| Pages:
1
2
3 |
kovalie
Harmless
Posts: 2
Registered: 6-6-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
perpetual motion
Hi, im only 15, so i really dont want a confusing explaination  , but i think about
things all the time and have an amazing concept of almost everything in science, anywayz:
Imagine if you electrolysed some water and caught it in a container, so the container started to float up, but the height it gained, you turned into
electricity, somehow, it doesnt realy matter how... then at a big height you sparked it with some of the electricity you made, and it turned back to
water and sank again, and you collect electricty off this, and used this electricity to electrolyse more water, and so the cycle can start again.
Plz dont say you wont make enough energy to electrolyse more water, as you can just let the container float higher to gain as much energy as you want,
with no loss
Everybody I have asked has just said, perpetual energy is impossible etc. I have thought of doin this underwater etc Please can some explain why this
wont work
|
|
|
ziqquratu
Hazard to Others
Posts: 385
Registered: 15-11-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Because there's no such thing as 100% efficiency in energy conversions and transfers and stuff in the real world. Perpetual motion is all well
and good in theory, but in reality there are always losses due to things like friction, or as heat, light or sound. So what happens is basically that
you pump in X amount of electricity. You use that to electrolyse the water, losing Y as heat mainly due to having to conduct that electricity through
the water between the two electrodes. Then when floating your box, you lose more energy (friction the main culprit this time - friction against air
or water that the box is rising through), and so on and so on. So that when you get back to do the next electrolysis, you have X-Z amount of energy
(where Z is the total losses), and so you wont have enough energy to electrolyse the same amount of water as you did the first time and so the system
will stop working very quickly without further inputs of energy.
Hope that doesnt confuse!
|
|
|
a_bab
Hazard to Others
Posts: 458
Registered: 15-9-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Angry !!!!!111111...2?!
|
|
This is reminding me about a friend of mine who was very excided because he considered he discovered a fortune: to power up a car with hydrogen, since
he knew that the hydrogen paks lots of energy. But he intended to get the fuel in the car, via electrolysis of the water, so I had to explain him that
the amout of energy spent to get the hydrogen is bigger than the amount of enegy obtained from using hydrogen as fuel, so using the car battery in
this case would be better 
|
|
|
Organikum
resurrected
Posts: 2337
Registered: 12-10-2002
Location: Europe
Member Is Offline
Mood: frustrated
|
|
"waterauto"
Do a search for "waterauto" and see! By (ab)using some magic "orgone" a waterauto is told to be possible, buildt and running.
(Why the engine is buildt in a car and not stationary - who knows?)
It´s a pity that these frauds discredit other hard to explain phenomens. Like the Ranque-Hisch tube (vortex tube), or some of Teslas work, also Brown
the inventor of the tunnel diode has some nice patents on antigravity.
And who knows? Perhaps there is a way to get enrgy out of the hidden dimensions or the paralleluniversa?
|
|
|
kovalie
Harmless
Posts: 2
Registered: 6-6-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
ziqquratu,
I already know that, but this invention as an exeptional twist; you can make the container go as high as you like, therefore creating more
electricity, with not needing to put more energy in, ie you could fill a container which is a ball size, then let it go 500 miles up, which would
easily create enough electricity to start the cycle again.
Dont get me wrong, I doubt perpetual motion as much as you guys, but what im saying, is there is no explanation of why this wont work, as I can say
let it fly higher, etc The only reason i have is, here goes this might be hard to explain:
Imagine you had a balloon full of, lets say hydrogen, the let it float up a metre and you created electricity off this, the electricity you created
would not be enough to pull it down, because of loss etc. so its gravity that pulls it up (think about it, it is!) and its working against gravity
that makes it hard to pull down.
But my invention (if i can call it that) skips out on the resisting force bit,
I have racked my brain day and night trying to prove to myself this idea wrong, but i cant, the only thing I can think of is that the container will
slowly leak, but this is not an acceptable answer.
Please dont simply say, its impossible because every machine has losses, because I know this, but I still cant see why this wont work, and I will
never be able to build a model!
thanks for your help
|
|
|
ziqquratu
Hazard to Others
Posts: 385
Registered: 15-11-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
OK, so explain what you're trying to do. Are you perhaps floating you H2 and O2 generated up, then sparking it, converting back to water, which
falls down and works a turbine? You do, of course, realise, that the amount of water it would take to shift the panels would require and amazingly
large explosion, no matter how high you float your gases. Not going to with stand that, and turbines are amazingly inefficient, increasing either the
distance or the explosion (or probably both). Of course you could use the energy from the explosin, but that only provides you back with a certain
proportion of the energy it took to electrolyse the water it came from.
