The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Technology, Science & Alt Science => Topic started by: Wendy on June 23, 2008, 12:53:59 PM

Title: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Wendy on June 23, 2008, 12:53:59 PM
I saw some youtube videos the other day on the subject, among them one which claimed to have a working free energy device called the "OC MPMM", where I'm guessing MPMM stands for Magnetic Perpetual Motion Motor, but which seemed fake. Have any of you seen any working perpetual motion devices, or heard of any?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on June 23, 2008, 01:00:29 PM
Physically impossible. Well unless you count fundamental forces and gravitation. Lolinfinite energy!!
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Wendy on June 23, 2008, 02:03:15 PM
What do you mean when you say fundamental forces? I don't get it.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on June 23, 2008, 02:06:01 PM
It's just a little thing that always niggles me about physics how all these interactions seem to have an endless supply of energy.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: John Davis on June 23, 2008, 02:39:29 PM
The point of any free-energy machine is to make use of natural energy, like as you said the fundamental forces.  Gravity, Magnetism, and more modernly vacuum energy.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Jack on June 24, 2008, 12:19:38 AM
Perpetual motion is technically not possible: things don't run by themselves. It violates the law of conservation of energy, which states that "energy can never be created or destroyed, but only conserved".
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Wendy on June 24, 2008, 03:19:41 AM
It's kinda funny, because I got flamed on youtube when I Said that perpetual motion is impossible. ::)
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Mr. Ireland on June 24, 2008, 05:34:06 AM
It's kinda funny, because I got flamed on youtube when I Said that perpetual motion is impossible. ::)

Was it in response to a pro perpetual motion video?  Because that would make sense.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on June 24, 2008, 08:59:06 AM
There's all sorts of loons out there building "perpetual motion" machines in their garages and basements. In fact I'm going to have a look on youtube right now, I fancy a laugh :D
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Androkles on June 24, 2008, 01:59:48 PM
There's all sorts of loons out there building "perpetual motion" machines in their garages and basements. In fact I'm going to have a look on youtube right now, I fancy a laugh :D

If one of those machines actually worked, the maker would be famous already.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on June 24, 2008, 02:21:43 PM
They can't work, they all lose energy due to friction, and have horribly inefficient ways to reuse gravitaional potential energy or magnetic energy.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: divito the truthist on June 24, 2008, 07:38:08 PM
If this one works the way I'm envisioning it does, then it is certainly possible.

If I had the technical know-how, I'd definitely make my own.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on June 24, 2008, 07:53:18 PM
I'm skeptical. I've seen a mower that ran on water. The guy was a scam artist. All it was was that the battery separated the water and then burned the hydrogen. It was simply a battery powered mower. It recharged the battery as it went but it could only recharge the battery a percentage of the electricity it used. I pointed this out to the guy in front of my family and a bunch of people. He called me an idiot and the people believed him. i lawled.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Jack on June 25, 2008, 12:32:24 AM
If perpetual motion is possible, or if someone successfully developed a free energy engine, the energy industry will do anything to destroy (or buy off) such device or perhaps assassinate the developer.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Mr. Ireland on June 25, 2008, 05:31:08 AM
If this one works the way I'm envisioning it does, then it is certainly possible.

If I had the technical know-how, I'd definitely make my own.

"idear"
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: divito the truthist on June 25, 2008, 06:59:03 AM
I didn't pay too close attention to the link that I provided, but I'm guessing that it works along the line of setting up magnets in such a way that the repulsion and attraction forces the spinning motion (Can't remember if they said that specifically in the video).

Of course, doing that naturally with precise placement would be incredibly difficult to impossible, so allowing some of the power to adjust the orientation would serve as the best method to getting something incredibly efficient as they claim. Maybe not free energy, but something incredibly useful.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Jack on June 25, 2008, 07:07:02 AM
Or... more realistically, they'll buy it and sell them at some huge fee each.
Uh, that's what I said.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on June 25, 2008, 12:49:34 PM
If perpetual motion is possible, or if someone successfully developed a free energy engine, the energy industry will do anything to destroy (or buy off) such device or perhaps assassinate the developer.
They wouldn't do anything to destroy it. They would much rather be able to sell something that they get for free, than have to find drill, then turn into power fossil fuels, all while having to deal with pollution standards and all the yellow tape they go through. It would make them RICH.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on June 25, 2008, 12:52:03 PM
I didn't pay too close attention to the link that I provided, but I'm guessing that it works along the line of setting up magnets in such a way that the repulsion and attraction forces the spinning motion (Can't remember if they said that specifically in the video).

Of course, doing that naturally with precise placement would be incredibly difficult to impossible, so allowing some of the power to adjust the orientation would serve as the best method to getting something incredibly efficient as they claim. Maybe not free energy, but something incredibly useful.
The best you'd get there is a frictionless spinning device I believe. Any energy you take out of the system by say generating electricity, would slow it down. Eventually you'd take all the energy out of the system and it would stop. If any of these guys were real they'd have MILLIONS of dollars of investments, because who wouldn't want to get in on free energy? It's a scam.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: narcberry on June 25, 2008, 01:49:00 PM
The ISS maintains a constant orbit around the earth despite the friction with the atmosphere it still resides in.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on June 25, 2008, 02:18:49 PM
The ISS maintains a constant orbit around the earth despite the friction with the atmosphere it still resides in.
the resistance is minimal, I remember that either it takes a tiny bit of spin out of the earth, or that it will eventually fall from orbit. Also the earth is flat. So you're wrong.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on June 25, 2008, 02:58:22 PM
The ISS maintains a constant orbit around the earth because of the frictionless atmosphere it resides in.

Corrected.
It's not frictionless though. If there are air molecules, then there is air resistance. It might be so slight it doesn't affect its orbit. I do not know. I won't claim to know.

But narc believes the earth is flat so his argument is invalid.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: TheEngineer on June 25, 2008, 09:37:30 PM
I didn't pay too close attention to the link that I provided, but I'm guessing that it works along the line of setting up magnets in such a way that the repulsion and attraction forces the spinning motion (Can't remember if they said that specifically in the video).

Of course, doing that naturally with precise placement would be incredibly difficult to impossible, so allowing some of the power to adjust the orientation would serve as the best method to getting something incredibly efficient as they claim. Maybe not free energy, but something incredibly useful.
It's a scam.  Notice how he said there was coolant running to the machine?  How is the device producing 5x its initial energy all the while producing electricity and heat?  Producing electricity via a magnetic field produces 'resistance' within the field.  The greater the energy draw, the greater the resistance. 
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on June 25, 2008, 09:39:44 PM
I didn't pay too close attention to the link that I provided, but I'm guessing that it works along the line of setting up magnets in such a way that the repulsion and attraction forces the spinning motion (Can't remember if they said that specifically in the video).

Of course, doing that naturally with precise placement would be incredibly difficult to impossible, so allowing some of the power to adjust the orientation would serve as the best method to getting something incredibly efficient as they claim. Maybe not free energy, but something incredibly useful.
It's a scam.  Notice how he said there was coolant running to the machine?  How is the device producing 5x its initial energy all the while producing electricity and heat?  Producing electricity via a magnetic field produces 'resistance' within the field.  The greater the energy draw, the greater the resistance. 
of course. I said that it would lose energy. All free energy is a rip. Now super efficient solar is what we need to look into.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: divito the truthist on June 26, 2008, 02:58:51 AM
They wouldn't do anything to destroy it. They would much rather be able to sell something that they get for free, than have to find drill, then turn into power fossil fuels, all while having to deal with pollution standards and all the yellow tape they go through. It would make them RICH.

Similar to the R&D being done for possible use of hydrates.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: narcberry on August 04, 2008, 10:27:01 PM
The ISS maintains a constant orbit around the earth because of the frictionless atmosphere it resides in.

Corrected.

Instead of asserting your retarded claims as injections in more brilliant posters posts, feel free to make your own post so we can more easily identify the contributor of wasted thought.

Air is frictionless, gonna put that in the RE hall of fame.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Moon squirter on August 08, 2008, 09:27:35 AM
People have been try do to this sort of think with magnets for decades.  It's always the ones in working in "sheds".   Gyroscopes hold another fascination for these people.  Before that they were trying to do it with water wheels.  It goes on and on.

Magnets are subject to the same energy laws as anything else.  Will these people ever learn.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: markjo on August 08, 2008, 12:49:24 PM
The ISS maintains a constant orbit around the earth because of the frictionless atmosphere it resides in.

Corrected.
It's not frictionless though. If there are air molecules, then there is air resistance. It might be so slight it doesn't affect its orbit. I do not know. I won't claim to know.

But narc believes the earth is flat so his argument is invalid.

Actually, the friction does affect the ISS orbit.  From time to time the ISS needs to have its orbit boosted (usually via the shuttle) to put it back where it should be.  Anybody remember Skylab?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Wendy on August 08, 2008, 02:20:07 PM
I don't, acually. But I have heard that satellites have jet boosters for staying 'afloat'.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: narcberry on August 08, 2008, 04:10:43 PM
So you guys are admitting that orbit is impossible.
Gotta love RE.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Snaaaaake on August 08, 2008, 06:12:22 PM
Narc, it's past your bedtime at the mental hospital you live in.  :-*
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Wendy on August 08, 2008, 07:23:05 PM
So you guys are admitting that orbit is impossible.
Gotta love RE.

No one said that. Manmade satellites orbit at such a low alti- You know what? Screw that. I might as well say: Fuck you. :)
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: narcberry on August 08, 2008, 07:25:25 PM
Right, you can't orbit earth unless you have frequent rockets resupply your "orbit".

Doesn't sound like the orbit you guys predict in RET. I wonder what is resupplying your moon, to maintain its orbit.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Wendy on August 08, 2008, 07:26:13 PM
Or rather, what it is that isn't slowing it down.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on August 08, 2008, 11:00:01 PM
Right, you can't orbit earth unless you have frequent rockets resupply your "orbit".

Doesn't sound like the orbit you guys predict in RET. I wonder what is resupplying your moon, to maintain its orbit.
YAWN!

Ok, so orbiting in the atmosphere is the same as orbiting outside it? Can you back up this claim?

Saddam how can you not believe in friction. I think FE theory really needs to look into friction.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: narcberry on August 09, 2008, 04:32:06 PM
Are you asserting that the moon resides in an absolute vacuum?
Even if you are, and even if you were right, the RE moon moves the RE oceans, causing tides. This would have the same net effect, slowing the moon's orbit.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Parsifal on August 09, 2008, 10:48:17 PM
Are you asserting that the moon resides in an absolute vacuum?
Even if you are, and even if you were right, the RE moon moves the RE oceans, causing tides. This would have the same net effect, slowing the moon's orbit.

Narcberry is correct on this one. Also, gravitational waves.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on August 10, 2008, 07:56:10 AM
Are you asserting that the moon resides in an absolute vacuum?
Even if you are, and even if you were right, the RE moon moves the RE oceans, causing tides. This would have the same net effect, slowing the moon's orbit.
Yet the moon is drifting away not towards. Also I'd still like to hear about how you don't believe it friction. Why can't I ice skate across my kitchen floor?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Wendy on August 10, 2008, 11:24:01 AM
Because you don't cut it. ololol ;D
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: mayhem on August 13, 2008, 07:03:16 AM
Are you asserting that the moon resides in an absolute vacuum?
Even if you are, and even if you were right, the RE moon moves the RE oceans, causing tides. This would have the same net effect, slowing the moon's orbit.
Yet the moon is drifting away not towards. Also I'd still like to hear about how you don't believe it friction. Why can't I ice skate across my kitchen floor?

Just to make an effort to cover both sides of this discussion.

[RET reply]

An orbit is essentially the motion of a body around another body...at least thats the simplest definition I can come up with.  Orbit in space is basically when you have a body with sufficient forward momentum that it moves forward around the arc of the body its orbiting at or very near the same rate at which the mutual gravity of the two bodies draw them towards each other.  So if the mutual attraction is say 20 mph, then the smaller body needs to move forward at 20mph so that as it falls toward the larger body it also moves forward around the arc of that larger body's center of gravity, thus resulting in a stable orbit.  Friction from the wispy outer atmosphere does slow these orbiting bodies sufficiently that they do occasionally require a boost.

ISS is in whats known as Low Earth Orbit, that is an orbit which is high enough to allow significant term unpowered, but still easily reached by the space shuttle for resupply, construction and personnel rotations.  This does leave it subject to friction from the outer atmosphere, which reduces its  and occasionally it requires a boost in its orbital velocity in order to maintain a stable orbit.  I beleive that its orbit would be defined in such a way that it has a nominal average altitude, so when it is boosted it goes to the outer edge of its defined orbital altitude and over time it slows sufficiently to approach its lower acceptable limit before requiring another boost in velocity.

The moon is subject to the same mechanics as ISS.  Its forward (angular if you prefer) velocity is such that it is ever so slightly receding from the mutual center of gravity.  It is sufficiently far from the earth so as to not be subject to any appreciable frictional losses in momentum.

There all sorts of other issues to deal with such as the exchange of momentum between orbital pairs around their mutual CG and the loss of momentum due to tidal effects and the elastic stretching of the two spheres due to the gravitational pull of both on each other's near faces, but I'm not sufficiently versed in those effects to confidently explain them without simply cutting and pasting from wikipedia or another source.

[/RET reply}

[FET reply]

This discussion is moot because what we're discussing is not real.  See the FAQ.

[/FET reply]
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: jehkque on September 04, 2008, 10:45:41 AM
Hummmm you might want to check out www.nationalwater.org/perpetual/index.html (http://www.nationalwater.org/perpetual/index.html) and join the discussion about those proposed Laws of Perpetual Motion. Interesting I might say but you can decide for yourself.
 :o :-\ :-X :) ;D
 
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: JohnBreckman007 on September 04, 2008, 03:17:42 PM
I think perpetual motion is possible... but I don't know if you can use it to generate any more than it uses. The only thing I can think of which could be used for it is powerful earth magnets.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: jehkque on September 05, 2008, 05:22:37 AM
Consider geothermal generating plants, they provide power to thousands of homes and businesses. They use no power input in the form of fuel (coal, natural gas, oil, wood, nuclear [fission or fussion], hydrogen or any bio-mass nor do they use human power or animal power) to power the turbines that spin their generators producing electricity. The energy comes from heat generated by the compression of the matter in the earth's core transfered to the surface by hot water. By definition they are over unity energy, something current science says is impossible. They work however, and are accepted not to be in violation of any scientific law currently existing. Can you explain the contridiction? I can not with out saying that it is not impossible to make over unity energy and it is not impossible to obtain a useable work output either.

Consider consentrated solar panel generating plants, they provide power to thousands of homes and businesses. They use no power input in the form of fuel (check list above) to power the turbines that dirve their generators to produce the electrical output they supply. The energy comes from the infered waves in sunlight concentred from a large surface area onto a small heat asorbing area that heats up a fluid in the asorbing material and transfer that to powering the turbines. They also produce over unity energy, and also are accepted to work. Like geothermal plants they are also not classified as over unity even though they clearly are in the sense that they achieve their power output from "nothing" well not nothing rather sun light but nothing in the sense they use no fuel.

Consider solar voltaic panels, they can power your home, your business and other items and if you have enough of them several homes or businesses. What is their fuel source? Absolutely none, they use visible light from the sun and convert that into a usable electrical energy output. With a battery system they can provide you with power 24 hours a day. You can even sell excess power to the power company from your house or business and make a profit. Over unity ernergy production again, also accepted to work, known to not use any fuel but not classified as over unity, why? That is because main stream science want to desperately hold on to their notion that over unity and perpetual motion is impossible, the great misleading preception!

Consider wind turbines, like all of the above over unity, gets its power from the wind absent any fuel source applied. Again accepted and over unity energy production yet not classified as such.

Consider Hydroelectric generating plants, over unity production of energy, gets the motive power from gravity flow of water. Accepted, used, produces over unity energy output used by thousands of homes and businesses but not classified as over unity. Why is this? To protect the laws of science? Clearly they work how can they violate a law of science? May be the right law of science is not made yet that explains them and works with the other laws of science. That will not be found as long as science says it is impossible in spite of the fact there are observances of actual working devices that give over unity energy thus are perpetual motion machines. They may not go on forever but they are still perpetual motion while they work.

Consider the First Law of Motion, Sir Isaac Newton actuall defines perpetual motion in the law. A particle in motion will stay in motion at a constant velocity unless acted upon by an outside non-zero net force. Science over looks this, but of course if you have the particle do work you act upon it with a negative net force and it will lose velocity. But what if energy was provide to it from the environment and that energy was greater or equal to the work? You could have a net zero or greater than zero force applied, thus it would continue at its constent velocity or speed up. By the way, if you claim that force is not energy or energy is not force let me remind you that E=mc2 (Einstein's equation)and F=ma (Motte's equation for Newton's 2nd Law of motion) thus F=(E/c2)*a simple mathematical substitution and you have proof that force is energy and vice versa. Don't see it? E=mc2 is equal to m=E/c2 substitute like values in F=ma is equal to F=(E/c2)*a substituting m for the equal value E/c2.

The fact that prepetual motion hides in plain site, and if you say the words that it can be your tagged as a nut case or con-artist by main stream science. What a scam, science in their claim of impossibility is wrong and lableing people who are smart enough to see the scam as the ones that should be steared away from by society to hide thier shame and hold onto a lie and perpetuate that lie further into society for no good reason but to hide their shame and lead you down a wrong path.

 :o Damn I'm a nut case or a con-artist and they are right, maybe; then again  :o maybe I'm right and they are wrong. I vote for the latter but they vote for the former. What do you say?  ???





   

Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on September 05, 2008, 07:30:42 AM
Ummmm, geothermal power plants lower water into hot rocks then use the steam to power turbines......... They receive heat and transfer it to electric energy. That is not what we mean by free energy.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: mayhem on September 05, 2008, 07:54:52 AM
Geothermal, photovoltaic, wind turbine, hydroelectric, solar thermal...all use non-combustive forms of energy input, but they all use energy input in order to make electricicty.  There are no violations of scientific laws here because none of them put out more energy that they consume.  All they do is convert energy from one form (sunlight, moving air molecules...ie: fuel) to another (electricity, steam to turn a turbine to make electricity, etc.), some of which is lost to heat or light or whatever the waste product is in any given form of energy conversion.

Quote
Consider wind turbines, like all of the above over unity, gets its power from the wind absent any fuel source applied. Again accepted and over unity energy production yet not classified as such.

Do you not see that the wind is the fuel source here? 

Quote
But what if energy was provide to it from the environment and that energy was greater or equal to the work?

Well thats pretty much what many (not all) renewable energy systems are largely about...generating power that humans can use from energy sources present in the environment.  But all you're doing is stealing energy from one source and converting it.  Just because we're harnessing a relatively small part of the energy from the wind (compared to the total energy available) for example, doesn't mean the energy we got came from nowhere...it came from the wind.  And by stealing some of the energy from the wind we made the wind that much less powerful.  Put up enough windmills and you'll have no wind at all.

Thermodynamics...it is impossible to create energy from nothing.  You cna make a a process hyper efficient perhaps, but no matter what you do, you will always lose some in the process of converting a fuel into an energy.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: jehkque on September 05, 2008, 11:41:54 AM
Geothermal, photovoltaic, wind turbine, hydroelectric, solar thermal...all use non-combustive forms of energy input, but they all use energy input in order to make electricicty.  There are no violations of scientific laws here because none of them put out more energy that they consume.  All they do is convert energy from one form (sunlight, moving air molecules...ie: fuel) to another (electricity, steam to turn a turbine to make electricity, etc.), some of which is lost to heat or light or whatever the waste product is in any given form of energy conversion.

Quote
Consider wind turbines, like all of the above over unity, gets its power from the wind absent any fuel source applied. Again accepted and over unity energy production yet not classified as such.

Do you not see that the wind is the fuel source here? 

Quote
But what if energy was provide to it from the environment and that energy was greater or equal to the work?

Well thats pretty much what many (not all) renewable energy systems are largely about...generating power that humans can use from energy sources present in the environment.  But all you're doing is stealing energy from one source and converting it.  Just because we're harnessing a relatively small part of the energy from the wind (compared to the total energy available) for example, doesn't mean the energy we got came from nowhere...it came from the wind.  And by stealing some of the energy from the wind we made the wind that much less powerful.  Put up enough windmills and you'll have no wind at all.

Thermodynamics...it is impossible to create energy from nothing.  You cna make a a process hyper efficient perhaps, but no matter what you do, you will always lose some in the process of converting a fuel into an energy.
Ummmm, geothermal power plants lower water into hot rocks then use the steam to power turbines......... They receive heat and transfer it to electric energy. That is not what we mean by free energy.

Do you all not see, a fuel is a form of mass that is consumed while it releases energy and forms some other form of mass. Non-combustable energy is not a fuel source, it is an energy source yes but not a fuel source. "Lower water, get steam from heat use steam to power geothermal plant steam cools into water, steam is water, no change in mass. Wind is air, air blows past wind blade, imparts energy to blade, turns generator, get electricity, air leaves blade and is still air, no change in mass. Gasoline enters into a chamber, is ignited and burns producing heat expanding the air in the chamber yielding work, in the process gasoline changes and air changes, gasoline combines with air and forms co2 and h2o and oxygen in air changes as it forms co2 when it combines with the carbon in gasoline and h2o when it combines with the hydrogen in the gasoline. See the difference fuel consumed = energy transfered + mass changed vs energy conversion = energy transfered - mass the same?

It is my point that Over unity energy is not free energy, it is only transforming an existing form of energy, not a fuel, which can do work and again transform the energy into some other form of energy, thus energy is conserved yet no fuel is used. Your right on the statement that renewable energies use this to their advantage. Keep going you will come across the answer.

Energy can neither be created or destroyed only changed in form. Energy is there, change its form, in doing that you achieve work and accept you will not get the total amount of work in the energy you seek to convert, but the energy you can not convert into work will still be energy. The work you do is still energy and the energy in the larger system stays the same only changed on in a micro system scale that is in the macro energy system where energy stays constant.

The sun uses hydrogen and makes helium does it also convert helium back to hydrogen? Maybe, if so that may be a very good explaination of why it does not diminish rapidly. How would it do this? Maybe conversion of gravity to another form of energy, maybe by heat, maybe by both. Some mass must be lost but how much mass is lost? Does mass come back to the sun? The sun has been observed being hit from objects traveling near it thus gaining mass. That means mass out as energy and mass in from a greater system. Energy probably stays the same mass probably stays the same. Sun still puts out energy.

