PeteMorris Posted October 2, 2012 Author Share Posted October 2, 2012 A 5 minute clip proves nothing. I'll start considering perpetual motion a possibility when I receive verified information that the machine can keep going without any slowing down and without being touched for a few months. Well yes I agree. But nontheless, it certainly 'looks' efficient. Ok not in the strict terms of the pedants and tech-heads on here (funny how a thread like this attracts those ). I like the second video too, and how he keeps it locked in a vault! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 2, 2012 Author Share Posted October 2, 2012 I've got this playing while reading this thread And no doubt singing lalalalalalalalalalala with your fingers in your ears...it's terrible!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birds Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 And no doubt singing lalalalalalalalalalala with your fingers in your ears...it's terrible!!!!! Oh well, each to his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 2, 2012 Author Share Posted October 2, 2012 A perpetual motion machine is impossible as any such device would . There is no such thing as a free lunch in this universe. Someone's obviously googled it, and read the first sentence in wikipedia! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 2, 2012 Author Share Posted October 2, 2012 A perpetual motion machine is impossible as any such device would violate either the first or second law of thermodynamics. There is no such thing as a free lunch in this universe. A quote from wikipedia on the subject of being impossible! The current formulation of the laws of physics (called "The Standard Model") is known to be incomplete. Stating that physical things are absolutely impossible is often considered un-scientific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Sorry I'm no scientist, but to me, if it's spinning (once started, and a good healthy meal consumed ) it's surely producing rotational energy, which presumably could be used for something! I don't want to be rude, but maybe you need to understand what you're talking about before you share your views on the subject then. First of all, lets forget about 'rotational' energy, there is only energy. Secondly, to be producing energy it would either have to be accelerating or to be driving something else which is consuming energy. Otherwise it is neither producing nor consuming anything. In reality it is consuming energy due to friction and noise, both of which are net losses to the system and hence it will eventually stop and not be perpetual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janus Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Reidar Finsrud- “I had scientists from all over the world looking at it, and they can’t tell me where the power is coming from” I felt as fascinated about these ideas as you did Pete. The potential for this sort of thing (if scaled up) would be awesome. I would imagine the energy required to start a device like these would be negligible compared with the potential output/energy produced by the device. Very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Well yes I agree. But nontheless, it certainly 'looks' efficient. Ok not in the strict terms of the pedants and tech-heads on here (funny how a thread like this attracts those ). You find it strange that you use scientific terms and then people expect that you mean them in a strict sense? Being efficient is not the same as being perpetual, the actual words that you use have specific meanings, you can't use the wrong ones and then complain that people are pedants for actually understanding what the words mean and answering the question you asked. "could this be construed as perpetual motion?" No it cannot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 2, 2012 Author Share Posted October 2, 2012 I don't want to be rude, but maybe you need to understand what you're talking about before you share your views on the subject then. First of all, lets forget about 'rotational' energy, there is only energy. Secondly, to be producing energy it would either have to be accelerating or to be driving something else which is consuming energy. Otherwise it is neither producing nor consuming anything. In reality it is consuming energy due to friction and noise, both of which are net losses to the system and hence it will eventually stop and not be perpetual. But your argument is that it's not driving something else!!!!!...if it's rotating it could be connected to something to utilise that energy. Do you have to see a working power station or something? It's the concept I'm talking about. Have you no vision? Like I said earlier, this type of thread always brings out the pedants and armchair scientists! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 2, 2012 Author Share Posted October 2, 2012 Reidar Finsrud- “I had scientists from all over the world looking at it, and they can’t tell me where the power is coming from” I felt as fascinated about these ideas as you did Pete. The potential for this sort of thing (if scaled up) would be awesome. I would imagine the energy required to start a device like these would be negligible compared with the potential output/energy produced by the device. Very interesting. I'm glad someone has some 'vision' Thank you Janus! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.