Perhaps you're thiking of using some kind of static effect? probably not going to happen - the static discharges would lead to unexpected
explosions and hence damage to your equipment, and are yet another source of energetic loses.
let us also consider floating the gases up. To do this, you're going to have to have, for example, a column for the gases to rise in, and this
is going to have to be fairly tall. Now, this is all well and good in theory - ya can just keep building 'till it gets so high you have to put
hinges on so the moon can go past!! (David Eddings quote  ). But in reality, we
have limits on the types of structures we're trying to build, and if you're going to use hydrogen... well, even controlled explosions arent
pretty, and they add new dimensions of structural instability...
Also, whatever you have that's falling down is going to cop massive friction (proportional to the distance it falls), which can be controlled
(eg. shape of falling object) but never eliminated. And if you have other things rising up in the same column, that just increases the friction
problem.
In the electricity stages, there's going to be amazing loses as heat and/or light, unless of course you use superconductors, which requires the
use of cryogenic liquids, which require energy and defeat the purpose also. You have to remember, if you want to consider anything "perpetual
motion" it has to be a totally enclosed system - if it requires energy input in any way (be it in the system itself or in maintenance of the
system) it fails. Making liquid nitrogen (say) to run your superconductors requires energy and thus causes the system to fail as a 'perpetual
energy' system.
Also, what on earth are you talking about, gravity is what "pulls it up"?? Gravity ALWAYS goes down. What makes hydrogen rise is that it
is significantly less dense than air, and so it rises to a level of equal density (which usally means it ends up leaving our atmosphere if given the
chance). Gravity works DOWNWARDS. Of course, perhaps I misunderstand and you mean that as the gases rise potential energy increases due to
gravitational effects, but that wasnt really clear in what you said.
Finally, even if we ignore the practical design problems with doing something like this, understand this - there is no chance for us to do anything
except manage to follow the law of conservation of energy perfectly. Thus even one tiny loss will eventually add up and screw you up. Plus,
you'd never be able to get anything out of it - even if it was perfect, it'd only generate exactly enough energy to keep itself going. so
while it would be interesting, it'd be little more than a curiousity. Unless I've missed something significant in your idea, it just wont
be practical.
Sorry about the length (I wanted to be thorough!). Also, I'm not against your idea and am not deliberately trying to rain on your parade, but
just pointing out that perpetual energy is amazingly simple in theory, but in practice...
On a side note - a_bab, I've had that self-same idea in my time (perhaps it's a natural thing to come up with when doing a certain level of
physics)
Organikum, I have to say you're right, there's some interesting stuff in all their work. Although I must say I've never seen those
Brown patents - you have any references? But doesn't current quantum theory tell us that it'd take more energy to move anything (i assume
that includes energy) between universes than we'd get out of doing so? Although there are the theories on gravity moving between universes (M
theory)... interesting stuff, but scary and twisted!!
|
|
|
Organikum
resurrected
Posts: 2337
Registered: 12-10-2002
Location: Europe
Member Is Offline
Mood: frustrated
|
|
Browns & Constantinescos Patents
I attached one of Browns.
VERY interesting is also Constantinesco´s work on resonance.
look here
Btw. the whole fluid.power.net is a treasure box.
Found some of Constantinescos patents:
US1338676
Storage of energy due to an explosion
US1372944
Method and means for actuating gun-triggers
US1584435
Mechanism for transmitting impulses to a distance, specially applicable for actuating gun triggers
[Edited on 8-6-2003 by Organikum]
Attachment: Brown_gravity.pdf (241kB)
This file has been downloaded 951 times
|
|
|
Iv4
Hazard to Others
Posts: 312
Registered: 28-5-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
You'r an idiot.Oooh look at me I'm 15 so I get to do whatever the fuck I want cause I'm too stoned to understand shit at school.The
problem is completely obvious is'nt it?You can't have more than 100% even theory.
The oly thing that can come even close is some sort of generator orbiting a planet.Easier to just harness the goddamn sun.
|
|
|
frogfot
Hazard to Others
Posts: 212
Registered: 30-11-2002
Location: Sweden
Member Is Offline
Mood: happy
|
|
Iv4, go away, you have too much anger inside...
Kovalie, have i understood that main part of your setup goes like that:
If we attach a weight on an "air-filled" (H2, O2) baloon under water and let it go, the potential energy in weight will be gained as it
rises.