Does man know all of the processes of the sun? NO. Does man know all energy transfer systems? NO Is it possible to convert energy from one form to another? YES. Can that give man clean forms of energy to do work? Yes. Do those energy conversions violate laws of science as they are currently? NO. Does it mean you can get energy with out using a transformation of mass? YES. Does that mean you can get work with out supplying a mass to energy conversion? YES. Does that mean you get over unity when you consider what work you get when versus what energy you supply as a fuel? YES. Does that mean Perpetual motion is possible? YES. Does that mean you get it from nothing? NO. Does that mean the law of conservation of energy is preserved? YES. Does that mean the Laws of Thermodynamics are preserved? YES. Does that mean if we quit claiming over unity and perpetual motion is impossible because it would mean free energy and violate laws of science we can actually learn things? YES. Does that mean man can have unlimited energy? NO.

It only means under certain circumstances you can get usable work from your surroundings with out supplying a fuel supply. If those circumstances are not there you do not get the energy conversion necessary to give you work. Your not going to get it from nothing you have to have an energy source to tap and you have to tap it in a way as to give you the amount of work you want to accomplish. If the energy is not there and in an amount you can convert to meet your needs you don't get the work output you want. You better add energy from a fuel source when that occurs or your not going to do what work you want to do. 

If you have not understood by now your going to post some other comment. I'm ready to discuss that next one.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on September 05, 2008, 11:51:26 AM
Fuel is a source of potential energy. No mass is lost. It simply has energy stored due to the location of it's electrons. I didn't read past the first sentence because YOUR RETARTED.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: MrKappa on September 05, 2008, 12:06:02 PM
Fuel is a source of potential energy. No mass is lost. It simply has energy stored due to the location of it's electrons. I didn't read past the first sentence because YOUR RETARTED.

You my friend are the retarded one for not reading past the first sentence... Such ignorance...

You should teach grade school children... They might teach you a thing or two... like how to spell retarded...
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on September 05, 2008, 12:15:56 PM
Fuel is a source of potential energy. No mass is lost. It simply has energy stored due to the location of it's electrons. I didn't read past the first sentence because YOUR RETARTED.

You my friend are the retarded one for not reading past the first sentence... Such ignorance...

You should teach grade school children... They might teach you a thing or two... like how to spell retarded...
A) try not making massive walls of text if you want to get your points across.
B) it was intentional. Ironically you didn't notice that i used your instead of you are. Good reader.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: mayhem on September 05, 2008, 12:17:32 PM
Quote
Do you all not see, a fuel is a form of mass that is consumed while it releases energy and forms some other form of mass. Non-combustable energy is not a fuel source, it is an energy source yes but not a fuel source. "Lower water, get steam from heat use steam to power geothermal plant steam cools into water, steam is water, no change in mass. Wind is air, air blows past wind blade, imparts energy to blade, turns generator, get electricity, air leaves blade and is still air, no change in mass.

Fuel is what goes into a system and is used in some way to get energy out.  In a car its deisel, gasoline or electricity.  In a wind turbine the fuel is moving air.  Air goes into the system as wind, imparts some of its energy to the blades, turns generator, creates electricity, air leaves blade and is still air...but moving with less force.  

Surely you must see that no matter what you call the input energy carrying medium (air, geothermal, whatever), there is no free energy...it all has to come from somewhere.  I don't see how it matters here how we define fuel...you're harnessing an energy source in some fashion that reduces the input to create an output thats in a usable form.  You're not getting energy from nothing, its not perpetual motion.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: jehkque on September 05, 2008, 12:21:17 PM
Fuel is a source of potential energy. No mass is lost. It simply has energy stored due to the location of it's electrons. I didn't read past the first sentence because YOUR RETARTED.

I did not say mass was lost! I said "a fuel is a form of mass that is consumed while it releases energy and forms some other form of mass" That does not in any way say losses mass. Says mass is changed from one form to another in the process. Law of Conservation of Mass.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: MrKappa on September 05, 2008, 12:30:30 PM
Quote
A) try not making massive walls of text if you want to get your points across.
B) it was intentional. Ironically you didn't notice that i used your instead of you are. Good reader.

Such pride as well... no matter... your entitled to call whom ever you'd like retarted... I will do the same with large blocks of text... and bad spelling too...
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on September 05, 2008, 12:33:37 PM
Quote
A) try not making massive walls of text if you want to get your points across.
B) it was intentional. Ironically you didn't notice that i used your instead of you are. Good reader.

Such pride as well... no matter... your entitled to call whom ever you'd like retarted... I will do the same with large blocks of text... and bad spelling too...
As you wish.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: jehkque on September 05, 2008, 12:58:15 PM
Quote
Do you all not see, a fuel is a form of mass that is consumed while it releases energy and forms some other form of mass. Non-combustable energy is not a fuel source, it is an energy source yes but not a fuel source. "Lower water, get steam from heat use steam to power geothermal plant steam cools into water, steam is water, no change in mass. Wind is air, air blows past wind blade, imparts energy to blade, turns generator, get electricity, air leaves blade and is still air, no change in mass.

Fuel is what goes into a system and is used in some way to get energy out.  In a car its deisel, gasoline or electricity.  In a wind turbine the fuel is moving air.  Air goes into the system as wind, imparts some of its energy to the blades, turns generator, creates electricity, air leaves blade and is still air...but moving with less force.  

Surely you must see that no matter what you call the input energy carrying medium (air, geothermal, whatever), there is no free energy...it all has to come from somewhere.  I don't see how it matters here how we define fuel...you're harnessing an energy source in some fashion that reduces the input to create an output thats in a usable form.  You're not getting energy from nothing, its not perpetual motion.

Your right yet wrong, let me explain that. Air (wind) is the energy supply to a wind turbine, not the fuel supply. True it loses energy as energy is transfered to the blade of the wind turbine so it leaves the blade with less force. No mass conversion though thus not fuel, only applied energy to a conversion system. Electricity is also not a fuel, though it can derive from a fuel source. Sunlight is also not a fuel source, though it derives from a fuel source upon the sun.

Last but not least, if you define perpetual motion as having to be from nothing, then yes you will never get perpetual motion. If on the other hand you define perpetual motion as motion that continues with out an energy source intentionally applied by man or other intelligent being or gives greater energy output than is supplied by man or other intelligent being. I would have to say yes by that definition of perpetual motion it is possible. You will not get free energy, but you can get perpetual energy outputs until what energy that is causing that perpetual energy output is not longer available.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: lolz at trollz on September 05, 2008, 01:24:27 PM
dU = dQ + dW 

That is the first law of thermo dynamics

Windmills do not violate it. 

Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on September 05, 2008, 01:27:35 PM
Quote
Do you all not see, a fuel is a form of mass that is consumed while it releases energy and forms some other form of mass. Non-combustable energy is not a fuel source, it is an energy source yes but not a fuel source. "Lower water, get steam from heat use steam to power geothermal plant steam cools into water, steam is water, no change in mass. Wind is air, air blows past wind blade, imparts energy to blade, turns generator, get electricity, air leaves blade and is still air, no change in mass.

Fuel is what goes into a system and is used in some way to get energy out.  In a car its deisel, gasoline or electricity.  In a wind turbine the fuel is moving air.  Air goes into the system as wind, imparts some of its energy to the blades, turns generator, creates electricity, air leaves blade and is still air...but moving with less force.  

Surely you must see that no matter what you call the input energy carrying medium (air, geothermal, whatever), there is no free energy...it all has to come from somewhere.  I don't see how it matters here how we define fuel...you're harnessing an energy source in some fashion that reduces the input to create an output thats in a usable form.  You're not getting energy from nothing, its not perpetual motion.

Your right yet wrong, let me explain that. Air (wind) is the energy supply to a wind turbine, not the fuel supply. True it loses energy as energy is transfered to the blade of the wind turbine so it leaves the blade with less force. No mass conversion though thus not fuel, only applied energy to a conversion system. Electricity is also not a fuel, though it can derive from a fuel source. Sunlight is also not a fuel source, though it derives from a fuel source upon the sun.

Last but not least, if you define perpetual motion as having to be from nothing, then yes you will never get perpetual motion. If on the other hand you define perpetual motion as motion that continues with out an energy source intentionally applied by man or other intelligent being or gives greater energy output than is supplied by man or other intelligent being. I would have to say yes by that definition of perpetual motion it is possible. You will not get free energy, but you can get perpetual energy outputs until what energy that is causing that perpetual energy output is not longer available.
Perpetual motion, is a process that continues indefinitely without any energy being added to the system. The sun supplying massive amounts of heat to the atmosphere kind of ruins this. Also the windmill isn't a closed system, it is just leaching energy from the atmospheric motion.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 05, 2008, 01:38:30 PM
Perpetual motion always loses to entropy in the end (if not something more mundane first).

Perpetual motion is impossible. 'Free energy' generation is impossible. Buy a solar panel and deal with it.


Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: jehkque on September 05, 2008, 01:41:27 PM
Quote
Do you all not see, a fuel is a form of mass that is consumed while it releases energy and forms some other form of mass. Non-combustable energy is not a fuel source, it is an energy source yes but not a fuel source. "Lower water, get steam from heat use steam to power geothermal plant steam cools into water, steam is water, no change in mass. Wind is air, air blows past wind blade, imparts energy to blade, turns generator, get electricity, air leaves blade and is still air, no change in mass.

Fuel is what goes into a system and is used in some way to get energy out.  In a car its deisel, gasoline or electricity.  In a wind turbine the fuel is moving air.  Air goes into the system as wind, imparts some of its energy to the blades, turns generator, creates electricity, air leaves blade and is still air...but moving with less force.  

Surely you must see that no matter what you call the input energy carrying medium (air, geothermal, whatever), there is no free energy...it all has to come from somewhere.  I don't see how it matters here how we define fuel...you're harnessing an energy source in some fashion that reduces the input to create an output thats in a usable form.  You're not getting energy from nothing, its not perpetual motion.

Your right yet wrong, let me explain that. Air (wind) is the energy supply to a wind turbine, not the fuel supply. True it loses energy as energy is transfered to the blade of the wind turbine so it leaves the blade with less force. No mass conversion though thus not fuel, only applied energy to a conversion system. Electricity is also not a fuel, though it can derive from a fuel source. Sunlight is also not a fuel source, though it derives from a fuel source upon the sun.

Last but not least, if you define perpetual motion as having to be from nothing, then yes you will never get perpetual motion. If on the other hand you define perpetual motion as motion that continues with out an energy source intentionally applied by man or other intelligent being or gives greater energy output than is supplied by man or other intelligent being. I would have to say yes by that definition of perpetual motion it is possible. You will not get free energy, but you can get perpetual energy outputs until what energy that is causing that perpetual energy output is not longer available.
Perpetual motion, is a process that continues indefinitely without any energy being added to the system. The sun supplying massive amounts of heat to the atmosphere kind of ruins this. Also the windmill isn't a closed system, it is just leaching energy from the atmospheric motion.

Hummm Perpetual motion is a process that continues indefinitely with out energy being added to the system? Check out Sir Isaac Newton's First Law of Motion: "It is possible to select a set of reference frames, called inertial reference frames, observed from which a particle moves without any change in velocity if no net force acts on it." Often interpreted to state, "A particle (object) at rest will continue at rest or a particle (object) in motion will continue in motion at constant velocity unless acted upon by a non-zero net force applied to the particle (object) from an external source."

Looks like Newton already said perpetual motion by that definition, in fact it is a law of science!
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 05, 2008, 01:45:07 PM
Perpetual motion always loses to entropy in the end (if not something more mundane first).

Perpetual motion is impossible. 'Free energy' generation is impossible. Buy a solar panel and deal with it.



Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: jehkque on September 05, 2008, 02:03:20 PM
Perpetual motion always loses to entropy in the end (if not something more mundane first).

Perpetual motion is impossible. 'Free energy' generation is impossible. Buy a solar panel and deal with it.




I own a solar array, at the end of the month I get a check from the utility company my house is hooked up to, each and every month. I have no other generating unit on the house, I run all the electrical items I used to before the solar array was installed and I have added some other items as well. Is my house a perpetual energy house? Hummm I get paid by the utility company because I sell them more power than I use from them. More energy output from my house than my house uses as an energy input. Its atleast over unity. So if not by the solar panel then how? I get free energy, the proof is that I am on the same electric grid as someone that pays for their electricity and I get paid for my connection to the grid. That energy comes from the sun, some day that will burn out and then that will stop, will I be here when that happens? Probably not!

Solar panels must be over unity, in the sense that I do not supply energy or fuel to them, I use energy from the sun which is there for the taking "for free" if you want to call your self a believer that perpetual motion means "free energy". I say it is not free the sun makes it and costs some fuel on the sun to make it. I just use that energy as a free source to me here on earth and earth is a seperate system than the sun, but in a system that the sun is in.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: JohnBreckman007 on September 05, 2008, 02:08:57 PM
Consider geothermal generating plants, they provide power to thousands of homes and businesses. They use no power input in the form of fuel (coal, natural gas, oil, wood, nuclear [fission or fussion], hydrogen or any bio-mass nor do they use human power or animal power) to power the turbines that spin their generators producing electricity. The energy comes from heat generated by the compression of the matter in the earth's core transfered to the surface by hot water. By definition they are over unity energy, something current science says is impossible. They work however, and are accepted not to be in violation of any scientific law currently existing. Can you explain the contridiction? I can not with out saying that it is not impossible to make over unity energy and it is not impossible to obtain a useable work output either.

Consider consentrated solar panel generating plants, they provide power to thousands of homes and businesses. They use no power input in the form of fuel (check list above) to power the turbines that dirve their generators to produce the electrical output they supply. The energy comes from the infered waves in sunlight concentred from a large surface area onto a small heat asorbing area that heats up a fluid in the asorbing material and transfer that to powering the turbines. They also produce over unity energy, and also are accepted to work. Like geothermal plants they are also not classified as over unity even though they clearly are in the sense that they achieve their power output from "nothing" well not nothing rather sun light but nothing in the sense they use no fuel.

Consider solar voltaic panels, they can power your home, your business and other items and if you have enough of them several homes or businesses. What is their fuel source? Absolutely none, they use visible light from the sun and convert that into a usable electrical energy output. With a battery system they can provide you with power 24 hours a day. You can even sell excess power to the power company from your house or business and make a profit. Over unity ernergy production again, also accepted to work, known to not use any fuel but not classified as over unity, why? That is because main stream science want to desperately hold on to their notion that over unity and perpetual motion is impossible, the great misleading preception!

Consider wind turbines, like all of the above over unity, gets its power from the wind absent any fuel source applied. Again accepted and over unity energy production yet not classified as such.

Consider Hydroelectric generating plants, over unity production of energy, gets the motive power from gravity flow of water. Accepted, used, produces over unity energy output used by thousands of homes and businesses but not classified as over unity. Why is this? To protect the laws of science? Clearly they work how can they violate a law of science? May be the right law of science is not made yet that explains them and works with the other laws of science. That will not be found as long as science says it is impossible in spite of the fact there are observances of actual working devices that give over unity energy thus are perpetual motion machines. They may not go on forever but they are still perpetual motion while they work.

It's renewable energy, not perpetual motion. Perpetual motion drives itself, it doesn't rely on existing natural energy sources.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: jehkque on September 05, 2008, 02:18:20 PM
Consider geothermal generating plants, they provide power to thousands of homes and businesses. They use no power input in the form of fuel (coal, natural gas, oil, wood, nuclear [fission or fussion], hydrogen or any bio-mass nor do they use human power or animal power) to power the turbines that spin their generators producing electricity. The energy comes from heat generated by the compression of the matter in the earth's core transfered to the surface by hot water. By definition they are over unity energy, something current science says is impossible. They work however, and are accepted not to be in violation of any scientific law currently existing. Can you explain the contridiction? I can not with out saying that it is not impossible to make over unity energy and it is not impossible to obtain a useable work output either.

Consider consentrated solar panel generating plants, they provide power to thousands of homes and businesses. They use no power input in the form of fuel (check list above) to power the turbines that dirve their generators to produce the electrical output they supply. The energy comes from the infered waves in sunlight concentred from a large surface area onto a small heat asorbing area that heats up a fluid in the asorbing material and transfer that to powering the turbines. They also produce over unity energy, and also are accepted to work. Like geothermal plants they are also not classified as over unity even though they clearly are in the sense that they achieve their power output from "nothing" well not nothing rather sun light but nothing in the sense they use no fuel.

Consider solar voltaic panels, they can power your home, your business and other items and if you have enough of them several homes or businesses. What is their fuel source? Absolutely none, they use visible light from the sun and convert that into a usable electrical energy output. With a battery system they can provide you with power 24 hours a day. You can even sell excess power to the power company from your house or business and make a profit. Over unity ernergy production again, also accepted to work, known to not use any fuel but not classified as over unity, why? That is because main stream science want to desperately hold on to their notion that over unity and perpetual motion is impossible, the great misleading preception!

Consider wind turbines, like all of the above over unity, gets its power from the wind absent any fuel source applied. Again accepted and over unity energy production yet not classified as such.

Consider Hydroelectric generating plants, over unity production of energy, gets the motive power from gravity flow of water. Accepted, used, produces over unity energy output used by thousands of homes and businesses but not classified as over unity. Why is this? To protect the laws of science? Clearly they work how can they violate a law of science? May be the right law of science is not made yet that explains them and works with the other laws of science. That will not be found as long as science says it is impossible in spite of the fact there are observances of actual working devices that give over unity energy thus are perpetual motion machines. They may not go on forever but they are still perpetual motion while they work.

It's renewable energy, not perpetual motion. Perpetual motion drives itself, it doesn't rely on existing natural energy sources.

Lets call it by some new name, "RENEWALBE ENERGY" and disquise it. Let's see The Law of Conservation of Energy: “The total amount of energy in any isolated system remains constant but can not be recreated although it may change forms.” 
Energy can not be recreated, thus is not renewable! Unless you want to talk about growing plants every year to replace the ones you consumed from the last time you harvested. Then you are not renewing energy your only using a new source of sunlight to grow a new crop to replace the old one you already used.

Or does sunlight bounce back into space and then back again to be reused over and over again? Its over unity energy no matter if you call it the sweet name of renewable energy. It is only called that to hold to the claim that over unity and perpetual motion is free energy and thus is impossible. Instead of stating a misnomer call it what it is and take the lump that over unity and perpetual motion is possible. If not then keep contridicting yourself. Please I love the laugh.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on September 05, 2008, 02:23:32 PM
Perpetual motion always loses to entropy in the end (if not something more mundane first).

Perpetual motion is impossible. 'Free energy' generation is impossible. Buy a solar panel and deal with it.




I own a solar array, at the end of the month I get a check from the utility company my house is hooked up to, each and every month. I have no other generating unit on the house, I run all the electrical items I used to before the solar array was installed and I have added some other items as well. Is my house a perpetual energy house? Hummm I get paid by the utility company because I sell them more power than I use from them. More energy output from my house than my house uses as an energy input. Its atleast over unity. So if not by the solar panel then how? I get free energy, the proof is that I am on the same electric grid as someone that pays for their electricity and I get paid for my connection to the grid. That energy comes from the sun, some day that will burn out and then that will stop, will I be here when that happens? Probably not!

Solar panels must be over unity, in the sense that I do not supply energy or fuel to them, I use energy from the sun which is there for the taking "for free" if you want to call your self a believer that perpetual motion means "free energy". I say it is not free the sun makes it and costs some fuel on the sun to make it. I just use that energy as a free source to me here on earth and earth is a seperate system than the sun, but in a system that the sun is in.
The sun has a finite amount of energy that it gains by fusion. Leeching off the sun doesn't make it free (in the current meaning of the world).
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: lolz at trollz on September 05, 2008, 02:25:09 PM
isolated system

Solar panels, windmills, geothermal power stations are not isolated systems.  

They depend on an outside source of energy.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: MrKappa on September 05, 2008, 02:55:37 PM
Quote
It's renewable energy, not perpetual motion. Perpetual motion drives itself, it doesn't rely on existing natural energy sources.

Are those the only requirements? Are magnets considered a natural energy source?

Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on September 05, 2008, 03:03:44 PM
Quote
It's renewable energy, not perpetual motion. Perpetual motion drives itself, it doesn't rely on existing natural energy sources.

Are those the only requirements? Are magnets considered a natural energy source?


No, it took energy to create the effect. Also magnets do not have perpetual energy. Entropy in the magnet causes it to become misaligned.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: MrKappa on September 05, 2008, 03:05:54 PM
Quote
No, it took energy to create the effect. Also magnets do not have perpetual energy. Entropy in the magnet causes it to become misaligned.

Damn...
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 05, 2008, 03:12:38 PM
I just use that energy as a free source to me here on earth and earth is a seperate system than the sun, but in a system that the sun is in.

I'm not sure what you're saying in your post... are you trying to say that solar power allows perpetual motion, or that it is simply a convenient source of clean, plentiful energy.  If the latter then I completely agree - you are essentially just tapping a tiny amount of power from a massive fusion power plant in the sky.

If you are saying the former, please refer to my previous post.

PS - Raist is right, 'permanent' magnets are highly ordered systems. Entropy kills them as much as every other source of energy, in the end.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: narcberry on September 05, 2008, 05:32:22 PM
Could RE'ers explain how their earth can constantly accelerate all matter in the universe towards it, without consuming energy?
IE, the moon orbits the RE due to a constant force the earth exhibits on the moon. How can the earth keep swinging the moon around for billions of years without tiring some energy supply?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: lolz at trollz on September 05, 2008, 05:50:10 PM
Could RE'ers explain how their earth can constantly accelerate all matter in the universe towards it, without consuming energy?
IE, the moon orbits the RE due to a constant force the earth exhibits on the moon. How can the earth keep swinging the moon around for billions of years without tiring some energy supply?

The energy of the system is exactly the same, no energy is being output. 
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 05, 2008, 05:50:17 PM
Could RE'ers explain how their earth can constantly accelerate all matter in the universe towards it, without consuming energy?
IE, the moon orbits the RE due to a constant force the earth exhibits on the moon. How can the earth keep swinging the moon around for billions of years without tiring some energy supply?

At the risk of falling into a carefully constructed narcberry trap, I'll try to give you an answer... In GR, objects moving through space with no accelerations applied to them (some mystical 'perfect vacuum') follow geodesics - that is, the 'free fall' trajectory of an object. However, just as accelerating an electric charge emits electromagnetic radiation, so an accelerating mass creates gravitational waves.

