Janus Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 I'm glad someone has some 'vision' Thank you Janus! You`re very welcome.Thank you for sharing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 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! If you take energy out of the system (by running a dynamo or something useful) then the system has to make that energy up to keep going...it's not having no vision it's physics... you can't get more out than you put in, it's called "over unity" and is not possible... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 2, 2012 Author Share Posted October 2, 2012 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. Fine!...maybe I should have used the phrase..."This looks like a good thingy"...I'll know better next time I start a thread! (didn't realise I was being scientific) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 2, 2012 Author Share Posted October 2, 2012 If you take energy out of the system (by running a dynamo or something useful) then the system has to make that energy up to keep going...it's not having no vision it's physics... you can't get more out than you put in, it's called "over unity" and is not possible... Unscientific according to the oracle that is wikipedia! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medusa Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Like I said earlier, this type of thread always brings out the pedants and armchair scientists! Or the real scientists. I can't be the only one on the forum. The definition of a perpetual motion machine is that it gives out more energy than is put in, not just that it conserves energy. So for a spinning disc to be a perpetual energy machine it is just not enough for it to keep going round. It needs to keep going round AND do something else, but at the moment just demonstrating the conservation of energy by going round for weeks or months would be a start, and that step has been achieved in a number of different ways. The people who have achieved supremely efficient conservation of energy in movement thus far have done so with either supercooled kit or movement in a vacuum (or both) since the resistance of the molecules of air is enough to reduce the efficiency of even the most efficient movement. A disc rotating in air at room temperature is pretty much guaranteed to fail because of the inherent resistance of the bearings and of the air around it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Unscientific according to the oracle that is wikipedia! I don't get all my info from wiki... but do you understand the principle? In your fist video the little disc may rotate forever (very doubtful) but what happens when you extract some of the energy from it? ie make it into something useful? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw 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! The trouble is, Pete, even if it was a perpetual motion machine, as soon as you tried to use it for something you would be attaching it to something else which would produce friction, inevitably causing it to slow down. That is looking at it in terms of forces. From the energy point of view, if you start taking energy from it, it will have less energy and will, again, slow down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonjon Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Lets not forget people once thought the world was flat. In years people will look back at us and think how did they ever think XYZ was impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 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! If you stand your pushbike upside down and spin the wheel, do you believe that you've found a new source of energy to drive a power station, or anything for that matter? This is just the same, except that it's more efficient than your bike bearings and will take longer to stop under friction and air resistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Lets not forget people once thought the world was flat. In years people will look back at us and think how did they ever think XYZ was impossible. If perpetual motion is possible then we may as well forget everything we've learned about physics and start again because it would prove two of the basic rules wrong.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.