If i got you right, there is one problem. The deeper in water you go the greater pressure is. This meant you have to put more energy into filling the
baloon. Sure you can let the baloon go several km up, but energy gained have been already lost when you have pushed away water by pumping up baloon..
Btw, I beliave one can construct such tower under water, or? 1km isn't much for engeneering today, specially under water..
|
|
|
madscientist
National Hazard
Posts: 962
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: American Midwest
Member Is Offline
Mood: pyrophoric
|
|
Flaming is something I will not allow to become commonplace at this forum.
I weep at the sight of flaming acetic anhydride.
|
|
|
Iv4
Hazard to Others
Posts: 312
Registered: 28-5-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I'm just saying that he should'nt use that fact that he's 15 as a shield.
|
|
|
ziqquratu
Hazard to Others
Posts: 385
Registered: 15-11-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Organikum - Thanks, very interesting stuff.
lv4 - lets give the youngster's a chance - we all had weird ideas when we were younger . Besides, we learn from these things, and so it's useful. Also, if you don't KNOW that it's impossible to do something,
then that's one less thing stopping you, isn't it? Two hundred (or whatever) years ago, it was "impossible" for light to act like
particles. Try to keep your mind open just a little more - granted, certain things are never going to be possible, but some of them just may have a
great deal of potential in the future.
frogfot - good points. espescially about building underwater - never thought of that!! But it still doesnt really solve any of the other, more
significant problems.
|
|
|
Iv4
Hazard to Others
Posts: 312
Registered: 28-5-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Well maybe I was a bit too harsh.But hey I'm 15 too and I don't use it to cover up the fact that I probably have the liver of a 90 year old.
Anyways A much better source of energy would be to start fusion reactions on the moon.Their you dont have to worry about runaway reactions because
there's not much up there to destroy.
|
|
|
BASF
Hazard to Others
Posts: 282
Registered: 5-11-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: hydrophilic
|
|
Ok, let´s out myself ... there was a time when i was completely amazed by the thought of building a p.m.
I had a dozens of "promising" ideas...
As it is the phenomenon with all us perpetuum mobile-freaks, i was full of hope and after 100 times of searching possible problems and reciting the
actual idea, i built a technic-lego-model of my "generator"...
I remember building about half a dozen of different models, and the force that kept me going ahead was the typical phenomenon of not recognizing the
fact that all these models kept hiding their dependence on well known natural-laws like the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics, because of their
complexicity !
The most promising concepts always used to be the more complicated ones...
Believe me, it´s as simple as that...
Millions of human beings have thought of that problems, they got caught by the sheer fascination of the problem, and they all had something else
together, they failed.
It is often the case that ppl spend their whole live searching a "fata morgana", then they die with the words "It has to work. I just
don´t know how to put the things together right. I was so close to it."
But i think no engineer or scientist with real technical killer-instinct would be true, if he said "I never lost a thought on it."
HLR
|
|
|
vulture
Forum Gatekeeper
Posts: 3330
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
but the height it gained, you turned into electricity, somehow, it doesnt realy matter how... then at a big height you sparked it with some of the
electricity you made, and it turned back to water and sank again, and you collect electricty off this, and used this electricity to electrolyse more
water, and so the cycle can start again.
Problem nr1: "somehow" converting it to electricity? conversion = energy loss, NO exception.
problem nr2: The spark. Even at 100% theoretical efficiency, the spark would have to be produced by using external electricity, because otherwise you
wouldn't be able to electrolyse enough even at 100% yield and the amount of gas created would become less everytime.
Damn this is hard to explain.
That's also why people keep believing it I think, because it's so hard to explain clearly that it won't work.
One shouldn't accept or resort to the mutilation of science to appease the mentally impaired.
|
|
|
BASF
Hazard to Others
Posts: 282
Registered: 5-11-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: hydrophilic
|
|
Yep. And what adds to the problems vulture mentioned, this would then only be a p.m. of the kind from which no energy could be taken away to do
anything useful. (not implying such a device could be built anyway !)
Maybe the motion of electrons around an atomic nucleus could be considered perpetual motion.
|
|
|
BASF
Hazard to Others
Posts: 282
Registered: 5-11-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: hydrophilic
|
|
Arrgh...tapped into the trap
I didn´t want to express that too complicated, although you´re right, it is formally not correct.
Better i should speak of moving electron-densities then...