This emission of 'gravitational radiation' means that masses will not carry on coasting forever - this includes the Moon, which in the absence of external intervention would eventually smash into the Earth (although it is more likely to be destroyed by the Sun before that happens). The time scale is so long since gravitation is actually an incredibly weak force, and the Moon and Earth have a huge amount of kinetic energy to disperse before any collision could occur.

As to the first part of your question - the Earth deforms space-time according to it's mass, then all other masses respond according to their local space-time curvature. It's disingenuous to think of an infinite number of 'springs' reaching from the Earth to all other mass-energy in the Universe.

*braces for response*
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on September 05, 2008, 06:11:49 PM
Could RE'ers explain how their earth can constantly accelerate all matter in the universe towards it, without consuming energy?
IE, the moon orbits the RE due to a constant force the earth exhibits on the moon. How can the earth keep swinging the moon around for billions of years without tiring some energy supply?

At the risk of falling into a carefully constructed narcberry trap, I'll try to give you an answer... In GR, objects moving through space with no accelerations applied to them (some mystical 'perfect vacuum') follow geodesics - that is, the 'free fall' trajectory of an object. However, just as accelerating an electric charge emits electromagnetic radiation, so an accelerating mass creates gravitational waves.

This emission of 'gravitational radiation' means that masses will not carry on coasting forever - this includes the Moon, which in the absence of external intervention would eventually smash into the Earth (although it is more likely to be destroyed by the Sun before that happens). The time scale is so long since gravitation is actually an incredibly weak force, and the Moon and Earth have a huge amount of kinetic energy to disperse before any collision could occur.

As to the first part of your question - the Earth deforms space-time according to it's mass, then all other masses respond according to their local space-time curvature. It's disingenuous to think of an infinite number of 'springs' reaching from the Earth to all other mass-energy in the Universe.

*braces for response*
The moon has too much energy to be in a stable orbit. It will drift off long before it loses enough energy to crash into the earth. Even without energy loss it does not have a stable orbit. It is just temporarily circling us.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 05, 2008, 06:26:06 PM
The moon has too much energy to be in a stable orbit. It will drift off long before it loses enough energy to crash into the earth. Even without energy loss it does not have a stable orbit. It is just temporarily circling us.

Fair enough! I was assuming a reasonably stable orbit to begin with, but I had read conflicting accounts of whether the Moon would eventually leave or fall back to Earth depending on how you take various solar wind/magnetosphere/gravitational wave emission/tidal dragging factors into account.  If you've read about it in any great detail I'm sure you're better informed than me, I've only really skimmed the literature on that one :)
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on September 05, 2008, 06:26:55 PM
The moon has too much energy to be in a stable orbit. It will drift off long before it loses enough energy to crash into the earth. Even without energy loss it does not have a stable orbit. It is just temporarily circling us.

This is interesting.  Is there a time frame?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: mayhem on September 05, 2008, 07:53:01 PM
Quote
Do you all not see, a fuel is a form of mass that is consumed while it releases energy and forms some other form of mass. Non-combustable energy is not a fuel source, it is an energy source yes but not a fuel source. "Lower water, get steam from heat use steam to power geothermal plant steam cools into water, steam is water, no change in mass. Wind is air, air blows past wind blade, imparts energy to blade, turns generator, get electricity, air leaves blade and is still air, no change in mass.

Fuel is what goes into a system and is used in some way to get energy out.  In a car its deisel, gasoline or electricity.  In a wind turbine the fuel is moving air.  Air goes into the system as wind, imparts some of its energy to the blades, turns generator, creates electricity, air leaves blade and is still air...but moving with less force.  

Surely you must see that no matter what you call the input energy carrying medium (air, geothermal, whatever), there is no free energy...it all has to come from somewhere.  I don't see how it matters here how we define fuel...you're harnessing an energy source in some fashion that reduces the input to create an output thats in a usable form.  You're not getting energy from nothing, its not perpetual motion.

Your right yet wrong, let me explain that. Air (wind) is the energy supply to a wind turbine, not the fuel supply. True it loses energy as energy is transfered to the blade of the wind turbine so it leaves the blade with less force. No mass conversion though thus not fuel, only applied energy to a conversion system. Electricity is also not a fuel, though it can derive from a fuel source. Sunlight is also not a fuel source, though it derives from a fuel source upon the sun.

Upon reviewing some dictionaries I can concede that the commonly accepted definition of "fuel" is a form of matter that is converted to another form in order to extract energy...typicaly through combustion, but also can be applied to radioactive decay (like in a nuclear power plant).  But this doesn't change my perspective in this discussion...it simply means that I'm using a term incorrectly.

Quote
If on the other hand you define perpetual motion as motion that continues with out an energy source intentionally applied by man or other intelligent being or gives greater energy output than is supplied by man or other intelligent being. I would have to say yes by that definition of perpetual motion it is possible. You will not get free energy, but you can get perpetual energy outputs until what energy that is causing that perpetual energy output is not longer available.

I don't think anyone can reasonably define "perpetual motion" the way you've suggested above...not if you use the word "perpetual" correctly.  What you're calling perpetual motion, the rest of the world calls renewabe resources.

After re-reading an reconsidering your earler posts I still say you are incorrect.  A geothermal plant does not produce more energy than it consumes, nor do wind farms or the solar panels on the roof of your house.  All of these things have energy inputs that are greater than their yield.  Energy and mass are conserved.

Quote
I own a solar array, at the end of the month I get a check from the utility company my house is hooked up to, each and every month. I have no other generating unit on the house, I run all the electrical items I used to before the solar array was installed and I have added some other items as well. Is my house a perpetual energy house? Hummm I get paid by the utility company because I sell them more power than I use from them. More energy output from my house than my house uses as an energy input. Its atleast over unity. So if not by the solar panel then how? I get free energy, the proof is that I am on the same electric grid as someone that pays for their electricity and I get paid for my connection to the grid.

What did the array cost to install?  You seem to be defining free energy in economic terms, not physics terms.  Your energy isn't free in either case...that solar array cost alot of money to purchase and install...typical roi on a pv array on a home is in the order of about 18-20 years.  Your system is so far from energy unity its not even funny...current photovoltaics operate somewhere in the range of 10% or less efficiency...the last actual panel specs I looked at when considering purchasing an array was about 4% efficient, I may be generous in my sugestion of 10% energy conversion on a commercially available pv array.  You're only looking at your electric meter and since you generate more power than you use, you're calling it perpetual motion...but its not.  Want proof?  Easy enough.  Go up on your roof on a suny day and lay your hand right on the middle of one of your solar panels.  If you're converting 100% of the sunlight hitting those panels to electricity then they will be cool to the touch...but if they're not converting all that solar radiation they'll be hot.

I think its great that you have an array that generates more power than you use...you're part of the energy solution here and thats fantastic.  But to call it a perpetual motion machine of sorts is absolutely not correct.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: TheEngineer on September 05, 2008, 08:36:23 PM
Your right yet wrong, let me explain that. Air (wind) is the energy supply to a wind turbine, not the fuel supply. True it loses energy as energy is transfered to the blade of the wind turbine so it leaves the blade with less force. No mass conversion though thus not fuel, only applied energy to a conversion system. Electricity is also not a fuel, though it can derive from a fuel source. Sunlight is also not a fuel source, though it derives from a fuel source upon the sun.
Please tell me you are joking.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: jehkque on September 05, 2008, 09:00:43 PM
I love it, lots to debate :) I'm goning to have fun. So where to start? I guess at the top and work down sounds good enough.

Perpetual motion always loses to entropy in the end (if not something more mundane first).

Perpetual motion is impossible. 'Free energy' generation is impossible. Buy a solar panel and deal with it.




I own a solar array, at the end of the month I get a check from the utility company my house is hooked up to, each and every month. I have no other generating unit on the house, I run all the electrical items I used to before the solar array was installed and I have added some other items as well. Is my house a perpetual energy house? Hummm I get paid by the utility company because I sell them more power than I use from them. More energy output from my house than my house uses as an energy input. Its atleast over unity. So if not by the solar panel then how? I get free energy, the proof is that I am on the same electric grid as someone that pays for their electricity and I get paid for my connection to the grid. That energy comes from the sun, some day that will burn out and then that will stop, will I be here when that happens? Probably not!

Solar panels must be over unity, in the sense that I do not supply energy or fuel to them, I use energy from the sun which is there for the taking "for free" if you want to call your self a believer that perpetual motion means "free energy". I say it is not free the sun makes it and costs some fuel on the sun to make it. I just use that energy as a free source to me here on earth and earth is a seperate system than the sun, but in a system that the sun is in.
The sun has a finite amount of energy that it gains by fusion. Leeching off the sun doesn't make it free (in the current meaning of the world).

I told you I was using sun light and that the sun used fuel to make that, and since it uses fuel it will some day stop. I agree its not free, its lucrative! I get money and power my house and you pay for your energy. BTW I did not even pay for the solar system, that was free from government incentives :)

So the sun gives me energy which I freely take and use my solar array to convert to electricity and power my house and send some out to the grid and get paid for what I send to the grid and the solar array was free so your right its not free its lucrative!!!!! Top that one, I guess I  will stop saying its over unity energy to overly lucrative energy and smile every time I get a check and you are still claiming I can not get over unity energy from environmental energy sources.  ;D
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on September 05, 2008, 09:06:46 PM
I love it, lots to debate :) I'm goning to have fun. So where to start? I guess at the top and work down sounds good enough.

Perpetual motion always loses to entropy in the end (if not something more mundane first).

Perpetual motion is impossible. 'Free energy' generation is impossible. Buy a solar panel and deal with it.




I own a solar array, at the end of the month I get a check from the utility company my house is hooked up to, each and every month. I have no other generating unit on the house, I run all the electrical items I used to before the solar array was installed and I have added some other items as well. Is my house a perpetual energy house? Hummm I get paid by the utility company because I sell them more power than I use from them. More energy output from my house than my house uses as an energy input. Its atleast over unity. So if not by the solar panel then how? I get free energy, the proof is that I am on the same electric grid as someone that pays for their electricity and I get paid for my connection to the grid. That energy comes from the sun, some day that will burn out and then that will stop, will I be here when that happens? Probably not!

Solar panels must be over unity, in the sense that I do not supply energy or fuel to them, I use energy from the sun which is there for the taking "for free" if you want to call your self a believer that perpetual motion means "free energy". I say it is not free the sun makes it and costs some fuel on the sun to make it. I just use that energy as a free source to me here on earth and earth is a seperate system than the sun, but in a system that the sun is in.
The sun has a finite amount of energy that it gains by fusion. Leeching off the sun doesn't make it free (in the current meaning of the world).

I told you I was using sun light and that the sun used fuel to make that, and since it uses fuel it will some day stop. I agree its not free, its lucrative! I get money and power my house and you pay for your energy. BTW I did not even pay for the solar system, that was free from government incentives :)

So the sun gives me energy which I freely take and use my solar array to convert to electricity and power my house and send some out to the grid and get paid for what I send to the grid and the solar array was free so your right its not free its lucrative!!!!! Top that one, I guess I  will stop saying its over unity energy to overly lucrative energy and smile every time I get a check and you are still claiming I can not get over unity energy from environmental energy sources.  ;D
Oh, you are dumb. I thought you understood me. Free energy has nothing to do with price. It is energy taken from no source. Solar power is not free energy. It is simply transforming available energy. I never said you couldn't get energy from the environment. Thank you for proving you can't keep up with a discussion.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: jehkque on September 05, 2008, 09:23:56 PM
isolated system

Solar panels, windmills, geothermal power stations are not isolated systems.  

They depend on an outside source of energy.

Ok lets assume for the sake of argument that your right. Actually I agree with your statement they are not isolated systems.

Now that we assume they are not isolated systems let's look at the Laws of science and apply them, shall we?

Law of conservation of energy: “The total amount of energy in any isolated system remains constant but can not be recreated although it may change forms.” Well toss that one out of the mix, sepcifically deals with isolated systems says so right in the law and we are not dealing with isolated systems.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: “The entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.” Well again, toss that one out of the mix as well as it also specifically deals with isolated systems and says so right in the law and again we are not dealing with isolated systems.

Ok two down, neither can be violated by a system that is not an isolated system, only when the system is isolated can they apply. So that leaves the First Law of Thermodynamics: “The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings.”  Does that say an energy source that is present in the surrounding environment can not apply energy to increase the internal energy of a system? I can't find that any where in the First Law of Thermodynamics, but maybe I am over looking something so can you point out where it says that? Probably not becasue I am not blind and I read well. May not type so well but I read well when it is typed correctly.

Lets see, no violation to the Law of Conservation of Energy or the Second Law of Thermodynamics, not applicable to a system not in isolation and we are dealing with systems not in isolation. No violation to the First Law of Thermodynamics because energy from the surrounding environment can increase internal energy and be converted and yield an energy output.

Hummmm guess getting energy from the environment and converting it into the energy output of a system is allowable. Thus over unity in that system can occur because the environment is supplying energy that you don't have to to get the level of energy output. More out than you have to supply.  :o I said it again LOL Don't worry I have to say it again and again.





Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: jehkque on September 05, 2008, 09:30:50 PM
I love it, lots to debate :) I'm goning to have fun. So where to start? I guess at the top and work down sounds good enough.

Perpetual motion always loses to entropy in the end (if not something more mundane first).

Perpetual motion is impossible. 'Free energy' generation is impossible. Buy a solar panel and deal with it.




I own a solar array, at the end of the month I get a check from the utility company my house is hooked up to, each and every month. I have no other generating unit on the house, I run all the electrical items I used to before the solar array was installed and I have added some other items as well. Is my house a perpetual energy house? Hummm I get paid by the utility company because I sell them more power than I use from them. More energy output from my house than my house uses as an energy input. Its atleast over unity. So if not by the solar panel then how? I get free energy, the proof is that I am on the same electric grid as someone that pays for their electricity and I get paid for my connection to the grid. That energy comes from the sun, some day that will burn out and then that will stop, will I be here when that happens? Probably not!

Solar panels must be over unity, in the sense that I do not supply energy or fuel to them, I use energy from the sun which is there for the taking "for free" if you want to call your self a believer that perpetual motion means "free energy". I say it is not free the sun makes it and costs some fuel on the sun to make it. I just use that energy as a free source to me here on earth and earth is a seperate system than the sun, but in a system that the sun is in.
The sun has a finite amount of energy that it gains by fusion. Leeching off the sun doesn't make it free (in the current meaning of the world).

I told you I was using sun light and that the sun used fuel to make that, and since it uses fuel it will some day stop. I agree its not free, its lucrative! I get money and power my house and you pay for your energy. BTW I did not even pay for the solar system, that was free from government incentives :)

So the sun gives me energy which I freely take and use my solar array to convert to electricity and power my house and send some out to the grid and get paid for what I send to the grid and the solar array was free so your right its not free its lucrative!!!!! Top that one, I guess I  will stop saying its over unity energy to overly lucrative energy and smile every time I get a check and you are still claiming I can not get over unity energy from environmental energy sources.  ;D
Oh, you are dumb. I thought you understood me. Free energy has nothing to do with price. It is energy taken from no source. Solar power is not free energy. It is simply transforming available energy. I never said you couldn't get energy from the environment. Thank you for proving you can't keep up with a discussion.

If I am dumb, and I may well be, I would have to say your capacity for intelligence would be less than mine. Since you have failed to read, or just ignore the fact that I have long before this stated over unity is not free energy, it comes from an energy source that is provided by the surrounding environment. But you all want to keep calling it free energy so you can claim it is impossible. Gatta laugh at ya, really open your eyes and read all that I have said and you will see that I am right. When I say free energy it is to mock the foolish.

Or do you need a quote so you can find it?  ???
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: jehkque on September 05, 2008, 09:39:16 PM
Quote
It's renewable energy, not perpetual motion. Perpetual motion drives itself, it doesn't rely on existing natural energy sources.

Are those the only requirements? Are magnets considered a natural energy source?


No, it took energy to create the effect. Also magnets do not have perpetual energy. Entropy in the magnet causes it to become misaligned.

Ever wonder why the earth spins and the moon does not? And yes you can disorder a magnetic field and in doing so make the field weaker
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on September 05, 2008, 09:43:52 PM
I love it, lots to debate :) I'm goning to have fun. So where to start? I guess at the top and work down sounds good enough.

Perpetual motion always loses to entropy in the end (if not something more mundane first).

Perpetual motion is impossible. 'Free energy' generation is impossible. Buy a solar panel and deal with it.




I own a solar array, at the end of the month I get a check from the utility company my house is hooked up to, each and every month. I have no other generating unit on the house, I run all the electrical items I used to before the solar array was installed and I have added some other items as well. Is my house a perpetual energy house? Hummm I get paid by the utility company because I sell them more power than I use from them. More energy output from my house than my house uses as an energy input. Its atleast over unity. So if not by the solar panel then how? I get free energy, the proof is that I am on the same electric grid as someone that pays for their electricity and I get paid for my connection to the grid. That energy comes from the sun, some day that will burn out and then that will stop, will I be here when that happens? Probably not!

Solar panels must be over unity, in the sense that I do not supply energy or fuel to them, I use energy from the sun which is there for the taking "for free" if you want to call your self a believer that perpetual motion means "free energy". I say it is not free the sun makes it and costs some fuel on the sun to make it. I just use that energy as a free source to me here on earth and earth is a seperate system than the sun, but in a system that the sun is in.
The sun has a finite amount of energy that it gains by fusion. Leeching off the sun doesn't make it free (in the current meaning of the world).

I told you I was using sun light and that the sun used fuel to make that, and since it uses fuel it will some day stop. I agree its not free, its lucrative! I get money and power my house and you pay for your energy. BTW I did not even pay for the solar system, that was free from government incentives :)

So the sun gives me energy which I freely take and use my solar array to convert to electricity and power my house and send some out to the grid and get paid for what I send to the grid and the solar array was free so your right its not free its lucrative!!!!! Top that one, I guess I  will stop saying its over unity energy to overly lucrative energy and smile every time I get a check and you are still claiming I can not get over unity energy from environmental energy sources.  ;D
Oh, you are dumb. I thought you understood me. Free energy has nothing to do with price. It is energy taken from no source. Solar power is not free energy. It is simply transforming available energy. I never said you couldn't get energy from the environment. Thank you for proving you can't keep up with a discussion.

If I am dumb, and I may well be, I would have to say your capacity for intelligence would be less than mine. Since you have failed to read, or just ignore the fact that I have long before this stated over unity is not free energy, it comes from an energy source that is provided by the surrounding environment. But you all want to keep calling it free energy so you can claim it is impossible. Gatta laugh at ya, really open your eyes and read all that I have said and you will see that I am right. When I say free energy it is to mock the foolish.

Or do you need a quote so you can find it?  ???
Where have we claimed that it is impossible? We simply claimed that free energy is impossible. Examples including zero point energy. We also have said perpetual motion is impossible. Both of these things involve keeping/obtaining energy from a closed system.

I really don't see what you are trying to say other than I have solar power, it is free.

That is irrelevant to the discussion.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: cmdshft on September 05, 2008, 09:44:41 PM
Was it so hard to just click "edit" instead of "reply"? Three posts in a row is NOT needed.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: jehkque on September 05, 2008, 09:58:29 PM
Was it so hard to just click "edit" instead of "reply"? Three posts in a row is NOT needed.

Quoted different posts did not want to confuse. Would you prefer I just put each one below the next in one post? I can manage that if you wish.
Quote
Upon reviewing some dictionaries I can concede that the commonly accepted definition of "fuel" is a form of matter that is converted to another form in order to extract energy...typicaly through combustion, but also can be applied to radioactive decay (like in a nuclear power plant).  But this doesn't change my perspective in this discussion...it simply means that I'm using a term incorrectly.
I don't think anyone can reasonably define "perpetual motion" the way you've suggested above...not if you use the word "perpetual" correctly.  What you're calling perpetual motion, the rest of the world calls renewabe resources.

After re-reading an reconsidering your earler posts I still say you are incorrect.  A geothermal plant does not produce more energy than it consumes, nor do wind farms or the solar panels on the roof of your house.  All of these things have energy inputs that are greater than their yield.  Energy and mass are conserved.

Your system is so far from energy unity its not even funny...current photovoltaics operate somewhere in the range of 10% or less efficiency...the last actual panel specs I looked at when considering purchasing an array was about 4% efficient, I may be generous in my sugestion of 10% energy conversion on a commercially available pv array.  You're only looking at your electric meter and since you generate more power than you use, you're calling it perpetual motion...but its not.  Want proof?  Easy enough.  Go up on your roof on a suny day and lay your hand right on the middle of one of your solar panels.  If you're converting 100% of the sunlight hitting those panels to electricity then they will be cool to the touch...but if they're not converting all that solar radiation they'll be hot.

Yes nuclear conversion is also a fuel type, fussion, fission, radioactive decay all change mass and yield energy in the process as well as combustion as well as non-combustion chemical reactions that release energy (i.e. exothermic reactions). Thanks for your correction.

Total applied heat energy to a geothermal plant is greater than energy output, that is correct, else they would not work. However, amount of energy you supply as heat is far less than energy output, the earth provides the majority of the heat energy. You just tap that heat energy and and provide a way it can apply to the plant's energy output. Greater energy output than what you apply i.e. Over Unity. It can be perpetual so long as the earth's core is a usable heat source. Pump water down, pump up hot water or get steam pressured up to surface and whala greater energy out put from turbine than pumping energy applied. Energy output = EO Total Energy Applied = EA Energy Supplied by You = ES Energy Supplied by Earth's Heat = EE

EO/EA=energy conversion efficiency and EA=EE+ES and EO/ES=unity efficiency unity efficiency greater than 1 is over unity. Energy conversion efficiency will never be greater than 1 (100%) unity efficiency can be less than or equal to or greater than 1. Total applied energy is what you supply and what earth supplies. When the energy sources are differentiated under unity - unity - over unity becomes clear. When they are not differentiated misunderstandings can occur like the one you made thinking that over unity is EO>EA Not so! That can never be but you can get more energy out than you apply and that is clear by identifying each energy input source. Taking what energy you apply in relation to the energy output which is the correct way to do it to determine over unity. This always identifies over unity energy outputs as comming from an energy source applied by the environment meaning they come from some energy source and are not free energy (comming from nothing). Nothing comes from Nothing, multiply by zero and you get zero, divide with zero as the numerator and you get zero as the denominator zero still would be zero for the answer. Nothing comes from Nothing. Only when you have energy coming from the environment can you achieve over unity energy outputs. Only when you have over unity energy outputs can you achieve perpetual motion that yields work. The first law of motion deals with perpetual motion when no work is achieved (net zero application of force).

