed by some whackjob and whose peers aren't cuckoo themselves. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 1:10:28 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep, and physics also tells us that singularities can't exist either......yet black holes are commonly accepted. My point is that our "hard and fast laws" are only laws because we don't have any further knowledge to tell us otherwise. To think that we know everything about physics/energy is completely asinine. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cool science lab projects to play around with magnetic fields, but nothing more. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, and no free energy. I subscribe to this, but I also subscribe to the notion that we don't know everything. People used to believe that the earth was absolutely flat. That was taken as fact.....until it wasn't. Who's to say that 200 years down the road we won't find some way to get MORE energy out of something than we put in? Don't tell me it's impossible. I know it is, with the laws of physics as we know them right now. But, physics is a weird animal. We just don't know everything about how our universe works.....far from it. There is a finite amount of energy in the universe. It is really that simple. All power generation does is convert one form of energy to another. While a microtransaction might appear to generate more power output than its input, that is because the scope is not large enough. Fission reactions generate a large amount of power from very little input power (that which starts the reaction) but on a macro scale the input power is always greater. The energy was always there. Yep, and physics also tells us that singularities can't exist either......yet black holes are commonly accepted. My point is that our "hard and fast laws" are only laws because we don't have any further knowledge to tell us otherwise. To think that we know everything about physics/energy is completely asinine. No it doesn't. Please cite what part of physicals say singularities cannot exist, since it WAS physics that predicted their existence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 1:17:39 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why would anyone even bother with trying to convince other people that they'd invented a perpetual motion machine? You could just sell your free clean power and a few billion dollars later who gives a shit if anyone believes in it? that's what I tell my wife when she tells me of her friend's new get rich quick scheme. "the same Susan driving a 12 year old Mazda is making 100k a year in her spare time?" that shuts her up |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 1:25:01 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A black hole itself can never be observed.....because it's an infinitely small point. For all intents and purposes it doesn't even exist, that's how small it is. We can only observe the energy that emits from a black hole. I'm willing to learn something entirely new today. Give me some links because from what I have studied, black holes have widely variable sizes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 1:31:28 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, I mentioned the event horizon. And yes they are black because light can't escape, but they are also infinitely small. All matter sucked into a black hole is squeezed into the singularity, which is both infinitely small and infinitely dense. I just thought we all knew that light couldn't escape it, hence the name black hole. All of this is irrelevant to my argument, though. We don't know physics, period. We are literally just at the beginning stages of understanding ANYTHING about our universe. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Damn. Black holes aren't infinitely small. The singularity is close enough to having a zero diameter that it has infinite gravity, but the reason you can't see a black hole is the area surrounding the singularity where space-time is warped in such a way that the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. It's called the "event horizon" and it can be quite large. Yes, I mentioned the event horizon. And yes they are black because light can't escape, but they are also infinitely small. All matter sucked into a black hole is squeezed into the singularity, which is both infinitely small and infinitely dense. I just thought we all knew that light couldn't escape it, hence the name black hole. All of this is irrelevant to my argument, though. We don't know physics, period. We are literally just at the beginning stages of understanding ANYTHING about our universe. I don't think we know that for sure. For all we know all that matter is getting sucked into another dimension. I think we have the fundamentals down. We certainly don't have answers to everything, but it would take a person a long time to learn everything we already know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 1:32:38 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm willing to learn something entirely new today. Give me some links because from what I have studied, black holes have widely variable sizes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A black hole itself can never be observed.....because it's an infinitely small point. For all intents and purposes it doesn't even exist, that's how small it is. We can only observe the energy that emits from a black hole. I'm willing to learn something entirely new today. Give me some links because from what I have studied, black holes have widely variable sizes. The event horizon can vary in size, yes. The singularity can't be observed. I'm generalizing the term to mean the singularity which is muddying what I'm trying to say, which is that black holes can't be observed. They trap light and the actual singularity is an infinitely small point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 1:33:35 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No it doesn't. Please cite what part of physicals say singularities cannot exist, since it WAS physics that predicted their existence. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cool science lab projects to play around with magnetic fields, but nothing more. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, and no free energy. I subscribe to this, but I also subscribe to the notion that we don't know everything. People used to believe that the earth was absolutely flat. That was taken as fact.....until it wasn't. Who's to say that 200 years down the road we won't find some way to get MORE energy out of something than we put in? Don't tell me it's impossible. I know it is, with the laws of physics as we know them right now. But, physics is a weird animal. We just don't know everything about how our universe works.....far from it. There is a finite amount of energy in the universe. It is really that simple. All power generation does is convert one form of energy to another. While a microtransaction might appear to generate more power output than its input, that is because the scope is not large enough. Fission reactions generate a large amount of power from very little input power (that which starts the reaction) but on a macro scale the input power is always greater. The energy was always there. Yep, and physics also tells us that singularities can't exist either......yet black holes are commonly accepted. My point is that our "hard and fast laws" are only laws because we don't have any further knowledge to tell us otherwise. To think that we know everything about physics/energy is completely asinine. No it doesn't. Please cite what part of physicals say singularities cannot exist, since it WAS physics that predicted their existence. Yes, that was incorrect. I failed at trying to say that physics can't reconcile what happens at the singularity. I clarified later on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 2:23:28 PM EDT
[#44]
Physics makes this pretty clear. Even if you have some theoretical friction-free loss-less system, you can only get back what you put in. The only way to get a "free energy machine" is shitty math. TANSTAAFL.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 2:25:55 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ok, the folks harping on the supremacy of various laws of physics are making a very great fundamental error, one that assumes we operate from a position of complete knowledge. We do not. The Laws of Newtonian mechanics are a systemized picture of our understanding of the physical world at a given time. Certain parts of Newtonian Mechanics were later superceded by Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Quantum Mechanics introduced even more "laws" But we have a number of clearly evident facts that point out our understanding is STILL very incomplete, and it is even quite possible certain laws we assume are always true are only true in certain cases. For example, why is it that the amount of matter FAR exceeds the amount of antimatter? That seems to violate at least two absolute laws physicists assert to be absolutely true at all times. Regarding perpetual motion, energy from nothing or free energy, why do people ALWAYS fall back to Newton's laws, which have no mechanism to address the constant creation and annihilation of particles and antiparticles at the quantum level? Free energy could indeed be drawn from the quantum vacuum, there are laws of attraction which people can measure in a laboratory setting caused by this particle interaction at the quantum level, which could power a device. How many of our brightest minds, Einstein and others, had to fight through the entrenched institutionalized arrogance in our scientific community before they were taken seriously? Perhaps a little humility would cause us to discover many new technologies. I believe it was Lord Kelvin who said around 1900, that science had discovered everything there was to discover. There were no new things to be invented. Had he shut his arrogant mouth, he would have seen Einstein and Planck sitting in the waiting room, waiting for their appointment to change the world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 3:13:43 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Physics makes this pretty clear. Even if you have some theoretical friction-free loss-less system, you can only get back what you put in. The only way to get a "free energy machine" is shitty math. TANSTAAFL. So what you are saying is that such a machine is likely to be created by a democratic progressive politician? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 3:15:14 PM EDT
[#47]
Crap. Now youtube is recomendingbme to all the screwy "Free Energy/run cars on water/infinite power" section.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 3:24:48 PM EDT
[#48]
Slap a fan on the main piston and youve got a sweet desk fan!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 3:25:59 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To be fair devices like that help cars drive longer/faster all the time. Formula 1 cars have devices that harvest kinetic energy from braking, store it, then release that energy on command. . Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
we were house shopping one time and there was a homeowner that didn't leave for our tour of it. He decided to start talking with us about free energy. He was so simple he hooked a car battery to a small (computer style) 12v fan. Told me it has been running for over a week and that the government forces industry to purposely drain batteries so we have to keep buying them. If we would just wire up our own stuff then batteries would last forever. I just starred at him a bit. I didn't really think I understood his thoughts correctly, but yes, he was that simple. Taos?
I once had a customer who wanted me to make her car electric and put a fan on the roof that would run a generator so it could charge the battery to keep driving forward. she was dead serious To be fair devices like that help cars drive longer/faster all the time. Formula 1 cars have devices that harvest kinetic energy from braking, store it, then release that energy on command. . That's not the same thing at all, there's a reason it slows the car down, it takes energy to build up the charge. This is how hybrids get better gas mileage around town. Simply driving an electric motor with a gas engine doesn't increase mileage. Putting a fan on your roof to charge your battery constantly would consume more power than it would produce. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 3:30:09 PM EDT
[#50]
We don't need perpetual motion. We need fusion energy... and we'll have it shortly.
The first Tokamak reactor will go on-line in about 3 years. The second will be about 1/50th the size of the first one, according to Lockheed-Martin's research. The world is changing at a crazy pace and it's about to get much faster. Now, I'll "in" before clueless people try to shit on the notion of fusion energy. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