VdW-forces, for example are because the electron densities change and polarize the atom. This is why noble-gases can be liquefied at all. This change
of electron densities is very fast and does not fade.
Maybe this was a better example...
|
|
|
Ylang-Ylang
Harmless
Posts: 8
Registered: 7-10-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I really wonder....
Let's think though--he might have something.
Build a balloon under water. Attach it to a winch with wire, and gear the winch to a generator. Now imagine, if you can get ~ 60% efficiency from a
decent fuel cell at the top, recombining the H and O, deflate the balloon and let the winch rewind it back to the bottom. How much power can you get
from a balloon trying to rise to the surface of the ocean? And how much gas do you need to do that? What we have here is a device to extract energy
from gravity, in a sense. The balloon rises, because it is pushed up by the weight of the (air, water) all around it.
To be more general, if we have any device which can modulate its weight with less energy than can be gained from its falling a reasonable distance, we
can make a big wheel, with one side always lighter than the other.
This could also work with a material whose density could be changed easily, because it could be packed in a circular pipe, and would always flow in
circles, for a turbine of some sort to extract. In the case of his idea, that is exactly what we are doing:
electrolyse water to change its density to something much smaller.
use that change in density to extract energy from its surroundings (change potential into kinetic energy)
reconvert H & O to water (high density form), extract as much power from that as possible
return to original state without repaying potential energy taken
This is a mechanical analog of a "overunity parametric amplifier", see jean-louis naudin's webpage for plenty of stuff related to that
members.aol.com/jnaudin509
I don't think it is wise to dismiss such an idea before one has done the math on it, and even then, the math has been wrong more than once....
So study your physics, kid, and do the math yourself. Show yourself whether it will work or not, and then you can show the disbelievers with
confidence.
|
|
|
ziqquratu
Hazard to Others
Posts: 385
Registered: 15-11-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
You see, the problem is...
all well and good, in theory. While not wanting to appear critical in an arrogant sense, let me go through all the losses that your system will
suffer from.
Firstly, the winch process. Every moving part you put into the system means more losses (from friction if nothing else). A winch will be very
inefficient (what I'm imagining is you have a wire attached to your balloon, so you can pull it back down much faster than if you had to wait for
it to sink, correct?). Also, it takes energy to operate the winch. Plus, since your wire isn't massless, you have to use energy to lift it
along with the balloon, which is another loss.
Second, the balloon itself. Try blowing a balloon up in a pool or the bath or somewhere under water. It's harder to do, becasue there
surrounding medium (water) exerts pressure on it. The deeper underwater you go, the more pressure there is (it's the same with air, but because
air is less dense, it isn't as obvious!! We do, of course, all know that atmospheric pressure varies with altitude, but the water experiment is
entertaining anyway ). To overcome that pressure, you have to pump the gas
(hydrogen and oxygen, in this case) into the baloon at ever higher pressures. If you have to pump it like this - energy useage and loss.
Particularly since the pump has more moving parts, plus losses to electrical resistance...
Next, your material that can change density easily - this material wouldn't change density by heating, perhaps? 'Cause that'd be
setting up for major heat (energy) losses to the surroundings, which would alter their density, which would counteract the change you had just made...
perhaps you were thinking of using some sort of chemical reaction, but again, reagents would be limited (even in very simple, totally reversible
reactions you would, sooner or later, get losses due to leaks or side reactions, or the energy produced in one cycle of the reaction would not be
sufficient to propagate the reverse cycle - you have to take into account activation energies and so forth as well, remember).
Next, the fuel cell - assume the 60% efficiency, that's a loss of 40%... that's fairly major - granted, a lot better than some of our other
technologies, but still fairly sucky. While on the electrical side of things, what about the electrolysis? Imagine your setup is perfect except for
the fuel cell, which is still only 60%efficient. Say the electrolysis uses X joules to break the bonds between the H-O-H. It also requires an
activation energy which will not be recovered even in a perfect, 100% efficient reaction between the formed gases. Then, when we use the H2 and O2 in
the fuel cell, we must also apply an activation energy, which we again cannot recover. And, since the cell isn't totally efficient, we don't
get that X joules back - we only get 60% of X.
And, of course, the points made earlier on also apply - any conversion is inhernetly inefficient (in practice, anyway - theory's all well and
good, but we're being practical here... my god, practical physics? I never thought I'd see the day...). Electrolysis involves loss as heat
(think of NaCl electrolysis to Na and Cl2 - once you melt the solid and get the current flowing, the resistance is so high that you can generally keep
it a liquid just due to the current flow, assuming it's high enough, without any more external heating. Water gives less resistance, but it
still happens. I'm sure that if you've tried electrolysis you've noticed the container heat up. And do this far underwater, where
it's cold anyway, and heat is transferred much faster, due to the temperature gradients being so extreme). There are other things, too, of
course, but I'm being long-winded enough as is...