A last note to your recent comment even if the panels converted 100% sunlight to electrical energy they would still be hot unless the resistance to electrical transfer was zero (0) resistance would heat them up due to electrical friction and that would reduce efficiency of the output to less than 100%. The correct statement would be they would have to convert 100% of the sunlight to electrical energy and have a resistance of 0 otherwise they will feel warm if not hot or very hot to the touch.

I love it, lots to debate :) I'm goning to have fun. So where to start? I guess at the top and work down sounds good enough.

Perpetual motion always loses to entropy in the end (if not something more mundane first).

Perpetual motion is impossible. 'Free energy' generation is impossible. Buy a solar panel and deal with it.




Where have we claimed that it is impossible? We simply claimed that free energy is impossible. Examples including zero point energy. We also have said perpetual motion is impossible. Both of these things involve keeping/obtaining energy from a closed system.

I really don't see what you are trying to say other than I have solar power, it is free.

That is irrelevant to the discussion.

You say free energy is impossible, I say it is not free energy, it comes from a source, but since you still say free energy I say the energy I get from sun light is free and demonstrate that it is free to me and yields me money to boot. You also say perpetual motion is impossible and define perpetual as keeping energy in a closed system. I say the First Law of Motion contradicts that. you say perpetual motion is obtaining energy from a closed system, I say you can get perpetual motion when you have a system that is able to gain energy from the surroundings, the system can be closed its just not an isolated system.

To illistrate further, solar arrays are not perpetual motion of themselves. You have to have a mechanisim doing work using the energy from them at least to make a perpetual system. This can only be when the solar array connected to the work output device using the energy from the array is exposed to sunlight 24/7/365.25. Then it would be perpetual until the the solar array or the work output device or both failed (broke, ceased to function) or until the sun burns out. If not exposed to the sun constantly then a battery system is also needed. The it would be perpetual until the solar array or the work output device or the battery or a combination of them failed or unitl the sun burned out. But by itself it is over unity in its energy output, but the energy output is less than the total amount of solar energy that falls upon the array. Over unity by the fact that the energy output is greater than the energy that I apply to the solar array. In fact I apply zero energy to the solar array beyond the energy that was used to manufacture it (I did not manufacture it but still energy was applied), ship it (I did not transport it from factory to house but energy was applied) and instal it (I did not install it but energy was applied). The energy that applies to it now is applied by the sun, I just use an installed method of capturing a portion of that energy and convert it into something I can use (electricity). As long as that works and the sun shines I get usable energy output. The device output if not already surpassed the total energy input from manufacture to installation will at some point surpass that level of energy input.

Check your local areas to see what funding sources are available to you to get an array for FREE. I am not saying every state has a program like that but many do and those that do not most likely have tax incentives to help and so does the federal government.

Raist reply #87 after this posting I can not quote by click looks like.

I started talking about perpetual motion and over unity energy outputs. I used the solar array as an example (known observation). OK. I intend to get back to discussing perpetual motion and over unity energy outputs. It all ties in, trust me. ( I know I know the two most feared words in the english language when used in conjunction with each other "trust" and "me").
 


Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on September 05, 2008, 10:42:40 PM
We were talking about free energy. You brought up solar energy. So I'm sorry we couldn't keep up with your logic. Then you decide to defend it.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Jack on September 06, 2008, 04:09:02 AM
Perpetual motion is technically not possible: things don't run by themselves. It violates the law of conservation of energy, which states that "energy can never be created or destroyed, but only conserved".
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: MrKappa on September 06, 2008, 05:31:00 AM
Quote
Perpetual motion is technically not possible: things don't run by themselves. It violates the law of conservation of energy, which states that "energy can never be created or destroyed, but only conserved".

Then what is gravity?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Parsifal on September 06, 2008, 06:17:00 AM
Quote
Perpetual motion is technically not possible: things don't run by themselves. It violates the law of conservation of energy, which states that "energy can never be created or destroyed, but only conserved".

Then what is gravity?

If fail could be expressed as a 128-bit signed integer, you just overflowed back into win.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Jack on September 06, 2008, 06:38:03 AM
Then what is gravity?
Gravity is a conservative force. What's your point?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 06, 2008, 07:37:01 AM
Then what is gravity?

The curvature of space-time is the result of the existence of mass-energy.

Quote from: The GR Mantra
"Matter tells space how to curve, space tells matter how to move."

You can extract work from gravity (hydro-electric plant) but entropy will always increase overall. Ultimately entropy always wins, hence gravity is not a source of perpetual work.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Parsifal on September 06, 2008, 09:03:32 AM
You can extract work from gravity (hydro-electric plant) but entropy will always increase overall.

Isn't gravitational potential simply an intermediate form of energy in that scenario, with the energy itself originating from the Sun?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 06, 2008, 09:20:24 AM
You can extract work from gravity (hydro-electric plant) but entropy will always increase overall.

Isn't gravitational potential simply an intermediate form of energy in that scenario, with the energy itself originating from the Sun?

Yes, very true, gravity itself does no work in that sense. Perhaps Hawking radiation is an example of gravitational fields doing work?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Parsifal on September 06, 2008, 09:32:54 AM
Yes, very true, gravity itself does no work in that sense. Perhaps Hawking radiation is an example of gravitational fields doing work?

I'm no expert on Hawking radiation, but it certainly seems like a good example to me.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: cmdshft on September 06, 2008, 09:36:39 AM
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
Hawking radiation is a thermal radiation with a black body spectrum predicted to be emitted by black holes due to quantum effects. Starobinsky showed him that according to the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle, rotating black holes should create and emit particles.

I disagree with Hawking radiation, as it defies relativity if it is emitting mass particles. The theory states that some particles continue accelerating away from the event horizon even though some get reabsorbed. This makes no sense to me. Anyone want to clear that up?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: jehkque on September 06, 2008, 10:01:19 AM
Perpetual motion is technically not possible: things don't run by themselves. It violates the law of conservation of energy, which states that "energy can never be created or destroyed, but only conserved".

Technically impossible? Is that different from physically impossible? or actually Impossible? Technolically impossible seems to imply that if technology were to change then something technically impossible may become physically possible and actually possible. Is that not the case that occured when the Wright brothers flew? When we launched into space and put a man on the moon? You can go on to cite many other instances through out history of man where thing thought to be impossible "Technically" became actually possible because they were physically done.

To state it correctly "FREE ENERGY" is impossible, unless you want to open a can of worms and say gravity may be an exception to the Law of Conservation of Energy i.e "gravity may be a regenerative energy". That would have every one up in arms in and of itself but since no one has actually defined gravity in a compreshensive sense, and many great minds have tried, it may be that it is regenerative energy" Perpetual motion on the other hand does not equate to "FREE ENERGY" and to say that one is impossible because the other is impossible is illogical because they are not the same thing (equal).

Perpetual motion is literily motion that goes on forever, the First Law of Motion confirms perpetual motion with this definition.

Perpetual motion take to mean a machine or system that goes on forever yielding a energy output on the other hand is a skew of actual perpetual motion. You have to know which perpetual motion some one is trying to refer to. But mostly they refer to the latter. The proper way to identify the latter is perpetual motion machine it indicate you are refering to perpetual work output an not to perpetual motion. Since to say perpetual motion is impossible is to try and over through the First Law of Motion. If perpetual motion were impossible the First Law of Motion is wrong because an object in motion would not stay in motion at a constant velocity even though zero net force was applied to it.

Science, however, claims if perpetual motion (making no distinction between actual perpetual motion (First Law of Motion) and perpetual work output) were possible the laws of science would have to be wrong and much of what we know would have to be altered and not just science but mathematics too. In part science has disregarded its own Laws specifically the First Law of Motion in making that statement. The statement is demonstrately false and goes to bias in an effort to cover that fact up.  

Perpetual work output refers to a perpetual motion machine giving more energy out than is applied by some fuel source or energy source that is intentionally applied by act of man. The justification to the statement comes in the assumption that perpetual work output would constitute "FREE ENERGY" or literly "energy from nothing" which of course is a violation to the Law of Conservation of Energy. By disregarding any other possible means of developing a perpetual work output science takes a narrow minded point of view, thus biased, and rejects any plausible observance to the contrary with out fair and just consideration. In other words science is no longer objectivly seeking the truth.

Are there objections to this statement? I am sure there will be but if you are intent on making an objection I would like to point out that it shows your bias on the issue. I would suggest you consider what I say and give it fair and open thought prior to making objection. I'll make this last statement I have spent 14 months trying to prove perpetual motion (work output) is impossible, because up unitl April 2007 that was my stance as well. I can say this, it is impossible to prove it is impossible to get perpetual motion (work output) but it can be proven that it is possible and not violate one single law of science as they are written. I challenge anyone wishing to take on the defense of the statement that perpetual motion is impossible to prove that statement with scientific law. Warning I have 14 months of intensive study head start on you and a science education prior to that, and it was the science education that had me immediately defending the notion that perpetual motion (work output) was impossible. I now am forced by proper ethics in science to state other wise based on sound and reproducable observations. Care to challenge me? Or do you care to start listening to what I am saying and look at the evidence with an open mind?

An add in as food for thought :)

You can extract work from gravity (hydro-electric plant) but entropy will always increase overall.

Isn't gravitational potential simply an intermediate form of energy in that scenario, with the energy itself originating from the Sun?

Yes the energy driving the cycle of water used by a hydro-electric plant comes from the sun evaporating water that then falls at elevation and flows down hill by gravity. The energy from the sun provides the perpetual cycle, gravity provides the energy transference into usable energy output and the use of that energy output is the work done by the perpetual cycle. Take away the sun and the perpetual cycle stops.

To the comment made by matrix, if you extract energy from gravity does gravity diminish? The law of conservation of energy would tend to say yes. However gravity is a constant so if diminished how can it be a constant? If not diminished how can you extract energy from gravity with out gravity reproducing energy so it remains constant?  I'll point to the gravity assist technique used by NASA to propel space craft using the force of gravity as an example of energy transference to an object outside a closed system where the gravity of the closed system remains constant after the transference of energy.

 
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Jack on September 06, 2008, 10:51:55 AM
Technically impossible? Is that different from physically impossible? or actually Impossible? Technolically impossible seems to imply that if technology were to change then something technically impossible may become physically possible and actually possible. Is that not the case that occured when the Wright brothers flew? When we launched into space and put a man on the moon? You can go on to cite many other instances through out history of man where thing thought to be impossible "Technically" became actually possible because they were physically done.
Technically impossible as in not possible in the name of science.

To state it correctly "FREE ENERGY" is impossible, unless you want to open a can of worms and say gravity may be an exception to the Law of Conservation of Energy i.e "gravity may be a regenerative energy". That would have every one up in arms in and of itself but since no one has actually defined gravity in a compreshensive sense, and many great minds have tried, it may be that it is regenerative energy"
:o

Guess what? Gravity is a conservative force that acts on a system without any potential energy loss...

Perpetual motion on the other hand does not equate to "FREE ENERGY" and to say that one is impossible because the other is impossible is illogical because they are not the same thing (equal).
I never said perpetual motion = free energy. Rather, perpetual motion gives free energy out of nothing, which is technically not possible. End of story.

Quote
Classification

It is customary to classify perpetual motion machines according to which law of thermodynamics it attempts to violate:

   1. A perpetual motion machine of the first kind produces energy from nothing, giving the user unlimited 'free' energy. It thus violates the law of conservation of energy.
   2. A perpetual motion machine of the second kind is a machine which spontaneously converts thermal energy into mechanical work.

Perpetual motion is literily motion that goes on forever, the First Law of Motion confirms perpetual motion with this definition.
If perpetual motion were impossible the First Law of Motion is wrong because an object in motion would not stay in motion at a constant velocity even though zero net force was applied to it.
What are you talking about? Perpetual motion has nothing to do with the First Law of Motion. The First Law of Motion confirms nothing of it. You need to review the law, which states that "an object can either remain at rest or travel at constant velocity, so long it is not affected by an outside force". So, by that definition, are you telling me Perpetual motion requires no force as well?

Science, however, claims if perpetual motion (making no distinction between actual perpetual motion (First Law of Motion) and perpetual work output) were possible the laws of science would have to be wrong and much of what we know would have to be altered and not just science but mathematics too. In part science has disregarded its own Laws specifically the First Law of Motion in making that statement. The statement is demonstrately false and goes to bias in an effort to cover that fact up.  
Huh?  ???

Perpetual work output refers to a perpetual motion machine giving more energy out than is applied by some fuel source or energy source that is intentionally applied by act of man.
Uh, you've just contradicted your earlier statements.

The justification to the statement comes in the assumption that perpetual work output would constitute "FREE ENERGY" or literly "energy from nothing" which of course is a violation to the Law of Conservation of Energy.
Right.

By disregarding any other possible means of developing a perpetual work output science takes a narrow minded point of view, thus biased, and rejects any plausible observance to the contrary with out fair and just consideration. In other words science is no longer objectivly seeking the truth.
Science, unlike philosophy, is not about seeking the truth; science is about explaining our world and the universe.

Are there objections to this statement? I am sure there will be but if you are intent on making an object I would like to point out that it shows your bias on the issue. I would suggest you consider what I say and give it fair and open thought prior to making objection. I'll make this last statement I have spent 14 months trying to prove perpetual motion (work output) is impossible, because up unitl April 2007 that was my stance as well. I can say this, it is impossible to prove it is impossible to get perpetual motion (work output) but it can be proven that it is possible and not violate one single law of science as they are written. I challenge anyone wishing to take on the defense of the statement that perpetual motion is impossible to prove that statement with scientific law. Warning I have 14 months of intensive study head start on you and a science education prior to that, and it was the science education that had me immediately defending the notion that perpetual motion (work output) was impossible. I now am forced by proper ethics in science to state other wise based on sound and reproducable observations. Care to challenge me? Or do you care to start listening to what I am saying and look at the evidence with an open mind?
Are you the new 17 November?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 06, 2008, 12:17:02 PM
To the comment made by matrix, if you extract energy from gravity does gravity diminish? The law of conservation of energy would tend to say yes. However gravity is a constant so if diminished how can it be a constant? If not diminished how can you extract energy from gravity with out gravity reproducing energy so it remains constant?  I'll point to the gravity assist technique used by NASA to propel space craft using the force of gravity as an example of energy transference to an object outside a closed system where the gravity of the closed system remains constant after the transference of energy.

The 'slingshot' doesn't take energy from gravity, it uses gravitation to transfer momentum from a planet to the spacecraft, so the planet slows down just very slightly, but because it is so much more massive the spacecraft experiences a much bigger velocity boost. :)

Just to contradict my own earlier example, gravitation is generated by all mass-energy, so in the case of Hawking radiation from a black hole the 'total' mass-energy (and hence 'total' gravity) remains unchanged... The mass of the black hole decreases by the exact same mass-energy of the particle that escapes.  I guess it makes sense that gravity can't do work!
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: jehkque on September 06, 2008, 12:46:45 PM
This is going to be fun  ;D

Technically impossible as in not possible in the name of science.

I guess you mean that it could be possible in the name of every thing other than science and I would even venture to point out that if it is not impossible what a black mark that would be to the name of science as you have so directly linked it to the name of science only that would mean that only science is wrong.

:o

Guess what? Gravity is a conservative force that acts on a system without any potential energy loss...

Thanks for the confirmation that gravity violates the Law of Conservation of Energy. Imaprts energy to an object yet in the act of doing so experiences no energy loss. Gravity provides "FREE ENERGY" to coin your phrase. Unless you reserve that gravity experiences kenetic energy loss in a transference of energy, then how is it a conservative force?


I never said perpetual motion = free energy. Rather, perpetual motion gives free energy out of nothing, which is technically not possible. End of story.

OK I'll rephrase according to your explaination

continued motion with no net force applied (perpetual motion "First Law of Motion") + energy output = FREE ENERGY in other words your defining perpetual motion as perpetual work output, hummm looks like what I have stated previously, and that by your definition of perpetual motion that would be FREE ENERGY. Is that correct?

Quote
Classification

It is customary to classify perpetual motion machines according to which law of thermodynamics it attempts to violate:

   1. A perpetual motion machine of the first kind produces energy from nothing, giving the user unlimited 'free' energy. It thus violates the law of conservation of energy.
   2. A perpetual motion machine of the second kind is a machine which spontaneously converts thermal energy into mechanical work.

Customary defined as "Accepted practice" and accepted practice is a "practice" not a "fact". Use of a practice to support something as fact is not use of supporting facts through known observances that are reproduceable in supporting evidence to a claim being fact. The fact is the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Conservation of Energy only say that you can not get more energy out than is applied. There is no distinction between the type of energy applied and where it derives from. The absence of that distinction means they can not identify over unity energy outputs when energy is derived from the surrounding environment and applied to the system being checked against the laws. The laws will only show if they operate at a greater than 100% total energy conversion efficiency but they will not show unity efficiency.  


What are you talking about? Perpetual motion has nothing to do with the First Law of Motion. The First Law of Motion confirms nothing of it. You need to review the law, which states that "an object can either remain at rest or travel at constant velocity, so long it is not affected by an outside force". So, by that definition, are you telling me Perpetual motion requires no force as well?

The literal term perpetual motion as I have stated it before and will state the same way many times more I am sure is "motion that goes on (continues) foerver" Newtons First of Motion "It is possible to select a set of reference frames, called inertial reference frames, observed from which a particle moves without any change in velocity if no net force acts on it." A translation for the original latin text in Lex 1 from Axiomata sive Leges Motus, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, by Sir Isaac Newton published in1687. Care to see the exact words as published in latin? Even as you have stated it shows continued motion unless acted upon by a non-zero net force. In the literal term of perpetual motion, yes the First Law of Motion defines perpetual motion. Where perpetual motion is defined as producing work i.e. perpetual motion + work output it says there must be a positive net force applied as work output would establish a negative net force applied to the particle (object).  

Are you missing something? Is that not clear enough? Do you have trouble in reading the words? Do you need to see the latin version? Would you understand the latin version if you saw it (i.e. can you read and understand latin)?

 
Huh?  ???

Shows your lack of knowlegdge


Uh, you've just contradicted your earlier statements.

You failed to point to the contradiction so your claim could be examined for proof of validity or discredited and proven false.

The justification to the statement comes in the assumption that perpetual work output would constitute "FREE ENERGY" or literly "energy from nothing" which of course is a violation to the Law of Conservation of Energy.
Right.

Thank you for validation (VERIFIED PROOF BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION) of the statement that the claim of science that prepetual motion would constitute "FREE ENERGY" is nothing more than an assumption and as such is not a fact! So stop stating it as if it were fact to further support a claim that perpetual motion(work output) is impossible!


Science, unlike philosophy, is not about seeking the truth; science is about explaining our world and the universe.

Science is not about seeking the truth? Maybe not in your eyes and maybe not in the eyes of all other scientists in the world. Yet I remind you in order for a fact of science to be a fact of science a theory of science has to be proven true! If science does not seek truth it can not be valid in its proofs thus science will undoubtly be false. Let's expand our world and universe with LIES and FALSE INFORMATION!!!! What a blessing that would be.  

Are there objections to this statement? I am sure there will be but if you are intent on making an object I would like to point out that it shows your bias on the issue. I would suggest you consider what I say and give it fair and open thought prior to making objection. I'll make this last statement I have spent 14 months trying to prove perpetual motion (work output) is impossible, because up unitl April 2007 that was my stance as well. I can say this, it is impossible to prove it is impossible to get perpetual motion (work output) but it can be proven that it is possible and not violate one single law of science as they are written. I challenge anyone wishing to take on the defense of the statement that perpetual motion is impossible to prove that statement with scientific law. Warning I have 14 months of intensive study head start on you and a science education prior to that, and it was the science education that had me immediately defending the notion that perpetual motion (work output) was impossible. I now am forced by proper ethics in science to state other wise based on sound and reproducable observations. Care to challenge me? Or do you care to start listening to what I am saying and look at the evidence with an open mind?
Are you the new 17 November?

No I am a person not a date on the calender.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: cmdshft on September 06, 2008, 12:57:17 PM
No I am a person not a date on the calender.

17 November was a member of these forums.

lurk moar; post less
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: mayhem on September 06, 2008, 08:34:03 PM
Total applied heat energy to a geothermal plant is greater than energy output, that is correct, else they would not work.

Then we agree, not sure why we're having this discussion.

Quote
However, amount of energy you supply as heat is far less than energy output, the earth provides the majority of the heat energy. You just tap that heat energy and and provide a way it can apply to the plant's energy output.

Again, we seem to have no difference of opinion here...there is a massive energy input thats being tapped.

Quote
It can be perpetual so long as the earth's core is a usable heat source.

No it cannnot.  Thats not what perpetual means. 

Quote
Pump water down, pump up hot water or get steam pressured up to surface and whala greater energy out put from turbine than pumping energy applied.

Well yeah...thats kind of what makes it a power plant...you extract more energy than you yourself put into it...the energy output is the result of consuming energy or fuel in order to spin a turbine.  Like when you start your car, you're getting more energy out of the motor than you're putting into running the fuel pump...but that ignores that you had to put gasoline into the fuel tank.  You're ignoring the massive input energy source and suggesting that we're over unity here...which we're not.  I may be mistaken, but I think it may come from that the geothermal energy isn't technically "fuel", so you're allowing yourself to cancel it out.  Using my example of the car, can you see how it is not an over unity device or no? 

Quote
I started talking about perpetual motion and over unity energy outputs. I used the solar array as an example (known observation). OK. I intend to get back to discussing perpetual motion and over unity energy outputs. It all ties in, trust me. ( I know I know the two most feared words in the english language when used in conjunction with each other "trust" and "me").

But your solar array is not over unity.  Its not putting out more energy than its getting hit with from the sun...that you yourself are consuming less than it puts out is irrelevant...it just means you have one more panel up there than you really need.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: mayhem on September 06, 2008, 08:41:23 PM
look i'm stupid too.

Uh, ok.  There you are then.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: mayhem on September 06, 2008, 08:47:40 PM
What about her?  She's been dead for 11 years.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Jack on September 06, 2008, 09:08:53 PM
I guess you mean that it could be possible in the name of every thing other than science and I would even venture to point out that if it is not impossible what a black mark that would be to the name of science as you have so directly linked it to the name of science only that would mean that only science is wrong.
No, science is proven to be right. You are proven to be wrong. Deal with it.

Thanks for the confirmation that gravity violates the Law of Conservation of Energy. Imaprts energy to an object yet in the act of doing so experiences no energy loss. Gravity provides "FREE ENERGY" to coin your phrase. Unless you reserve that gravity experiences kenetic energy loss in a transference of energy, then how is it a conservative force?
Look up the definition of a conservative force. Gravity does not violate the law of conservation of energy; in fact, it agrees with it. Come back to me when you're done.


OK I'll rephrase according to your explaination

continued motion with no net force applied (perpetual motion "First Law of Motion") + energy output = FREE ENERGY in other words your defining perpetual motion as perpetual work output, hummm looks like what I have stated previously, and that by your definition of perpetual motion that would be FREE ENERGY. Is that correct?
Nope. Perpetual motion = free energy out of nothing (energy is not conserved).


Customary defined as "Accepted practice" and accepted practice is a "practice" not a "fact". Use of a practice to support something as fact is not use of supporting facts through known observances that are reproduceable in supporting evidence to a claim being fact. The fact is the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Conservation of Energy only say that you can not get more energy out than is applied. There is no distinction between the type of energy applied and where it derives from. The absence of that distinction means they can not identify over unity energy outputs when energy is derived from the surrounding environment and applied to the system being checked against the laws. The laws will only show if they operate at a greater than 100% total energy conversion efficiency but they will not show unity efficiency.  
Perpetual motion is still in violation of the law, because it is creating more than it consumes, thus there are no conservations of energy in the process. Less energy in in the system-> More energy out of the system. Total violation.

The literal term perpetual motion as I have stated it before and will state the same way many times more I am sure is "motion that goes on (continues) foerver" Newtons First of Motion "It is possible to select a set of reference frames, called inertial reference frames, observed from which a particle moves without any change in velocity if no net force acts on it." A translation for the original latin text in Lex 1 from Axiomata sive Leges Motus, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, by Sir Isaac Newton published in1687. Care to see the exact words as published in latin? Even as you have stated it shows continued motion unless acted upon by a non-zero net force. In the literal term of perpetual motion, yes the First Law of Motion defines perpetual motion. Where perpetual motion is defined as producing work i.e. perpetual motion + work output it says there must be a positive net force applied as work output would establish a negative net force applied to the particle (object).  
If perpetual motion is defined by the First Law of Motion, then perpetual motion literally means "a motion that goes on forever at constant velocity or stays at rest as long as there are no outside unbalanced forces". That doesn't make any sense. Are you saying that this is true?

Are you missing something? Is that not clear enough? Do you have trouble in reading the words? Do you need to see the latin version? Would you understand the latin version if you saw it (i.e. can you read and understand latin)?
I understand Newton's First Law. You, on the other hand, are applying it in the wrong scenario (perpetual motion).

Shows your lack of knowlegdge
No, it shows your lack of ability to write a clear and sound paragraph. How can I understand your point if you failed to do so?


You failed to point to the contradiction so your claim could be examined for proof of validity or discredited and proven false.
Read the bold part. You mentioned the First Law of Motion defines perpetual motion, then you pointed out that perpetual motion works by the act of man. I assume your term "act of man" means "force".

Thank you for validation (VERIFIED PROOF BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION) of the statement that the claim of science that prepetual motion would constitute "FREE ENERGY" is nothing more than an assumption and as such is not a fact! So stop stating it as if it were fact to further support a claim that perpetual motion(work output) is impossible!
It is a fact that perpetual motion gives free energy by producing more than it consumes. Stop with your nonsense, please.

Science is not about seeking the truth? Maybe not in your eyes and maybe not in the eyes of all other scientists in the world. Yet I remind you in order for a fact of science to be a fact of science a theory of science has to be proven true! If science does not seek truth it can not be valid in its proofs thus science will undoubtly be false. Let's expand our world and universe with LIES and FALSE INFORMATION!!!! What a blessing that would be.  
Science != philosophy.

No I am a person not a date on the calender.
17 November was an user in these forums who wrote many lies, just like you.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: jehkque on September 06, 2008, 09:37:00 PM
 ;D For all of you who have so whole heartly disputed what I have said here I have some sad news for you.

I have recieved tonight independent confirmation on my theory through a reproducable test appratus and reproducable observation. LOL I am LOVING IT! Every thing I have said revolves around the simple fact that you can achieve electricity from gravity induced movements of water in an electrolysis device and that energy will apply to the continuation of electrolysis. In so doing you can achieve over unity chemical potential in the amount of hydrogen released by electolysis.

Smile I have at least one confirmation that electrical energy can be generated during the process of electrolysis in the solution and that electrical energy applies to furthering electrolysis. Just a couple more others either with an open mind looking to test the theory or attempting to disprove it and finding the same observation is all that is needed to lock down what I say is fact. Its not so hard to reproduce the apparatus and conduct the experiment. The hard part has been pissing someone off enough to make them want to disprove what I say or having them agree to do it with an open mind to find out what I say may or may not be true.

1 reproducable observation down, a couple more to go. Any takers on doing the experiment?

Probably not on the takers to do the experimentation. Thats OK I will send the information to Dr. Niebur at that National Science Foundation on monday for review and see if they can point me to any more research facilities that can take on the experiement. After all it is no longer just me saying this any more, I have one independent test giving one independent confirmation. GOTTA LOVE BEING RIGHT!!!!!! You all are so wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :P
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: TheEngineer on September 06, 2008, 11:04:06 PM
I disagree with Hawking radiation, as it defies relativity if it is emitting mass particles. The theory states that some particles continue accelerating away from the event horizon even though some get reabsorbed. This makes no sense to me. Anyone want to clear that up?
The basis for Hawking Radiation is that space can temporarily borrow energy from the universe and then give it right back.  Empty space borrows energy to produce particle/anti particle pairs.  These particles then collide, annihilating each other, and in the process giving the energy back to the universe.  This is happening everywhere, all the time. 

Now imagine that these two particles are created straddling the event horizon of a black hole.  One particle is trapped by the gravitational field of the black hole while the other particle is free to move away from the black hole.  The problem lies in that the energy that was borrowed from the universe will not be paid back, as the two particles won't annihilate each other.  This leaves an energy imbalance, which the black hole must pay the price for in reducing its energy, thereby, 'evaporating'.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 07, 2008, 04:26:03 AM
GOTTA LOVE BEING RIGHT!!!!!! You all are so wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :P

I look forward to your infinite energy catastrophe - just please try to be in another Solar System when you scale up your little apparatus. Oh, wait, that's right, over unity energy production is impossible so it doesn't matter anyway.

Scratch that, my bad. ::)
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on September 07, 2008, 08:57:10 AM
;D For all of you who have so whole heartly disputed what I have said here I have some sad news for you.

I have recieved tonight independent confirmation on my theory through a reproducable test appratus and reproducable observation. LOL I am LOVING IT! Every thing I have said revolves around the simple fact that you can achieve electricity from gravity induced movements of water in an electrolysis device and that energy will apply to the continuation of electrolysis. In so doing you can achieve over unity chemical potential in the amount of hydrogen released by electolysis.

Smile I have at least one confirmation that electrical energy can be generated during the process of electrolysis in the solution and that electrical energy applies to furthering electrolysis. Just a couple more others either with an open mind looking to test the theory or attempting to disprove it and finding the same observation is all that is needed to lock down what I say is fact. Its not so hard to reproduce the apparatus and conduct the experiment. The hard part has been pissing someone off enough to make them want to disprove what I say or having them agree to do it with an open mind to find out what I say may or may not be true.

1 reproducable observation down, a couple more to go. Any takers on doing the experiment?

Probably not on the takers to do the experimentation. Thats OK I will send the information to Dr. Niebur at that National Science Foundation on monday for review and see if they can point me to any more research facilities that can take on the experiement. After all it is no longer just me saying this any more, I have one independent test giving one independent confirmation. GOTTA LOVE BEING RIGHT!!!!!! You all are so wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :P
Fail.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: MrKappa on September 07, 2008, 09:47:40 AM
Quote from: Raist
Fail.

What exactly did he fail at? I know very little of what you post... but for the most part it would seem you've never done anything but rehash popular literature and discourage people... have you proven the experiment to be wrong? Then please do not voice your opinion unless you have something half intelligent to offer...

I apologize for trolling... but I have a hard time listening to crackpot scientific zelaots with all the answers... who offer no answers...

Especially on the flat earth forums... really... go tell people they fail in a venue filled with other doctrine preachers...

In other words... if you would be so kind to offer your reason... I might stop voicing my opinion as well and stick to things that matter... like learning a thing or two...
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on September 07, 2008, 02:51:53 PM
Quote from: Raist
Fail.

What exactly did he fail at? I know very little of what you post... but for the most part it would seem you've never done anything but rehash popular literature and discourage people... have you proven the experiment to be wrong? Then please do not voice your opinion unless you have something half intelligent to offer...

I apologize for trolling... but I have a hard time listening to crackpot scientific zelaots with all the answers... who offer no answers...

Especially on the flat earth forums... really... go tell people they fail in a venue filled with other doctrine preachers...

In other words... if you would be so kind to offer your reason... I might stop voicing my opinion as well and stick to things that matter... like learning a thing or two...
I'm sorry. I'll try to post untrue things like you.

I have no urge to correct someone that either is to oblivious to understand, or trolling and just begging for responses. It is not my job to feed trolls. Anyone with a valid question gets answered to the best of my ability. I enjoy helping people learn. Someone that comes here, doesn't understand the discussion, then "disproves" what we say doesn't deserve an answer. Then he says he was trolling and he can back up everything he said. I feel no need to conduct his "experiment." If he has tested this and had it peer reviewed, why is he releasing it on the internet? The whole thing is ridiculous, and you are simply thick enough to think I am the narrow minded one.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: MrKappa on September 07, 2008, 07:43:46 PM
Quote from: Raist
I'm sorry. I'll try to post untrue things like you.

Sir... if you feel that something I say is untrue I expect you to correct me... I have no pride to defend... I'm here to learn... If you can't be here to learn or educate... don't be here... contribute your knowledge... telling somebody they fail not only makes you look like an ass... but both parties walk away none the wiser...
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on September 07, 2008, 08:00:57 PM
Quote from: Raist
I'm sorry. I'll try to post untrue things like you.

Sir... if you feel that something I say is untrue I expect you to correct me... I have no pride to defend... I'm here to learn... If you can't be here to learn or educate... don't be here... contribute your knowledge... telling somebody they fail not only makes you look like an ass... but both parties walk away none the wiser...
ok. ignore the rest of my post. I am done contributing to people that do not wish to better themselves. He was here to brag about something awesome he knew about. My correcting him, would only lead to him smiling down on my lack of understanding. People coming here that wish to learn are few and far between. When I see one I help them in any was I can. Look up things for them, try and help them understand, because the sum total of what we know is who we are. Why not better ourselves?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: jehkque on September 07, 2008, 08:32:51 PM
FAIL????? Hardly, it was not for me that I began the study that has given me the ability to know these things. It was for all of you that I did these things, not for my glory, or my pride, or my profit but to benefit my fellow man. Yet almost all of my fellow man wishes to dispise me and condem me and mock me and doubt me and ridiculing me. Requiring me to go above and beyond any reasonable expection for extrodinary proof. Refusing to even check my claim with an open mind and test them independently trying to reporduce the result, the way science should properly act and examine new ideas and new claims. When I show proof it is rejected with out examination, when I show proof of my proof its rejected with out examination. Now I have independent confirmation which I did not ask for I happened to find it, and the person making the observation does not even know their observation is the exact observation I needed to be independently varified. I said I was submitting the information to the National Science Foundation and they have been saying I need independent verification of my claims. I have that now and yet I am still mocked and condemed and doubted and ridiculed.      ;D ;D ;D ;D

How about you scientists or side line scientists or non-scientists trying to talk like scientists do you wish to challenge me? If so then answer some questions. I will attempt to keep them short since you dislike walls of text.

Question 1: It is known you can convert the kenetic energy of falling water into electricity correct?

If you answer yes, and you should.

Question 2: The technologies currently known to convert the kenetic energy of falling water requires a water cycle that is driven by the sun correct?

I think we have already covered these things but I am getting you back into the thought. So lets hear the answer from all those that want to pop and say I am wrong! I am really going to love this, really I am. So come on all you disbelievers speak up and give your answers. If your not going to answer all the questions as they are posted then stay out of the discussion, and accept your wrong. Yep I said that if you keep quiet then your admitting your wrong. If you think I am wrong then stand up and be counted and make your case that I am wrong, if you can. I promise you though you will have a very hard time proving me wrong so come on let's draw the line! Those who believe over unity and perpetual motion is possible but can not prove it on my side and those that believe over unity and perpetual motion is impossible on the other side. It will not bother me if I am alone, but unless you absolutely believe you can prove me wrong I would suggest you stay out of this cause I will discrace you.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Come on, the battle lines are drawn and I am armed to the teeth with facts and prepared to do battle. Time to grind those that speak against me to shame and and rip the facade of the the false science they advocate to shreads. I am no longer trying to convience people to listen to what I have to say trying to benefit them. I am here to do battle against those who say lies in the name of truth that is science.  Battle against those that refuse to throughly examine what I say before condeming it. Battle against those that state false assumptions and defend them as the truth. Battle against them that make attempts to silence a man who is only trying to expose the truth for the benefit of his fellow man.

That great quality that science should be seeking in ernest rather than trying to keep the truth from being said and shown and understood for the benefit and advancement of mankind. So come on you blind followers of the blind, it's time for you to be knocked from the pillar you have falsely placed yourselves on and fall face first into the ditch of shame and discrace!!!!!!!!!!! I shall show no mercy upon you as you do not deserve it if you continue as you have after this warning. I am a humble servent armed with truth and I am waiting. :)

 
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Euclid on September 07, 2008, 08:46:58 PM
Please, no one likes to read long posts with long paragraphs.  Write clear, concise sentences and keep your posts short.  Address one point at a time.  Try to keep the combative and boastful language out.  Do this and your ideas will be received much more respectfully.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on September 07, 2008, 09:49:52 PM
FAIL????? Hardly, it was not for me that I began the study that has given me the ability to know these things. It was for all of you that I did these things, not for my glory, or my pride, or my profit but to benefit my fellow man. Yet almost all of my fellow man wishes to dispise me and condem me and mock me and doubt me and ridiculing me. Requiring me to go above and beyond any reasonable expection for extrodinary proof. Refusing to even check my claim with an open mind and test them independently trying to reporduce the result, the way science should properly act and examine new ideas and new claims. When I show proof it is rejected with out examination, when I show proof of my proof its rejected with out examination. Now I have independent confirmation which I did not ask for I happened to find it, and the person making the observation does not even know their observation is the exact observation I needed to be independently varified. I said I was submitting the information to the National Science Foundation and they have been saying I need independent verification of my claims. I have that now and yet I am still mocked and condemed and doubted and ridiculed.      ;D ;D ;D ;D

How about you scientists or side line scientists or non-scientists trying to talk like scientists do you wish to challenge me? If so then answer some questions. I will attempt to keep them short since you dislike walls of text.

Question 1: It is known you can convert the kenetic energy of falling water into electricity correct?

If you answer yes, and you should.

Question 2: The technologies currently known to convert the kenetic energy of falling water requires a water cycle that is driven by the sun correct?

I think we have already covered these things but I am getting you back into the thought. So lets hear the answer from all those that want to pop and say I am wrong! I am really going to love this, really I am. So come on all you disbelievers speak up and give your answers. If your not going to answer all the questions as they are posted then stay out of the discussion, and accept your wrong. Yep I said that if you keep quiet then your admitting your wrong. If you think I am wrong then stand up and be counted and make your case that I am wrong, if you can. I promise you though you will have a very hard time proving me wrong so come on let's draw the line! Those who believe over unity and perpetual motion is possible but can not prove it on my side and those that believe over unity and perpetual motion is impossible on the other side. It will not bother me if I am alone, but unless you absolutely believe you can prove me wrong I would suggest you stay out of this cause I will discrace you.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Come on, the battle lines are drawn and I am armed to the teeth with facts and prepared to do battle. Time to grind those that speak against me to shame and and rip the facade of the the false science they advocate to shreads. I am no longer trying to convience people to listen to what I have to say trying to benefit them. I am here to do battle against those who say lies in the name of truth that is science.  Battle against those that refuse to throughly examine what I say before condeming it. Battle against those that state false assumptions and defend them as the truth. Battle against them that make attempts to silence a man who is only trying to expose the truth for the benefit of his fellow man.

That great quality that science should be seeking in ernest rather than trying to keep the truth from being said and shown and understood for the benefit and advancement of mankind. So come on you blind followers of the blind, it's time for you to be knocked from the pillar you have falsely placed yourselves on and fall face first into the ditch of shame and discrace!!!!!!!!!!! I shall show no mercy upon you as you do not deserve it if you continue as you have after this warning. I am a humble servent armed with truth and I am waiting. :)

 
Yes the kinetic energy of falling water can be used to create electricity and, this process uses the sun's energy. The sun's total energy is finite, this process will one day end. So how is this an example of free energy (it comes from a source), or how is it an example of perpetual motion (it will stop when the sun runs out of energy (destroys the earth)).


edit: your grammar and spelling are horrible, please do not brag about your intelligence and then speak like a fifth grader.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 08, 2008, 01:01:42 AM

Come on, the battle lines are drawn and I am armed to the teeth with facts and prepared to do battle. Time to grind those that speak against me to shame and and rip the facade of the the false science they advocate to shreads. I am no longer trying to convience people to listen to what I have to say trying to benefit them. I am here to do battle against those who say lies in the name of truth that is science.  Battle against those that refuse to throughly examine what I say before condeming it. Battle against those that state false assumptions and defend them as the truth. Battle against them that make attempts to silence a man who is only trying to expose the truth for the benefit of his fellow man.

That great quality that science should be seeking in ernest rather than trying to keep the truth from being said and shown and understood for the benefit and advancement of mankind. So come on you blind followers of the blind, it's time for you to be knocked from the pillar you have falsely placed yourselves on and fall face first into the ditch of shame and discrace!!!!!!!!!!! I shall show no mercy upon you as you do not deserve it if you continue as you have after this warning. I am a humble servent armed with truth and I am waiting. :)

OK, look, draw up a schematic of your experiment, showing where the input energy is, where the output energy is and the steps required to go from one to the other.  That should highlight where the points of contention are.  I'm not willing to discuss this until there is a post that has a concise description and diagram of the experiment, since otherwise it just degenerates into "Oh well I'm not telling you what's in the magic box because you'll steal it" bullshit that nearly every other 'perpetual motion'/'zero point energy'/whatever maker comes out with.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: mayhem on September 08, 2008, 05:43:34 AM
Every thing I have said revolves around the simple fact that you can achieve electricity from gravity induced movements of water in an electrolysis device and that energy will apply to the continuation of electrolysis. In so doing you can achieve over unity chemical potential in the amount of hydrogen released by electolysis.

Every post I read by you referred to the usage of geothermal energy and PV arrays...didn't see anything in there about electrolysis of water.

Quote
I have recieved tonight independent confirmation on my theory through a reproducable test appratus and reproducable observation. LOL I am LOVING IT!

I'm game and have no problems being wrong...happens to everyone.  Post up your proof, apparatus, testing methodology and whatever other pertinent information you wish to provide and maybe others here can test it.  If I test it I will provide the truthful results that I get.  If I can show that you have invented a unity or beyond unity energy production device than I would be happy to bow to your wisdom, but if it doesn't pan out then thats that. 

Quote
I have at least one confirmation that electrical energy can be generated during the process of electrolysis in the solution and that electrical energy applies to furthering electrolysis.

What you have described in the above sentence seems to be 180 out from everything else you have discussed in this thread, but regardless I'm willing to participate.

Quote
Question 1: It is known you can convert the kenetic energy of falling water into electricity correct?

Yes.

Quote
Question 2: The technologies currently known to convert the kenetic energy of falling water requires a water cycle that is driven by the sun correct?

Also yes, water runs into a lake or resivour, goes through channels (typically in a dam) that have turbines in them, turbines spin and make electricity, water goes out to a river.  Water eventually gets evaporated and cycles all over the planet in the form of rain and snow...eventually the headwaters that fill the lake where the dam is get some of that rain or snow and the process repeats.  Can we all agree on that as being more or less what you mean before going any further?

Quote
Battle against those that refuse to throughly examine what I say before condeming it.

Thus far you have said nothing in this thread that can be examined...you've just spouted that power generation systems (possibly all) that don't use combustible fuel are over unity for production, so long as you ignore the energy input side of things.  How about you put up something we can actually examine and discuss and not just vague references to different power technologies and Newton's First Law of motion?

I'm willing to examine your experiment and possibly participate, but remain skeptical.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: jehkque on September 08, 2008, 06:56:22 AM
I admit my english skills are less than perfect. I deal with it, you can deal with it. If you wish to dish on me because of english, then do so on english matters. But to dish on someone for english matters does not mean you can dish on them for science matters, non-related subjects. If you do not understand what I say then ask for a rephrasing or make questions to better understand intent. That is called communication, so the two peole engaged in a conversation (discussion) come to the same understanding of what is being said by each other. That does not say they would agree or disagree with the points made by the other, it just means they understand exactly what each other is saying so agreement or disagreement is based on the understood points.

Question 1: Answers are yes, as posted. Question 2: Answers are yes, as posted.

Question 3: When a gas is released under the surface of a liquid in a gravity enviroment, it will rise to the surface of the liquid or go into solution with the liquid?

Assuming your answer to be yes.

Question 4: Does that rising gas impart energy to the liquid and make it move (lift, move sideways, fall) as the gas rises?

Assuming your answer to be yes.

Question 5: The energy imparted to the gas that provides the lifting of liquid is transfered by gravity to the gas correct?

Assuming your answer to be yes.

Question 6: Gravational acceleration is constant and the energy imparted to the gas is constantly applied, correct?

Assuming your answer to be yes.

Question 7: Until the gas reaches the surface of the liquid and escapes to the environment above the liquid the rising gas will constantly apply energy to the liquid causing it to move (lift, move sideways, fall) correct?

Assuming your answer to be yes.

In summation: If the answer to yes to all of these questions (3-7), a lift against the force of gravity can be acomplished by the force of gravity when a gas is released under the surface of a liquid in a gravity environment. The effect is the liquid will come to rest below the gas after the gas transverses the liquid from the point of release upward (away from the center of gravity) to the surface of the liquid where it escapes to the environment above the liquid allowing the liquid to regain its rest position.

Question 8: Would you agree with the summation?