And, the major killing blow to all perpetual motion styles of energy generation, as I and others have said several times above - even in a perfect
system you will NOT be able to get energy out - maximum efficiency is 100%. Everything you do will require energy at some stage and, even though you
would (in a perfect system) get it back at some later point... you're still only getting back what you started with. Sorry, people but you
cannot cheat the laws of thermodynamics. It's kinda like saying "well, Newton was a wanker and so I don't believe in gravity".
You can not believe all you want, but that doesnt mean you're gonna fall onto the ceiling! You can play around and make the most convoluted and
complex system you want to, with as many steps and transformations as you want and, even if you ignore the realities and practical losses and
inefficiencies, the theory is gonna tell you that you're never gonna get any energy out of your system at all.
|
|
|
chemoleo
Biochemicus Energeticus
Posts: 3005
Registered: 23-7-2003
Location: England Germany
Member Is Offline
Mood: crystalline
|
|
hmm, this is all very interesting.
ylang, I had a thought about this. The problem is that the energy you need to electrolyse water at the bottom will be, if everything was perfect,
exactly the same as the energy gained by igniting the whole thing at the top and extracting the radiational energy produced (heat, light). In other
words, if you leave aside inefficiencies of reactions etc, you can leave out the electrolysis and combustion bit as they equal each other.
So what is left? Of course, the energy gained by releasing gas at the bottom of the ocean and harvesting the energy produced by gravitation (i.e. your
idea of attaching a balloon to a winch, under water). Since the energy of combustion and electrolysis equal each other, there wouldnt be any need for
them, so you could use any gas, like N2 etc.
At this point, the problem is the following: A LOT of energy is required to pressurise gas to such an extent that you can fill a balloon with it at,
say, 1km down (as 1 bar = 10metres, 1km =100 bar). And this heat will be (leaving aside friction etc) the input energy that equals the amount of
output energy produced by the balloon moving up; in other words, the energy required to pressurise the gas will be the same as the energy gained from
the rising balloon!
Hardly a perpetuum mobile!
or am i talking bollocks?
So, are there ways to harvest gravitational energy efficiently? I am sure there are, just think of the probes they send to the planets (swing-by
maneuvers), the gravitational field is used to speed up the probe to nearly cosmic speeds (like 50km/sec), while the speed of the planet is decreased
marginally...
|
|
|
chemoleo
Biochemicus Energeticus
Posts: 3005
Registered: 23-7-2003
Location: England Germany
Member Is Offline
Mood: crystalline
|
|
oops, that was a simultaneous reply... sorry for partial overlap...
However, jsut had this thought!
Imagine this whole balloon winch setup, and imagine 100% conversion of energy, with no losses due to friction, heat, etc, etc.
Now, we start electrolysing water at 1km depth, with the resultant H2 and O2 simply bubbling into a little collection device. This at 100 bar
pressure, i.e. you would be electrolysing salt water straight from the sea. So in this case you wouldn't lose energy needed for pressurising the
gases. Now, say, once the balloon device is full, the whole thing would rise up, and turn on a generator (with 100% efficiency, of course ). this energy is used to electrolyse more water at the bottom. however, at the top
we ignite the whole thing, and happily harvest all the energy thereby released, using this as a generator for electricity!! In other words, you would
simply harvest gravitational energy!!! cool ey? (unless I am too droopy to notice a major flaw!!)
So, shall we patent this??
|
|
|
Marvin
National Hazard
Posts: 995
Registered: 13-10-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I was going to reply to this thread, but I thought someone had allready twigged why it wont work.
Without disrespect, if someone attacks an overunity idea with a 'losses' argument, its becuase they havnt seen the flaw. Why it wont work
has nothing to do with non perfect power conversion.
As simply as possible, the voltage across a perfect electrolysis/fuel cell (and thus the energy for a given amount) depends on the pressure of the
gasses
Slightly longer,
The power you extract from the rising gas, is matched by a loss in internal energy of the gas as it expands.
This loss in internal energy is matched by a lower voltage, and therfore less energy from the fuel cell than the electrolysis cell.