   


 
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 08, 2008, 07:41:34 AM
On your other comment:


Come on, the battle lines are drawn and I am armed to the teeth with facts and prepared to do battle. Time to grind those that speak against me to shame and and rip the facade of the the false science they advocate to shreads. I am no longer trying to convience people to listen to what I have to say trying to benefit them. I am here to do battle against those who say lies in the name of truth that is science.  Battle against those that refuse to throughly examine what I say before condeming it. Battle against those that state false assumptions and defend them as the truth. Battle against them that make attempts to silence a man who is only trying to expose the truth for the benefit of his fellow man.

That great quality that science should be seeking in ernest rather than trying to keep the truth from being said and shown and understood for the benefit and advancement of mankind. So come on you blind followers of the blind, it's time for you to be knocked from the pillar you have falsely placed yourselves on and fall face first into the ditch of shame and discrace!!!!!!!!!!! I shall show no mercy upon you as you do not deserve it if you continue as you have after this warning. I am a humble servent armed with truth and I am waiting. :)

OK, look, draw up a schematic of your experiment, showing where the input energy is, where the output energy is and the steps required to go from one to the other.  That should highlight where the points of contention are.  I'm not willing to discuss this until there is a post that has a concise description and diagram of the experiment, since otherwise it just degenerates into "Oh well I'm not telling you what's in the magic box because you'll steal it" bullshit that nearly every other 'perpetual motion'/'zero point energy'/whatever maker comes out with.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Wendy on September 08, 2008, 07:54:49 AM
Quote
I am here to do battle against those who say lies in the name of truth that is science.

Sounds more like something religious to me. And to question number 8: No, I would not really agree, because gravity as a force doesn't exist. The effect you speak of is caused by the gravitational wave that is caused by the objec upon which the site for your hypothetical experiment resides, preferrably the earth.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: mayhem on September 08, 2008, 08:32:59 AM
3 - I believe the bulk of the gas will rise to the surface, but the answer does depend on the liquid and the gas involved.  Some liquids may or may not readily absorb a certain amount of gas.  I'm no chemist so I cannot conclusively answer this question.

4 - If the gas rises to the top of the liquid then I would say this answer is yes.

5 - I would also say yes to this.

6 - Yes gravitiation is a constant, but IIRC the amount of force the air bubble would apply to the liquid is proportional to the density delta between the gas and liquid...thus I think more energy would be applied by the gas at higher liquid densities.

7 - I believe also yes, but the gas may not apply a constant force at all depths of the liquid due to decreasing density.

8 - I agree with your summary.  Gas released into a liquid below its surface will tend to rise towards the portion of the liquid that has the least density, typically the surface of the liquid.

At this point I'm guessing that your idea revolves around either harnessing the rising gas or the falling liquid to generate electricity in some fashion.  I am eager to see where the energy comes from to generate the gas and move it to the bottom of the liquid.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on September 08, 2008, 09:32:28 AM
So far you have an experiment that allows water to fall from the top of the container you placed it in to the bottom. Any energy gained from this process is just stored kinetic energy from placing the water in the container. Please continue.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Parsifal on September 08, 2008, 10:42:59 AM
The force that causes the gas to accelerate upwards through the liquid is only indirectly gravitational. It is an electromagnetic interaction that actually causes the movement.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: jehkque on September 08, 2008, 11:28:24 AM
Question 3: Was not answered yes or no, I will clearify, liquid meaning viscous liquid, so the gas does not become suspended it will either go into solution or rise to the surface one or the other will occur, correct? mayhem looks like you want to answer the question yes it would tend to rise. If it goes into solution it will reach a maximum solubility and then rise. Does that help clearify your apparent indiscission?

New persons weighing in wendigo with a theory of gravitational wave, lol, you mean I just proved gravitiational wave with 5 questions and one summation? After all there is an ongoing experiment which has for 5 years looked for evidence of a gravitational wave and has yet to identify one single occurance. Osama bin Laden weights in with electromagnetic interaction? Electromagnetic field or wave? I would have to ask for a demonstration that electromagnetic interaction is the actual cause of the movement. Demonstration meaning observation with measurements and identification of the field or waves causing the movement.

Raist, you made a comment that makes an assumption of the direction I am going with this, you did not answer the questions put forth.

To conserve space, Raist regarding your comment #126, you do not have to review all that is said just focus on the questions and their answers. The questions will lead you along the path being taken.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on September 08, 2008, 11:34:06 AM
Question 3: Was not answered yes or no, I will clearify, liquid meaning viscous liquid, so the gas does not become suspended it will either go into solution or rise to the surface one or the other will occur, correct? mayhem looks like you want to answer the question yes it would tend to rise. If it goes into solution it will reach a maximum solubility and then rise. Does that help clearify your apparent indiscission?

New persons weighing in wendigo with a theory of gravitational wave, lol, you mean I just proved gravitiational wave with 5 questions and one summation? After all there is an ongoing experiment which has for 5 years looked for evidence of a gravitational wave and have yet to identify one single occurance. Osama bin Laden weights in with electromagnetic interaction? Electromagnetic field or wave? I would have to ask for a demonstration that electromagnetic interaction is the actual cause of the movement. Demonstration meaning observation with measurements and identification of the field or waves causing the movement.

Raist, you made a comment that makes an assumption of the direction I am going with this, you did not answer the questions put forth.
I am simply anticipating. After 3 pages of you doing this, I don't feel like going back through and finding your fallacious jump in logic. It's called time saving. If I am wrong then just correct me.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: mayhem on September 08, 2008, 12:35:35 PM
Question 3: Was not answered yes or no, I will clearify, liquid meaning viscous liquid, so the gas does not become suspended it will either go into solution or rise to the surface one or the other will occur, correct? mayhem looks like you want to answer the question yes it would tend to rise. If it goes into solution it will reach a maximum solubility and then rise. Does that help clearify your apparent indiscission?

I cna live with that answer.  Yes, the gasses will tend to rise towards the surface of the liquid.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: jehkque on September 08, 2008, 02:05:28 PM
Ok one continuing with an open mind, two jumping in mid way making an abstract statement that is unsupported, and one not wishing to participate feeling it not worthy of effort of time to attempt to locate a fallacy if one exists in the line of questioning. For it is only the line of questioning that is the subject of this discussion. The line of questioning can and will be tied to previous statements. Not every statement but the important ones some of the statements came in defense of the statements that tie to the line of questions.

Questions 1 and 2 dealt with hydro-power situations and natural water cycles both answered yes. Questions 3-7 dealt with the nature of gases released under the surface of a liquid and their lift to its surface all answered yes. Question 8 was a summation of questions 3-7 identifying that the lift is a gravity induced lift. To be honest, it is the only lift of mass away from the center of gravity that actually occurs in nature as a result of gravity that I am aware of. I will state that I view gases as fluids and lighter gases released near the bottom of a heaver contained gas (fluid) will tend to rise to the upper portions of the container or atmosphere in a like manner as a released gas under the surface of a liquid (fluid).

Now, how do you come to have a continuation of gas released under the surface of a liquid because perpetual means continued.

Question 9: The electrolysis of water (chemical reversing of water by electricity) produces 2 gases, correct?

Assuming the answer to be yes.

Question 10: An electrolysis device, made similar to a Hofmann voltameter, the electrodes (cathode and anode) are submerged in liquid water, correct?

Assuming the answer to be yes.

Question 11: The electrodes are the point for applying the externally applied DC current used to induce the chemical reversing of water, correct?

Assuming the answer to be yes.

Question 12: During the operation of a Hofmann voltameter type electrolysis device the Hydrogen gas and Oxygen gas are formed at the point where the electrodes make contact with the water, correct?

Assuming the answer to be yes.

Question 13: The Hydrogen and Oxygen produced during the electrolysis of water are thus released under the surface of a liquid, correct?

Assuming the answer to be yes.

Question 14: Can a Hofmann voltameter type electrolysis device cause the production of Hydrogen and Oxygen at any other point than where the electrodes make contact with the water (point of applying energy)? Yes or no and describe why for your answer.

Assuming the answer to be no.

In summation: In an electrolysis device made with current technologies, the electrolysis of Water will result in the formation of elemental Hydrogen gas and elemental Oxygen gas upon opposing electrodes (negaitve and positive) electrically charged by an external DC power source. In order to maximize the contact between the electrodes and the water the electrodes are submerged in the water. Each gas will form and be released at the point where the electrodes come in contact with the water in the device. The gases will not be formed at any other point other than upon their respective electrode.

Question 15: Would you agree with this summation? 

 



Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 08, 2008, 02:32:34 PM
Still waiting


Come on, the battle lines are drawn and I am armed to the teeth with facts and prepared to do battle. Time to grind those that speak against me to shame and and rip the facade of the the false science they advocate to shreads. I am no longer trying to convience people to listen to what I have to say trying to benefit them. I am here to do battle against those who say lies in the name of truth that is science.  Battle against those that refuse to throughly examine what I say before condeming it. Battle against those that state false assumptions and defend them as the truth. Battle against them that make attempts to silence a man who is only trying to expose the truth for the benefit of his fellow man.

That great quality that science should be seeking in ernest rather than trying to keep the truth from being said and shown and understood for the benefit and advancement of mankind. So come on you blind followers of the blind, it's time for you to be knocked from the pillar you have falsely placed yourselves on and fall face first into the ditch of shame and discrace!!!!!!!!!!! I shall show no mercy upon you as you do not deserve it if you continue as you have after this warning. I am a humble servent armed with truth and I am waiting. :)

OK, look, draw up a schematic of your experiment, showing where the input energy is, where the output energy is and the steps required to go from one to the other.  That should highlight where the points of contention are.  I'm not willing to discuss this until there is a post that has a concise description and diagram of the experiment, since otherwise it just degenerates into "Oh well I'm not telling you what's in the magic box because you'll steal it" bullshit that nearly every other 'perpetual motion'/'zero point energy'/whatever maker comes out with.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: jehkque on September 08, 2008, 02:48:56 PM
Matrix you can answer the questions and follow the train of though. If you disagree with what is assumed to be the answer I post after each question except summation questions then make it known, and you and I can debate the disagreement. After the question and answer session, so that I know you have a firm grasp of the concept, I will be happy to give you all the details you need to devise your own test apparatus and make observations. First you have to know what to look for and if you see it what it means. Then and only then is your independent testing and observations worth anything to advance the proof or disproof of my claim. Otherwise its just an observation that I have to tie to what I am saying. You knowing what to look for and knowing what it means ,means your observation is more valuable either for or against proving my claim.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 09, 2008, 02:46:08 AM
Matrix you can answer the questions and follow the train of though. If you disagree with what is assumed to be the answer I post after each question except summation questions then make it known, and you and I can debate the disagreement. After the question and answer session, so that I know you have a firm grasp of the concept, I will be happy to give you all the details you need to devise your own test apparatus and make observations. First you have to know what to look for and if you see it what it means. Then and only then is your independent testing and observations worth anything to advance the proof or disproof of my claim. Otherwise its just an observation that I have to tie to what I am saying. You knowing what to look for and knowing what it means ,means your observation is more valuable either for or against proving my claim.

Is it really so hard to just give me the drawing and let me do the experiment? If you really want an independent test of your work then you can't pre-condition everyone that does it to make sure they're 'looking for the right thing'; either there will be more energy out than in or there won't be, it's not exactly brain surgery. I need at least a rough schematic (scanned in hand-drawn apparatus will do) with what materials you have used and in what environment the experiment is to be conducted (no external magnetic fields, dark room, direct sunlight, air currents, vibrational isolation etc etc...).

This is how independent research is carried out, not by 'following a train of thought' from someone else's question-and-answer session - that would easily lead to small misinterpretations. You give me the recipe and I'll tell you whether the cake rises or not.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: mayhem on September 09, 2008, 06:07:34 AM
I now need to go do some independant reserch into your questions before I can provide any useful answers.  I'll reply later today, possibly tonight.


I'm getting the feeling we're leading more or less to a modified version of this:

http://aquygen.blogspot.com/
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on September 09, 2008, 06:55:42 AM
None of that stuff works. Water will not readily react with any gas in the atmosphere found in abundance on earth. This means it can never be used for fuel like gasoline. The reasons for this are obvious and I will not go into them.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: jehkque on September 09, 2008, 09:42:37 AM
I now need to go do some independant reserch into your questions before I can provide any useful answers.  I'll reply later today, possibly tonight.


I'm getting the feeling we're leading more or less to a modified version of this:

http://aquygen.blogspot.com/


There are similarities, in a modification of the original synopsys detailing the research I was conducting, the similarity was noted in the fact that I identified a group of electrode patterns that may be able to obtain the effect that would be necessary to yield over unity chemical potential of energy in the resultants. Some of these patterns are used in devices used by the people seeking water for fuel. However, I find myself being very skeptical of their cleaims. Particularly the Joe Cell which claims orgone energy and connection to a blank on the engine compartment to power the engine. Stan Mayers type cell and his claim that resonance of water will split it into the original elements hydrogen and oxygen. Though resonance can break crystaline structures it does not change the chemical composition of the crystaline material. I can also state that I am aware that ultrasonic vibrations cavitate water and can form vaporized water but that is not forming hydrogen and oxygen from the water. Due to these items I could not find support scientific evidence for, I did not use their information in the research.

None of that stuff works. Water will not readily react with any gas in the atmosphere found in abundance on earth. This means it can never be used for fuel like gasoline. The reasons for this are obvious and I will not go into them.


Water is the ash of the combustion of Hydrogen in an oxygen environment. As an ash it will not burn, i.e. it puts out fires. Hydrogen on the other hand is a fuel source and will burn. The term water for fuel is absolutely incorrect. You can take water and obtain the fuel source hydrogen. however with current technologies you have to put in more energy to get the fuel supply than you get when you use the fuel supply. That is the problem with developing a hydrogen fuel source from a clean source, non-hydrocarbon source.

That is why I stated after President Bush unvailed his vision of a Hydrogen Economy that it would never be unless a way could be developed to have hydrogen fuel supplying the energy to redevelop the fuel source and supply the energy to drive the economy. That is why I repeated that statement and added that it would take perpetual motion to develop a Hydrogen economy, and made the statement that that feat was an impossibility before the board of a non profit organization which I sit as 1 of 3 memebers. That board voted 2 to 1 in favor of a Hydrogen Electric Generating Plant research project and put me in charge of that research, I was the one desenting. Also they placed strict guidlines on what information I could use because I animately opposed the idea and diligantly cited the claim by science that is would violate the laws of science. It was not by choice I did the research I did the other 2 board memebers placed me as the person responsible for conducting the research I even objected to that placement. One of them said "Well look at it this way now you can prove your claim or disprove it".  I had to form an open mind to do the research objectively as it was set by a board of directors and I am held accountable to uphold the leadership directives of that board.

I am not acting in a capacity for them here. I am acting out of a personal frustration from the continued acts of others who refuse to listen to a new idea and new evidence. I can, in ways, understand it because I held that position with out question at one time and to be honest I was completley shocked to find I could not prove my claim of impossiblity following the doctrine of science that is used to support the claim. Honestly if you factor in energy from the environment the laws of science allow greater energy outputs than you apply. That is where the distinction draws from when considering if a device yields an over unity energy output. It is not the total applied energy that should be considered. That is the fatal flaw in the claim that over unity is not possible. That is the reason why there are a few devices that on a small scale give over unity. It is not easy to get over unity, I will freely admit that but it is not impossible to get, it has already been done and documented and cited by others. Becaue of that it is not impossible, but I would venture to say improbable as in very difficult.

But water for fuel can never be. Your going to either use kenetic energy in water and do an energy conversion to get an energy output or you have to reverse water back in to its elements and in doing that you have a fuel source. Though I have identified only one possible way to reverse water back to hydrogen and oxygen that may yield positive energy potential and that method still has not been completely debugged. That is why the theory behind the method must be known and must be explored and imporvements in devices must be made and tested. Its not for me, its for mankind, is the way I had to look at the research project to be objective and have to open my mind to possibilities. I found one possiblity in regards to forming hydrogen with positive chemical potential from clean sources. That possibility paved the way to point towards other energy forms that are clean and yield positive energy which are not claimed as over unity even though they clearly are. I may not be totally right in this theory but I am not totally wrong either.   

 
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 09, 2008, 10:48:10 AM
OK so if I understand you correctly you're not claiming to have developed something that generates 'over unity' but rather some elaborate experiment to tap into either ambient heat/magnetism/angular momentum or some such... is that right?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: mayhem on September 09, 2008, 06:29:02 PM
9 - Yes
10 - Yes
11 - Yes
12 - Not totally clear from the wikipedia article, but it makes sense that it would work this way...say yes for the sake of moving things along.
13 - Yes
14 - Unknown.  I agree with an anser of no, based on the answer to #12...logically if 12 is yes, 14 must be no, assuming no other technology is used.
15 - Yes.

Next. 
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: jehkque on September 10, 2008, 06:15:11 AM
Ok so far we have established that electrical energy can be derived from a conversion of kenetic energy present in moving water, and that needs a water cycle (traditionally supplied by the sun's energy) [q 1-2] and that rising bubbles in a liquid causes motion (lifting, sideways, and falling) in the liquid (provides a cycle where cycle is driven by bubbles being present and gravity) [q 3-8] and that electrolysis of liquid water causes the formation of bubbles under the surface of liquid water and the formation of the bubbles occur only at the point where electrical energy is directly applied to the water [q 9-15].

Question 16: One of the most common definitions of a generator is a wire rotating in a magentic field; where the magnetic field induces a flow of electrons in the moving wire, correct?

Assuming the answer to be yes.

Question 17: A wire is commonly defined as a channel of conductive material, correct?

Assuming the answer to be yes.

Question 18: Rotating is another way to state rotational movement, correct?

Assuming the answer to be yes.

In summary, Induced electron flow (electrical generation) is acheived when there is movement of a conductive material in relation to a magnetic field.

Question 19: Would you agree with this summary?

OK so if I understand you correctly you're not claiming to have developed something that generates 'over unity' but rather some elaborate experiment to tap into either ambient heat/magnetism/angular momentum or some such... is that right?

No matrix your understanding would not be correct. Bear with or participate in the question answer session and from that state your understanding and ask if it is correct and you may then have a complete understanding that is correct.

To conserve space Raist in your reply #138 Please point specifically to where there is a mention by me of water causing a magnetic field to have movement?. If you can not do this your statement is abortrary and unsupported. Chalk another oops opened mouth and inserted foot up for ya.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on September 10, 2008, 07:05:53 AM
Ok so far we have established that electrical energy can be derived from from a conversion of kenetic energy present in moving water, and that needs a water cycle (traditionally supplied by the sun's energy) [q 1-2] and that rising bubbles in a liquid causes motion (lifting, sideways, and falling) in the liquid (provides a cycle where cycle is driven by bubbles being present and gravity) [q 3-8] and that electrolysis of liquid water causes the formation of bubbles under the surfact of liquid water and the formation of the bubbles occur only at the point where electrical energy is directly applied to the water [q 9-15].

Question 16: One of the most common definations of a generator is a wire rotating in a magentic field; where the magnetic field induces a flow of electrons in the moving wire, correct?

Assuming the answer to be yes.

Question 17: A wire is commonly defined as a channel of conductive material, correct?

Assuming the answer to be yes.

Question 18: Rotating is another way to state rotational movement, correct?

Assuming the answer to be yes.

In summary, Induced electron flow (electrical generation) is acheived when there is movement of a conductive material in relation to a magnetic field.

Question 19: Would you agree with this summary?
The entropy in the movement of the water would cause no net magnetic field rotation.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: dyno on September 11, 2008, 07:28:36 PM
Water is not the "ash" or hydrogen and oxygen.

Ash is a non-reactive residue present in the fuel source.

Water is a product.

Hydrogen will burn with any number of things. As will oxygen, chlorine, fluorine. You are aware almost all metals will burn in oxygen? Carbon monoxide will burn.

You say water won't burn? Have you ever put sodium into water? That produces an extremely exothermic reaction that some would consider akin to burning.

Most of our energy comes from utilising exothermic reactions.

The hydrolysis of water is not a energy equal reversible reaction. More energy is required to crack the water than is attained from reacting it.

Where did you learn chemistry? They need to pick up their game.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on September 11, 2008, 07:58:09 PM
Water will not react with anything readily available on Earth.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: dyno on September 11, 2008, 08:12:04 PM
Readily available in nature you mean?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: sokarul on September 11, 2008, 08:53:33 PM
Readily available in nature you mean?

He must or he is an idiot. 
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: dyno on September 11, 2008, 09:10:42 PM
me?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on September 11, 2008, 09:18:06 PM
Readily available in nature you mean?

He must or he is an idiot. 
Readily available on earth in a state that it would freely reach the water for minimal cost, worth the energy it would produce.

So.... Where do you find say lithium deposits on earth?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: dyno on September 11, 2008, 09:26:42 PM
No you are right that it won't react with anything naturally occurring. By react I mean chemical change. Dissolving rock and erosion isn't a reaction.

But yes, all the elements that would readily react have long since been oxidised.

Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: beast on September 11, 2008, 09:46:02 PM
You are absolutely wrong.  Water reacts with lots of naturally occurring things.  In fact water reacting with carbon dioxide and energy (light) is probably the most important reaction that occurs on earth (photosynthesis).
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on September 11, 2008, 10:00:34 PM
You are absolutely wrong.  Water reacts with lots of naturally occurring things.  In fact water reacting with carbon dioxide and energy (light) is probably the most important reaction that occurs on earth (photosynthesis).

 ::).

That is an endothermic reaction. You are correct of course. I should have been a lot more specific.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: dyno on September 11, 2008, 10:12:12 PM
Water is not reacting in photosynthesis. It is acting as a medium. That is biological anyway. Weren't we talking about inorganic chemical reactions?

We were talking about burning(exothermic reactions) before I think anyway.

Although there is a reaction with CO2 and water to form carbonic acid so you are correct. I didn't think about that one. But again, its not the exothermic reactions we were talking about before.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: sokarul on September 11, 2008, 10:12:54 PM
Readily available in nature you mean?

He must or he is an idiot. 
Readily available on earth in a state that it would freely reach the water for minimal cost, worth the energy it would produce.

So.... Where do you find say lithium deposits on earth?
A train car that has a hole in it. 
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: jehkque on September 11, 2008, 10:32:44 PM
Water is not the "ash" or hydrogen and oxygen.

Ash is a non-reactive residue present in the fuel source.

Water is a product.

Hydrogen will burn with any number of things. As will oxygen, chlorine, fluorine. You are aware almost all metals will burn in oxygen? Carbon monoxide will burn.

You say water won't burn? Have you ever put sodium into water? That produces an extremely exothermic reaction that some would consider akin to burning.

Most of our energy comes from utilising exothermic reactions.

The hydrolysis of water is not a energy equal reversible reaction. More energy is required to crack the water than is attained from reacting it.

Where did you learn chemistry? They need to pick up their game.


source is http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary word search ash, defination ash[2, noun]

Main Entry: 2ash
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English asshe, from Old English asce — more at arid
Date: before 12th century
1: something that symbolizes grief, repentance, or humiliation
2 a: the solid residue left when combustible material is thoroughly burned or is oxidized by chemical means b: fine particles of mineral matter from a volcanic vent
3plural : the remains of the dead human body after cremation or disintegration
4plural : deathly pallor <the lip of ashes and the cheek of flame — Lord Byron>
5plural :

refernece line 2 a:

At STP [ 0 deg C and 1 ATM ] water is a solid, freezing point of water is 32 deg F or 0 deg C at 1 ATM of pressure. So according to the definition "the solid residue left when combustible material is thoroughly burned or is oxidized by chemical means"  Water is the ash of Hydrogen!

Care to open mouth and insert foot about what I say again?

Let's give you another open mouth and insert foot though it is what you brought up. The reaction of sodium in water does not burn water it releases Hydrogen when sodium hydroxide is formed and releases heat (exothermal reaction) which can ignite the hydrogen comming off when there is an oxidizer present in the atmosphere where the hydrogen excapes to. The reaction with water occurs with other group 1 metals of the periodic table of elements as well, some more violant than the Sodium reaction.

If you think I do not know much about chemistry you better think again. I evidently know more than you about chemistry and I just demonstrated that fact.

Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: beast on September 11, 2008, 10:46:34 PM
Water is not reacting in photosynthesis. It is acting as a medium. That is biological anyway. Weren't we talking about inorganic chemical reactions?

Water definitely does react in photosynthesis.  There is a famous experiment where "heavy" water was used to track the reactions and it clearly showed that the water molecule bonds are broken and that the water produced from the reaction is different to the water you begin with.  The oxygen plants produce comes from the water in a photosynthesis reaction (and not the carbon dioxide, as many people think).

Sorry I only read this page so I wasn't aware you were talking about exothermic reactions.



I also think it's ridiculous to call water the ash of hydrogen.  Ash refers to, as you quoted, "residue."  When hydrogen is "oxidised" (and this is also incorrect, as it's a covalent bond, not an ionic bond) then all the hydrogen turns to water.  Residue obviously refers to a small remainder, not the whole product.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: dyno on September 11, 2008, 10:56:24 PM
You've demonstrated you can misunderstand things.

If you burn a conventional hydrocarbon fuel in the presence of excess oxygen you should theoretically end up with gaseous products. Any ash should be an inorganic impurity.

If you are going to stick to your dictionary definition, how often does burning hydrogen with oxygen result in ice? You think ash can extinguish fires? It depends on what it is.
Again, water is not ash.

I said some would would consider akin to burning. I'm not tasting any foot.

Can you post any quote referring to water as ash? Besides your own misguided one.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: dyno on September 11, 2008, 10:58:37 PM
Water definitely does react in photosynthesis.  There is a famous experiment where "heavy" water was used to track the reactions and it clearly showed that the water molecule bonds are broken and that the water produced from the reaction is different to the water you begin with.  The oxygen plants produce comes from the water in a photosynthesis reaction (and not the carbon dioxide, as many people think).

Sorry I only read this page so I wasn't aware you were talking about exothermic reactions.


really? ok..my bad. i know peanuts about biology. i did assume it was just a carrier
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: jehkque on September 11, 2008, 11:30:19 PM

I also think it's ridiculous to call water the ash of hydrogen.  Ash refers to, as you quoted, "residue."  When hydrogen is "oxidised" (and this is also incorrect, as it's a covalent bond, not an ionic bond) then all the hydrogen turns to water.  Residue obviously refers to a small remainder, not the whole product.

You've demonstrated you can misunderstand things.

If you burn a conventional hydrocarbon fuel in the presence of excess oxygen you should theoretically end up with gaseous products. Any ash should be an inorganic impurity.

If you are going to stick to your dictionary definition, how often does burning hydrogen with oxygen result in ice? You think ash can extinguish fires? It depends on what it is.
Again, water is not ash.

I said some would would consider akin to burning. I'm not tasting any foot.

Can you post any quote referring to water as ash? Besides your own misguided one.


The definition states residue after combustion or oxidation. Water is the residue of combustion of hydrogen in oxygen same as carbon dioxide is the residue of carbon combustion in oxygen the difference is that water is an ash and carbon dioxide is not.

It does not matter what the temperature of the water vapor is at combustion it only matters when you compare the material at STP as that is the base reference point in chemistry at which all matter is examined to see if it is a solid or liquid or gas.

Also http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oxidation

Main Entry: ox·i·da·tion  
Pronunciation: \ˌäk-sə-ˈdā-shən\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from oxider, oxyder to oxidize, from oxide
Date: 1791
1 : the act or process of oxidizing
2 : the state or result of being oxidized
— ox·i·da·tive  \ˈäk-sə-ˌdā-tiv\ adjective
— ox·i·da·tive·ly adverb

Says nothing about ionic bonds or covalent bonds that just defines the type of chemical bonds in a molecule.

Post a link saying water is the ash of hydrogen? I just did look at the definition. BTW its a question on the Oklahoma State Board of Education's: State placement exam for Chemistry, I placed 2nd, 1981 and you can only take that test if you are nominated to take it by the school district you attend. Call them and ask them what the answer is!

I am not going to hunt up some link for you just because you are so stupid that you can not look at a definition and see what is right before your eyes. You evidently do not know very much about chemistry, if you do not know that STP is the reference point to determine if matter is a solid or liquid or gas. The published definition of ash and the fact that STP is the reference point used in chemistry to determine the state of matter (solid or liquid or gas) tells the whole story. The reference is there, look at it.  
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: dyno on September 12, 2008, 12:04:36 AM
It's a question on the exam? Well I guess you got it wrong. How can you remember something from 27 years ago anyway?

I believe you are wrong because of your concept of ash. I'm fairly confident other chemists would consider water from hydrogen and oxygen a product, not an ash. And yes, I have a bachelors degree in chemistry.

If you want to have your own opinion of what an ash is, then sure, call water whatever you like. I think you argument is trying to get others to believe that water is ash though. It still isn't.

I know what STP is. It's a set of conditions used to standardise tests and measurements. Are you telling me you can conduct a test at STP conditions burning hydrogen and oxygen producing ice, not water vapor and not water? What kind of dynamic volume chamber is this?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 12, 2008, 01:23:06 AM
dyno, you should know the guy is a lunatic, don't worry too much about it.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: lolz at trollz on September 12, 2008, 04:40:07 AM
The definition states residue after combustion or oxidation. Water is the residue of combustion of hydrogen in oxygen same as carbon dioxide is the residue of carbon combustion in oxygen the difference is that water is an ash and carbon dioxide is not.

How does this statement have any logic.  If you redefine residue to mean product, and redefine solid to mean could be solid after I freeze it, then you could say water is ash, but then carbon dioxide would be too. 

Massive logic failure! 

I have no idea what even the point of this stupid argument is, how did you end up arguing such a stupid position? 
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: jehkque on September 12, 2008, 06:49:23 AM
It's a question on the exam? Well I guess you got it wrong. How can you remember something from 27 years ago anyway?

I believe you are wrong because of your concept of ash. I'm fairly confident other chemists would consider water from hydrogen and oxygen a product, not an ash. And yes, I have a bachelors degree in chemistry.

If you want to have your own opinion of what an ash is, then sure, call water whatever you like. I think you argument is trying to get others to believe that water is ash though. It still isn't.

I know what STP is. It's a set of conditions used to standardise tests and measurements. Are you telling me you can conduct a test at STP conditions burning hydrogen and oxygen producing ice, not water vapor and not water? What kind of dynamic volume chamber is this?

The product of combustion of Hydrogen in oxygen is water + heat + light. Water is only a protion of the total output.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/residue



Main Entry: res·i·due 
Pronunciation: \ˈre-zə-ˌdü, -ˌdyü\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin residuum, from neuter of residuus left over, from residēre to remain
Date: 14th century
: something that remains after a part is taken, separated, or designated or after the completion of a process : remnant, remainder: as a: the part of a testator's estate remaining after the satisfaction of all debts, charges, allowances, and previous devises and bequests b: the remainder after subtracting a multiple of a modulus from an integer or a power of the integer that can appear as the second of the two terms in an appropriate congruence <2 and 7 are residues of 12 modulo 5> c: a constituent structural unit (as a group or monomer) of a usually complex molecule <amino acid residues from hydrolysis of protein> 


Reference ": something that remains after a part is taken, seperated or designated or after the completion of a process"

Water is only one part the total result of the combustion of hydrogen, take away the heat produced and take away the light produced and water is the part that is produced that remains. By defination, "water" is a residue of the combustion is hydrogen with oxygen.

You can devise an apparatus that will maintain STP, you make it to extract or add heat as needed and to add or extract pressure as needed so that conditions are maintained in the apparatus. That is called maintaining constant conditions. So yes when constant conditions are maintained at STP, the combustion of hydrogen with oxygen will form ice. LOL and you say you have a bachelors? It ain't (or would you prefer the phrase "is not under any set of circummstances") worth the paper its written on!

Who's got a doctorial in chemistry in here, anyone? That might be the one that would have a chance to successfully challenge what I say and I repeat MIGHT BE THE ONE.

dyno, you should know the guy is a lunatic, don't worry too much about it.


LOL branding someone a lunitic to try and hide your lack of knowledge and understanding does not take away from my knowledge and understanding, it only shows your lack of that.

The definition states residue after combustion or oxidation. Water is the residue of combustion of hydrogen in oxygen same as carbon dioxide is the residue of carbon combustion in oxygen the difference is that water is an ash and carbon dioxide is not.

How does this statement have any logic.  If you redefine residue to mean product, and redefine solid to mean could be solid after I freeze it, then you could say water is ash, but then carbon dioxide would be too. 

Massive logic failure! 

I have no idea what even the point of this stupid argument is, how did you end up arguing such a stupid position? 


I did not redefine residue. I properly applied its definition. I did not redefine solid or the point at which chemistry makes that determination, I properly applied the definition and properly applied the Standard for determining the state of matter (solid or liquid or gas). Carbon dioxide is not an ash, though it is a residue of carbon combustion with oxygen, it is not a solid at STP it is a gas and thus not an ash by definition. Water on the other hand is a solid at STP and is a residue of hydrogen combustion with oxygen. The failure of logic is not in what I said but in your understanding and that you would make an attempt, with a lack of understanding and incomplete knowledge, to refute what I said. You do not even supply supporting evidence to your claim. I on the other hand have a good understanding and a sound base of knowledge and I supplied supporting evidence to my statement and in that I have a massive failure of logic? The opposite is shown to be true it woulod be you, not I, that has the failure.

To all of you that wish to make attempt to refute my statement of fact that water is an ash, its funny I make statements that have supporting evidence, and the statements are rejected and called illogical by abortrary statments of certain individuals? Where is your supporting evidence? Where is the support for the claim that water is not an ash? I have provided the definition of ash, oxidation and residue as supporting evidence because it is clear every one of you that wishes to contest my statement knows little of these things. The claim water is not a residue is clearly wrong, the claim that water's covalent bonds means it is not the oxidation state of hydrogen is clearly wrong, the claim that water is not an ash is clearly wrong.

And yes, some of the questions on that test still stand out in my mind because they were uncommon questions that required you to have a full understanding of chemistry thus they tested you knowledge in areas not commonly tested to rank your knowledge among the best of the best. But I'm a lunitic because I know more than you do, LOL!

Old saying, "It is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you a fool than to open it and confirm that you are a fool." My statement is backed up by facts that are easiely verified. your statements are not supported by fact, no evidence given, yet you make an attempt to refute a statement of mine that is supported by evidence, and say that I have a failure of logic or brand me a lunitic. Who is the fool? You or I? The evidence would point to the simple conslusion that I am not the one acting foolishly or making foolish statements that are unsupported. The evidence points to you as being the foolish ones by making statemets that are not supported by evidence of fact and are contradictory to fact.

Any more takers for the open mouth insert foot hall of shame?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: dyno on September 12, 2008, 07:13:48 AM
I don't believe you did your exam back then. That would make you at least 44 years old.

If you had a PhD I doubt you would be here arguing your point as strongly as your are in a position as weak as the one you have made.

You wouldn't have such a sense of superiority as you would have met greater minds than your own.
You wouldn't use "lol" either.

If you were in the top 2% you would have realised the futility of arguing on boards like this.

You, Sir, are full of the proverbial.

But its fun so lets keep it going. ;D

I asked for a single reference from another party calling water ash from the reaction. I've done a search and can't locate any such reference. If you know of one, be a good lad and share. It's the nice thing to do.

You haven't provided any evidence
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 12, 2008, 07:18:20 AM
The only way you can call water 'ash' is if you define 'ash' to be anything that is the result of combustion.  This would make CO2 (in fact, all oxides) 'ash'.  That's why it is not suitable to call water 'ash', since that would make the term far too general (as well as duplicating the already more descriptive 'oxide').

If you're going to argue the historical origin of the word, then I highly doubt that anyone in prehistory viewed water in the same way they viewed the grey powder that was left after their fires.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on September 12, 2008, 07:18:24 AM
Readily available in nature you mean?

He must or he is an idiot. 
Readily available on earth in a state that it would freely reach the water for minimal cost, worth the energy it would produce.

So.... Where do you find say lithium deposits on earth?
A train car that has a hole in it. 
Ok, so it is efficient to set up an energy system dependent on finding train cars with holes in them, full of lithium that is open to water but not yet reacted to the water in the air. Good call sok.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: jehkque on September 12, 2008, 08:18:21 AM
I don't believe you did your exam back then. That would make you at least 44 years old.

If you had a PhD I doubt you would be here arguing your point as strongly as your are in a position as weak as the one you have made.

You wouldn't have such a sense of superiority as you would have met greater minds than your own.
You wouldn't use "lol" either.

If you were in the top 2% you would have realised the futility of arguing on boards like this.

You, Sir, are full of the proverbial.

But its fun so lets keep it going. ;D

I asked for a single reference from another party calling water ash from the reaction. I've done a search and can't locate any such reference. If you know of one, be a good lad and share. It's the nice thing to do.

You haven't provided any evidence

I am 44 years old. PhD's do debate (argue) their position, support their position with evidence, and will defend their position tooth and nail against an opinion in a weaker position. A person with a PhD will also laugh, "LOL=Laughs out Loud" do you think internet short cuts are confined to the exclusive use by people that have lesser intelligence? Did I take the test I mentioned? It is listed, by test name, location taken, placement and date, on my High School transcript in the Honors and Awards section.  Futility of agruing a point in a forum like this? Any argument you win is not futile, its satisfying to me and a learning lesson for you; even if I lose the arguement it is still satisfying to me because I learned something. You asked for a reference to water is an ash.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/water

"Main Entry: 1wa·ter   
Pronunciation: \ˈwȯ-tər, ˈwä-\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English wæter; akin to Old High German wazzar water, Greek hydōr, Latin unda wave
Date: before 12th century
1 a: the liquid that descends from the clouds as rain, forms streams, lakes, and seas, and is a major constituent of all living matter and that when pure is an odorless, tasteless, very slightly compressible liquid oxide of hydrogen H2O which appears bluish in thick layers, freezes at 0° C and boils at 100° C,..."

Water is identified as the "oxide of hydrogen", and becomes a solid "freezes at 0 deg C". Reference the defination of ash, and the other referenced definations you were provided that confirm water is the ash of hydrogen combustion with oxygen. BTW Water is the standard of STP. STP is the temperature at 1 atmosphere of pressure that water changes into a solid from liquid form. It is the point at which the oxidation state of the first element in the periodic table exists as an ash. The oxidation state of every other element is compared to that set of conditions to determine if they are an ash or not an ash, thus Sandard Temperature and Pressure "STP". Carbon dioxide is not an ash because at STP CO2 is a gas; not a solid as is required to be defined as an ash. CO2 is a gaseous residue of the combustion and complete oxidation of carbon. Carbon monoxide is the incomplete oxidation of carbon and yes CO will further oxidize thus it will burn and yield CO2.

Did you learn something today? If not then you will forever be lacking in knowledge.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: dyno on September 12, 2008, 09:15:54 AM
That reference in no way refers to water as being an ash of hydrogen which was what I asked for.

I do happen to believe lol is predominantly used by people under 35.

What do you call silica and other inorganics present in hydrocarbon fuels? These are not necessarily products of combustion.

Water is the oxide of water? WTF?

Where did you learn that STP is where hydrogen first becomes an ash? It is the temperature and pressure where water freezes and 1 mole of gas occupies 22.4L

I've learned I'm glad I didn't go to whatever uni you attended.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: jehkque on September 12, 2008, 10:31:45 AM
That reference in no way refers to water as being an ash of hydrogen which was what I asked for.

I do happen to believe lol is predominantly used by people under 35.

What do you call silica and other inorganics present in hydrocarbon fuels? These are not necessarily products of combustion.

Water is the oxide of water? WTF?

Where did you learn that STP is where hydrogen first becomes an ash? It is the temperature and pressure where water freezes and 1 mole of gas occupies 22.4L

I've learned I'm glad I didn't go to whatever uni you attended.

The good part about here is you can edit a error, it also warns you if the postings have been modified before you post so you have a chance to review and see if you are attempting to make reference to something that has been edited for correction purposes. I guess you ignored that warning.

The phrase you quoted water is the oxide of water was a misprint and that misprint was caught and corrected 13 minutes before your posting, had you reviewed when warned by the site the postings had been modified before your posting. You would have noticed that correction and corrected your posting accordingly, unless it is your common practice to misquote. It is one thing if the correction is after your posting, but if it occured before your posting, and you ignored the warning and did not modify your post accordingly then you deliberately misquoted which looks very bad on your character.

By your own admission, you clearly have a misunderstanding. Worse, you do not even see the misunderstanding when it is right before your eyes and in what you state.

It is the temperature and pressure where water freezes

How can you make that statement and not make the association that water is an ash? Standard temperature and pressure is where water freezes, that is a fact and you acknowledge that fact in your statement. The definition of an ash is a solid residue left after oxidation, that is a fact citation given. Water is the oxidized state of hydrogen, that is a fact citation given. Water is one of three products of the oxidation of hydrogen, the other 2 being heat and light, do you accept that as fact or do you need a citation? As one part of the total product of the combustion of hydrogen in oxygen, water is the residue of the oxidation of hydrogen after heat and light are removed, that is a fact citation given.

The oxidized state of the element hydrogen, water, is a solid at STP, is a residue left from oxidation after heat is and light is removed. Proven by cited facts, regardless if you can find any other reference or not, my statement is referenced. By defination of ash it hits the mark squarely in the center of the bulls eye, referenced fact!

But no, you are so dense and/or so blind that you can not see and comprehend what is right before your eyes. Either that is true or you are so concited that you can not admit when you are soundly proven wrong and thus you have to deny the facts to hold onto your wrong and misguided opinion. The bad part of either of these cases is you will eventually pass along your wrong and misguided opinion to someone else as if it were, in your opinion, a fact and try and convience them that your right. You may succeed at that and if you do you will take away from the knowledge of man with lies and false information instead of advancing it with truth. If I am wrong then where is the evidence of your claim? If you can not provide that, you have been soundly beaten in this debate, and that means your opinion is wrong!

What do you call silica and other inorganics present in hydrocarbon fuels?

The inorganics you speak of will remain as an ash unless they are in a gaseous or liquid state at STP.

I've learned I'm glad I didn't go to whatever uni you attended.

You question the schools I attended? Wish to degrade them? I prove my statements, you choose to ignore them, what did you do when you went to school and something was presented with proof but you disagreeded? Dismiss it as you have dismissed this? I would say the likely hood of that is yes you would have dismissed anything that was not in conformance with your opinion as it exists in you mind. Thus you do not have an open mind to learning new information and you will always have a tendency to be incorrect. Due to your bias towards your own preconceived opinions and your rejection of anything that is contrary to your opinion with out proper review and consideration by you. Thus, you make rejections of information prior to giving due consideration of the information as it is provided and supported with cited facts.

That, sir, is bias and bias has no place in science. Since you clearly have bias, that degree you have as a scientist is worthless, and the university you recieved it from should be ashamed they gave it to you.

I do happen to believe lol is predominantly used by people under 35.

Only goes to confirm that you have preconceived opinions that are not based in fact. Though the predominate use of internet short cuts may be by people under the age of 35, it does not exclude persons over the age of 35 using the internet or internet short cuts. To think that it would exclude use of them by anyone over the age of 35 is a biased opinion and not an opinion based in fact.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: lolz at trollz on September 12, 2008, 01:24:04 PM
Water on the other hand is a solid at STP

Which STP? 

(http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/3585/21636217ch7.jpg)

Cause I'm looking at that, and most of those STP's have water as being above it's melting point.  It's not 1981 anymore old man, IUPAC changed thier definition in 1982, to be 100 bar kPa instead of 1 ATM, get with the times.

Secondly as you should know, the term freezing point is not used, the term used is melting point due to liquid ability to super cool, (water can supercool to -42), and it defined as a range. 

Thirdly, the melting point of water has been measured as 0.002519 +/- 0.000002 degrees C, so it firmly straddles 0 degrees, meaning it would be neither fully solid, nor fully liquid if being melted at Standard pressure.  If being frozen, it would remain as a liquid until either -42 or if nucleation points were introduced, which in a melting point experiment, they would not.  During reaction of hydrogen and oxygen, water would form as a gas, as the reaction takes place in the gas phase, and then have to loose energy to become liquid, upon reaching 0 degrees it would still be liquid, and would not be solid untill it reached -0.000002 degrees. 

Fourthly, STP is not a standard for determining the state of a compound, Standard State is.  Standard state is only defines a pressure (100 bar kPa, not 1ATM, get with the times old man), not a temperature, however it is commonly defined as 25 degrees C.  This is why mercury is defined as a liquid not a solid, as it would be at STP. 

Now, please lick my balls old man. 



Now onto why you fail at English. 


Residue is that which is left behind after something else is taken away.  Now in an oxidation reaction, the oxide is not there at the start, it is newly created at the end, this does not fit as something that is left behind, how can it be left behind when it was not there at the start.  A residue is that part which does not react, it is what is there at the start and still remains at the end.  The oxide is created anew and so is not a residue. 


So, now you can lick my balls again please.