If you make the cell longer, the voltage you require at the electrolysis increases and the extra energy you require exactly matches the energy you get
from the increased output from the rising gas.
The only people working on overunity devices are those that dont understand physics, if they did they would know they cant succeed. But in their
words they 'dont have to understand something to know that its wrong'. Free energy is thus more like a religion than a science.
Type 2 perpetual motion machines are a newer idea, which also cant work and is compltetly refuted by entropy arguments. These are rather more
complicated to explain, and even more difficult to visualise/properly understand than overunity (type 1) problems. So I'm greatful I dont have
to explain it.
Type 2 devices (such as sucking the heat energy out of water to form ice, and using this energy to boil water) tend to be the most convincing, becuase
many people educated in physics havnt learned entropy, or dont 'bilieve' ie fully understand how/why it works.
|
|
|
Ylang-Ylang
Harmless
Posts: 8
Registered: 7-10-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I wasn't really saying his idea would work, but the idea of extracting energy from the gravitational field of a planet may be conceivable. At
least, in my mind it isn't impossible. Science has never proven anything impossible, merely improbable.
As for those efficiency arguments, come on. I am thinking of systems with the potential to produce REAL power, like 150% or something. Enough to
overcome losses. No closed systems here. Give the guy's idea a chance.
Now, the electrolysis/pressure thing is very probably what would kill this thing as it is. It would be interesting to see the math on it, anyway.
The essential thing is to have a system that can change mass or density with less energy input than the comparable energy gain from falling/rising. If
this can be found, then the magical free energy generator is just a step of engineering away.
Actually, I think most seemingly feasible "free energy generators" that people design are of this "assymetrical parametric
extractor" type--that is, they use something usually considered conservative/reversible, like magnets, springs, air pressure, or gravity,
and have some element acted upon by this force, which can change the degree of its interaction with that force, then operated in a cyclical fashion to
extract energy from the conservative force assymetrically.
Examples would include:
-flux-gated permanent magnets to circumvent back emf in the coil
-permanent magnets used to pull a ball around a ramp forever
-balloons that can be filled with air underwater to provide lift, then emptied to return them back to the bottom
-bifilar coils and other gadgetry to change the inductance of a coil on the fly
-variable capacitors in resonant circuits
-magnetic motors that operate by shielding and unshielding magnets
-a very attractive idea, if podkletnov's spinning superconductor disc does infact nullify even 2% of gravity, make a giant, heavy wheel. Put a
podkletnov disk under one side. The disk will spin.
etc, etc.
Note, they all seem to work on the same basic principle.
Whether they work, I don't know
But they sure are appealing...
Science is a religion too. Placing blind faith in theories, as though the mathematical models we humans spin were inviolate and perfect. As though
they actually meant something to nature. True followers of science must admit that no theory can be assumed complete, nor any inquiry fully dismissed,
otherwise science ceases to work. The value of the religion of science is that it works. The pitfall of the religion of science is that it never works
perfectly. "free energy people", at least the ones I respect, simply go looking for the edge of the scientific map, then keep walking. In
doing so, they are performing a valuable service to science, and I believe should be respected for it. As always, there are those who make theories,
and those who test them. All the greatest discoveries were precisely that great because they were thought to be impossible, or even never concieved of
to begin with.
I have great respect for conservation of energy, and I am sure it is part of the underpinnings of reality. However, I don't believe it tells the
whole story. The problem with most "impossible" inventions is that they do, in fact, accord with the laws of physics, but in a way that is
different from what one is used to seeing.
Put another way, before nuclear science was developed, a nuclear reactor would be a "free energy" machine, and would defy any chemical
analysis put to it (as well as killing the experimenters). Human theory would simply not be equipped to handle it. I think it is the height of
arrogance to assume such a situation could never arise in the future.
sorry for the long words....
|
|
|
vulture
Forum Gatekeeper
Posts: 3330
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Let's just assume someone builds a perpetuum mobile. Hoooray! NOT! Why? It may be moving forever, but what happens when you start producing
energy with it? The fragile equilibrium within the device is tampered with and it comes to a halt. End of dream.
One shouldn't accept or resort to the mutilation of science to appease the mentally impaired.
|
|
|
Iv4
Hazard to Others
Posts: 312
Registered: 28-5-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The probem is always as vulture said.
If there was a massive coil of some sort on satelite it could cut a planets magentic field and produce energy.
If it were possible two counterbalancing coil/mangent around a black hole.Lots of star systes do it and ofcourse they eventually get suckedin but it
would go in for millions of years.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