I still have no idea why the fuck you two are arguing about this, what the fuck are you both even hoping to prove based on whether an essentially meaningless word as far as actual chemistry or physics is concerned, is applied to water? 

why is anyone even arguing this? 



[edit, did a NASA and mixed up my units ;)]
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: sokarul on September 12, 2008, 02:12:54 PM
Readily available in nature you mean?

He must or he is an idiot. 
Readily available on earth in a state that it would freely reach the water for minimal cost, worth the energy it would produce.

So.... Where do you find say lithium deposits on earth?
A train car that has a hole in it. 
Ok, so it is efficient to set up an energy system dependent on finding train cars with holes in them, full of lithium that is open to water but not yet reacted to the water in the air. Good call sok.


It's not my fault you used the wrong words. 


Quote from: lolz at trollz
Cause I'm looking at that, and most of those STP's have water as being above it's melting point.  It's not 1981 anymore old man, IUPAC changed thier definition in 1982, to be 100 bar instead of 1 ATM, get with the times.

Since when was 98 atm or 100 bar standard?  That's 1,450 psi. 
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: lolz at trollz on September 12, 2008, 02:51:15 PM


Since when was 98 atm or 100 bar standard?  That's 1,450 psi. 

opps, got mixed up there, I meant 100 kPa, as per the table I posted. 
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: jehkque on September 12, 2008, 05:12:26 PM
Water on the other hand is a solid at STP

Which STP? 

(http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/3585/21636217ch7.jpg)

Cause I'm looking at that, and most of those STP's have water as being above it's melting point.  It's not 1981 anymore old man, IUPAC changed thier definition in 1982, to be 100 bar kPa instead of 1 ATM, get with the times.

Secondly as you should know, the term freezing point is not used, the term used is melting point due to liquid ability to super cool, (water can supercool to -42), and it defined as a range. 

Thirdly, the melting point of water has been measured as 0.002519 +/- 0.000002 degrees C, so it firmly straddles 0 degrees, meaning it would be neither fully solid, nor fully liquid if being melted at Standard pressure.  If being frozen, it would remain as a liquid until either -42 or if nucleation points were introduced, which in a melting point experiment, they would not.  During reaction of hydrogen and oxygen, water would form as a gas, as the reaction takes place in the gas phase, and then have to loose energy to become liquid, upon reaching 0 degrees it would still be liquid, and would not be solid untill it reached -0.000002 degrees. 

Fourthly, STP is not a standard for determining the state of a compound, Standard State is.  Standard state is only defines a pressure (100 bar kPa, not 1ATM, get with the times old man), not a temperature, however it is commonly defined as 25 degrees C.  This is why mercury is defined as a liquid not a solid, as it would be at STP. 

Now, please lick my balls old man. 



Now onto why you fail at English. 


Residue is that which is left behind after something else is taken away.  Now in an oxidation reaction, the oxide is not there at the start, it is newly created at the end, this does not fit as something that is left behind, how can it be left behind when it was not there at the start.  A residue is that part which does not react, it is what is there at the start and still remains at the end.  The oxide is created anew and so is not a residue.


So, now you can lick my balls again please.



I still have no idea why the fuck you two are arguing about this, what the fuck are you both even hoping to prove based on whether an essentially meaningless word as far as actual chemistry or physics is concerned, is applied to water? 

why is anyone even arguing this? 



[edit, did a NASA and mixed up my units ;)]

First, you are in violation of Wikipedia's copy right, you could be suied for such. You quoted a source with out properly citing the source. Which BTW is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_temperature_and_pressure

Second, Line 2 of the table you presented is equal to 0 deg C at 1 ATM the adjusted value in line 1 is the currently accepted version because of the easier calculation associated with dropping the 1.325 kpa to make the value an even 100 kpa.

Third,
Thirdly, the melting point of water has been measured as 0.002519 +/- 0.000002 degrees C, so it firmly straddles 0 degrees, meaning it would be neither fully solid, nor fully liquid if being melted at Standard pressure.  If being frozen, it would remain as a liquid until either -42 or if nucleation points were introduced, which in a melting point experiment, they would not.  During reaction of hydrogen and oxygen, water would form as a gas, as the reaction takes place in the gas phase, and then have to loose energy to become liquid, upon reaching 0 degrees it would still be liquid, and would not be solid untill it reached -0.000002 degrees.


You had better check your math as 0.002519 +/- 0.000002 deg C is the range of 0.002517 - 0.002521 deg C both the upper value and the lower value in the indicated range are above 0 deg C according to your figures. So you make a false statement in stating "would not be solid until it reached -0.000002 degrees" and in stating "it firmly straddles 0 degrees".

Fourth,



Residue is that which is left behind after something else is taken away.  Now in an oxidation reaction, the oxide is not there at the start, it is newly created at the end, this does not fit as something that is left behind, how can it be left behind when it was not there at the start.  A residue is that part which does not react, it is what is there at the start and still remains at the end.  The oxide is created anew and so is not a residue.

If your oxidizing agent was not present at the start your experiment would fail as there would be no oxidation that would occur. Unless you are going to breach the experiment by adding something after it started.

Fifth, foul language as you have used has no place in a debate, it shows your low intellect and is indicitive that you feel threatened or less than adaquate and lash out with such language trying to wound or incite the other to follow suit in an attempt to discredit them to leverage yourself into a better position. Your repeated reference to things of a sexual nature may be an indication you have homosexual tendencies, as you desire a man to "lick you balls". If this is not so it tends to prove my point made at the onset of this section. I on the other hand do not have those tendencies so you can lick them yourself or find someone that has the same tendencies as you do.

Sixth, you reference me as an old man, as if that was something to be ashamed of or is a bad thing. LOL You, yourself will one day reach this age, unless you die before that time, and when you do you will be old by your own standard. I and many others of this age look at it as knowledge gained by life experience.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: lolz at trollz on September 12, 2008, 07:39:53 PM
You did not answer all my points, you have ignored Standard State, which is what you will find properties recorded at in almost all literature, you have ignored the fact that the first line in the table is the currently defined one by IUPAC (stp is arbitrary, and they arbitrarily changed it), and you ignore all the other values defined by plenty of other equally worthy bodies, you ignore supercooling, and the fact it is a melting point not a freezing point, a liquid does not need to freeze when it reaches that temperature. 

On the residue bit you utterly fail to see that the oxide is not the oxidising agent, it is a new compound, there was no water at the start of the reaction, it has been formed, it is not a residue.  A residue would remain hte same from start to finish.

You failed to refute all my points, the only one you got was the melting point one which I rather hastily looked up without reading properly.  You still have hte rest to go.  What do you say about standard state?  Is mercury a solid? 

Plus you ignore the fact you are being utterly stupid.  The idea of defining a product as the 'ash' of a reaction is just plain dumb, you made a bad analagy and now you are clinging to it like its some great point of contention.  You know that chemist would call the product of a reaction 'ash'.  It's the fucking product!   The only place I can think the term is used in chemisty is in analytical chemistry, where it refers to non-aqueous remains of combustion.  I mean woah, you have really reached maximum wrongness. 

You are wrong and you insist on remaining wrong, and it doesn't even seem to have a reason behind it. 



What is the point behind this stupid argument???  someone please tell me why it matters????
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: dyno on September 12, 2008, 08:34:59 PM
errr we like arguing  ;)

isn't that why this board exists?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: lolz at trollz on September 13, 2008, 06:23:34 AM
errr we like arguing  ;)

isn't that why this board exists?

Well, yea obviously, but why such a dumb point?  I came in and saw someone being wrong and had to correct them, but how did such a stupid point arise?  What happened to perpetual motion? 
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on September 13, 2008, 09:25:25 AM
Readily available in nature you mean?

He must or he is an idiot. 
Readily available on earth in a state that it would freely reach the water for minimal cost, worth the energy it would produce.

So.... Where do you find say lithium deposits on earth?
A train car that has a hole in it. 
Ok, so it is efficient to set up an energy system dependent on finding train cars with holes in them, full of lithium that is open to water but not yet reacted to the water in the air. Good call sok.


It's not my fault you used the wrong words. 


Quote from: lolz at trollz
Cause I'm looking at that, and most of those STP's have water as being above it's melting point.  It's not 1981 anymore old man, IUPAC changed thier definition in 1982, to be 100 bar instead of 1 ATM, get with the times.

Since when was 98 atm or 100 bar standard?  That's 1,450 psi. 
I forgot, sokarul, you're mentally deficient. From now on I'll speak more concisely, and make sure all the statements make sense out of context.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: sokarul on September 13, 2008, 11:24:58 PM
Readily available in nature you mean?

He must or he is an idiot. 
Readily available on earth in a state that it would freely reach the water for minimal cost, worth the energy it would produce.

So.... Where do you find say lithium deposits on earth?
A train car that has a hole in it. 
Ok, so it is efficient to set up an energy system dependent on finding train cars with holes in them, full of lithium that is open to water but not yet reacted to the water in the air. Good call sok.


It's not my fault you used the wrong words. 


Quote from: lolz at trollz
Cause I'm looking at that, and most of those STP's have water as being above it's melting point.  It's not 1981 anymore old man, IUPAC changed thier definition in 1982, to be 100 bar instead of 1 ATM, get with the times.

Since when was 98 atm or 100 bar standard?  That's 1,450 psi. 
I forgot, sokarul, you're mentally deficient. From now on I'll speak more concisely, and make sure all the statements make sense out of context.
Dyno pointed out your stupidity first.  If you are going to argue in a scientific thread you should use the right words.   
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on September 13, 2008, 11:32:27 PM
Readily available in nature you mean?

He must or he is an idiot. 
Readily available on earth in a state that it would freely reach the water for minimal cost, worth the energy it would produce.

So.... Where do you find say lithium deposits on earth?
A train car that has a hole in it. 
Ok, so it is efficient to set up an energy system dependent on finding train cars with holes in them, full of lithium that is open to water but not yet reacted to the water in the air. Good call sok.


It's not my fault you used the wrong words. 


Quote from: lolz at trollz
Cause I'm looking at that, and most of those STP's have water as being above it's melting point.  It's not 1981 anymore old man, IUPAC changed thier definition in 1982, to be 100 bar instead of 1 ATM, get with the times.

Since when was 98 atm or 100 bar standard?  That's 1,450 psi. 
I forgot, sokarul, you're mentally deficient. From now on I'll speak more concisely, and make sure all the statements make sense out of context.
Dyno pointed out your stupidity first.  If you are going to argue in a scientific thread you should use the right words.   
You mean correct words. Not right.

You should also use the (sic)right words.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: sokarul on September 13, 2008, 11:36:11 PM
Readily available in nature you mean?

He must or he is an idiot. 
Readily available on earth in a state that it would freely reach the water for minimal cost, worth the energy it would produce.

So.... Where do you find say lithium deposits on earth?
A train car that has a hole in it. 
Ok, so it is efficient to set up an energy system dependent on finding train cars with holes in them, full of lithium that is open to water but not yet reacted to the water in the air. Good call sok.


It's not my fault you used the wrong words. 


Quote from: lolz at trollz
Cause I'm looking at that, and most of those STP's have water as being above it's melting point.  It's not 1981 anymore old man, IUPAC changed thier definition in 1982, to be 100 bar instead of 1 ATM, get with the times.

Since when was 98 atm or 100 bar standard?  That's 1,450 psi. 
I forgot, sokarul, you're mentally deficient. From now on I'll speak more concisely, and make sure all the statements make sense out of context.
Dyno pointed out your stupidity first.  If you are going to argue in a scientific thread you should use the right words.   
You mean correct words. Not right.

You should also use the (sic)right words.
“Right” works just fine.  You used the wrong words.  You said “on earth” when you meant “naturally occurring”.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: lolz at trollz on September 14, 2008, 06:48:37 AM
He also said deposits, most geologist would agree the contents of a train carriage would not be classed as a deposit. 
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on September 14, 2008, 09:32:13 AM
Readily available in nature you mean?

He must or he is an idiot. 
Readily available on earth in a state that it would freely reach the water for minimal cost, worth the energy it would produce.

So.... Where do you find say lithium deposits on earth?
A train car that has a hole in it. 
Ok, so it is efficient to set up an energy system dependent on finding train cars with holes in them, full of lithium that is open to water but not yet reacted to the water in the air. Good call sok.


It's not my fault you used the wrong words. 


Quote from: lolz at trollz
Cause I'm looking at that, and most of those STP's have water as being above it's melting point.  It's not 1981 anymore old man, IUPAC changed thier definition in 1982, to be 100 bar instead of 1 ATM, get with the times.

Since when was 98 atm or 100 bar standard?  That's 1,450 psi. 
I forgot, sokarul, you're mentally deficient. From now on I'll speak more concisely, and make sure all the statements make sense out of context.
Dyno pointed out your stupidity first.  If you are going to argue in a scientific thread you should use the right words.   
You mean correct words. Not right.

You should also use the (sic)right words.
“Right” works just fine.  You used the wrong words.  You said “on earth” when you meant “naturally occurring”.
I did not mean naturally occurring, if there was a pollutant that we released in high enough doses to be useful, I would count that too.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: sokarul on September 14, 2008, 09:54:04 AM
Well than a train car works pretty good. 
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on September 14, 2008, 11:11:34 AM
High enough levels to be useful.  ::)
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: lolz at trollz on September 14, 2008, 12:36:51 PM
High enough levels to be useful.  ::)

An energy policy based entirely off lithium dropping out of other peoples train carriages.  Wow, the energy crisis has been solved, well done. 

Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: sokarul on September 17, 2008, 12:32:34 PM
High enough levels to be useful.  ::)

An energy policy based entirely off lithium dropping out of other peoples train carriages.  Wow, the energy crisis has been solved, well done. 



I apparently missed the second part of the worthless argument. 
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Dead Kangaroo on September 18, 2008, 03:49:31 PM
High enough levels to be useful.  ::)

An energy policy based entirely off lithium dropping out of other peoples train carriages.  Wow, the energy crisis has been solved, well done. 



I apparently missed the second part of the worthless argument. 
Don't worry about it, it's not although you'll have a productive response to it anyway.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: sokarul on September 18, 2008, 04:30:11 PM
Water will not react with anything readily available on Earth.

Don't worry about it, it's not although you'll have a productive response to it anyway.

Who knew the original simple statement claimed so much. 
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Parsifal on September 18, 2008, 04:33:10 PM
Water will not react with anything readily available on Earth.

Don't worry about it, it's not although you'll have a productive response to it anyway.
[/quοte]
Who knew the original simple statement claimed so much. 

Quotation fail.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: sokarul on September 18, 2008, 04:44:59 PM
Water will not react with anything readily available on Earth.

Don't worry about it, it's not although you'll have a productive response to it anyway.
[/quοte]
Who knew the original simple statement claimed so much. 

Quotation fail.

It's like my 8th one this week.  Congrats on finally noticing. 
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Parsifal on September 18, 2008, 04:52:56 PM
It's like my 8th one this week.  Congrats on finally noticing. 

I thought this one to be particularly profound as it helped to render your post completely unintelligible. Well, that combined with the fact that you wrote it.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: sokarul on September 18, 2008, 05:07:02 PM
It's like my 8th one this week.  Congrats on finally noticing. 

I thought this one to be particularly profound as it helped to render your post completely unintelligible. Well, that combined with the fact that you wrote it.

Einstein never said there could be acceleration with no force.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Dead Kangaroo on September 18, 2008, 08:05:58 PM
Sokarul: Aiming to fail harder from one day to the next.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: sokarul on September 18, 2008, 11:45:46 PM
Sokarul: Aiming to fail harder from one day to the next.

Not really. 
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on September 19, 2008, 10:22:13 AM
Sokarul: Aiming to fail harder from one day to the next.

Not really. 
It comes naturally.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: sokarul on September 19, 2008, 10:28:10 AM
Sokarul: Aiming to fail harder from one day to the next.

Not really. 
It comes naturally.

"Not really comes naturally".  That does not make sense. 
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Dead Kangaroo on September 19, 2008, 09:30:54 PM
Sokarul: Aiming to fail harder from one day to the next.

Not really. 
It comes naturally.

"Not really comes naturally".  That does not make sense. 
I'm glad you have relised that one of your very own sentances doesn't make sense, it's a start.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on September 19, 2008, 09:38:48 PM
So he changed what I said, then pointed out that it made no sense....

In 2 days you'll have to explain that one sok.

Not really, it comes naturally.

That would have made sense.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Dead Kangaroo on September 19, 2008, 09:48:51 PM
You couldn't pay someone to fail that hard!
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on September 19, 2008, 10:19:25 PM
You couldn't pay someone to fail that hard!
You could, as long as there is no kissing on the lips.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Mr. Ireland on September 20, 2008, 08:40:12 AM
I lol'd.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: MrKappa on September 21, 2008, 12:15:28 AM
I thought absolute Zero was impossible to achieve... Isn't everything in perpetual motion?

Free Energy... This is just a concept. Harvesting the perpetual motion in the Universe is all anyone could hope to achieve.

Efficiency.

Isn't super-conductance perpetual motion? Where is the energy lost there? Only in the end application... correct?

Free Energy is an economic issue. Not a scientific one... What do you think of this?




Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Parsifal on September 21, 2008, 04:06:22 AM
I thought absolute Zero was impossible to achieve... Isn't everything in perpetual motion?

 ???

Isn't super-conductance perpetual motion? Where is the energy lost there? Only in the end application... correct?

Well yes, when one doesn't take any energy out of a system, it usually doesn't lose any.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Jack on September 21, 2008, 04:51:04 AM
I thought absolute Zero was impossible to achieve...
In a finite amount of experiments, yes.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on September 21, 2008, 10:42:20 AM
I thought absolute Zero was impossible to achieve... Isn't everything in perpetual motion?

Free Energy... This is just a concept. Harvesting the perpetual motion in the Universe is all anyone could hope to achieve.

Efficiency.

Isn't super-conductance perpetual motion? Where is the energy lost there? Only in the end application... correct?

Free Energy is an economic issue. Not a scientific one... What do you think of this?






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: MrKappa on September 21, 2008, 07:40:35 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

Somebody should retitle that wiki entry to read "perpetual motion machine"

It says, "Such a device or system would be in violation of the law of conservation of energy, which states that energy can never be created or destroyed, and is therefore impossible."

Perpetual motion itself is the definition of the law of conservation. The universe may very well be in perpetual motion.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Jack on September 22, 2008, 12:31:56 AM
Perpetual motion itself is the definition of the law of conservation.
No.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: MrKappa on September 22, 2008, 03:26:16 AM
No.

Okay... so lets pretend that all of those atoms in the universe are moving ( which they are ).

Now imagine a Universe without perpetual motion. Energy is never lost... it is always changing form but essentially it never stops. The law of conservation says so...

Otherwise your referring to a "perpetual motion machine"... which I might add... could be the Universe if you allow for it to be called a machine.

OKAY... OKAY...

You win...

The Universe is not in perpetual motion and energy is destroyed on a continual basis... are you happy now?

Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 22, 2008, 03:29:00 AM
The Universe is not in perpetual motion and energy is destroyed on a continual basis... are you happy now?

How about 'entropy increases on a continual basis'?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: MrKappa on September 22, 2008, 03:32:41 AM
How about 'entropy increases on a continual basis'?

But this does not destroy motion... it transfers one type of energy into another... it is just the efficiency of the machine. If the Universe were not 100% efficient could it exist?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 22, 2008, 03:42:26 AM
But this does not destroy motion... it transfers one type of energy into another... it is just the efficiency of the machine. If the Universe were not 100% efficient could it exist?

Increasing entropy will eventually result in all energy being converted into longer and longer wavelengths of EM radiation, where if the Universe does not collapse or otherwise end, the result will be what cosmologists call a 'heat death'.  The Universe may be 100% efficient, but the start and end products are very, very different.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Jack on September 22, 2008, 04:25:53 AM
No.

Okay... so lets pretend that all of those atoms in the universe are moving ( which they are ).

Now imagine a Universe without perpetual motion. Energy is never lost... it is always changing form but essentially it never stops. The law of conservation says so...

Otherwise your referring to a "perpetual motion machine"... which I might add... could be the Universe if you allow for it to be called a machine.

OKAY... OKAY...

You win...

The Universe is not in perpetual motion and energy is destroyed on a continual basis... are you happy now?
Energy is always conserved; there are energy losses in the universe, but that lost of energy is simply transferred to another, assuming the universe is a closed system. Same thing to energy gain. Perpetual motion, an isolated motion that literally continues forever without any external energy applied or energy being lost, violates that very rule.

Here's one of the definition:
Quote
perpetual motion
–noun Mechanics.
the motion of a theoretical mechanism that, without any losses due to friction or other forms of dissipation of energy, would continue to operate indefinitely at the same rate without any external energy being applied to it. 



Luw of Enerjy Caunservashon:

1 => 1 (closed system)

Purpitrue Moshon:

0 => 1...infinite (closed system)
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: MrKappa on September 22, 2008, 06:16:04 AM
Luw of Enerjy Caunservashon:

1 => 1 (closed system)

Purpitrue Moshon:

0 => 1...infinite (closed system)

I don't understand this... How can perpetual motion not be applied to the universe? Nothing is applying external energy to it correct? It was the result of the big bang correct? There is no external energy source.

Hence... due to the laws of conservation... the Universe will continue to "move" in perpetual motion correct? If not... how does the law of conservation apply to the universe? With increasing space-time/distance... energy must be lost. What am I missing?

I am not arguing to argue... This is certainly something I am trying to understand better.

Quote
where if the Universe does not collapse or otherwise end, the result will be what cosmologists call a 'heat death'

What would change this? If matter were being reproduced in the universe itself, not the result of a big bang and it was continually recycling energy to matter would the heat death happen?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 22, 2008, 06:30:51 AM
Quote
where if the Universe does not collapse or otherwise end, the result will be what cosmologists call a 'heat death'

What would change this? If matter were being reproduced in the universe itself, not the result of a big bang and it was continually recycling energy to matter would the heat death happen?

If you assume the Universe is a closed system (seems reasonable) and that energy within that closed system is conserved, then there really aren't many options.  Ultimately it could be that matter is fundamentally unstable over extreme timescales (perhaps even quarks, neutrinos and electrons) and so all you end up with is photons.  The energy of those photons is then governed by the size of the Universe (or more accurately, it's expansion) - all evidence points to a Universe expanding forever, so ultimately the photons will reach arbitrarily long lengths - the infamous 'heat death'.

If somehow you either stop the expansion of the Universe, introduce new energy or find some way of stealing energy from the zero-point vibration (or other such crazy sci-fi-ness) then you might be able to get around it.  The other option is that the Universal expansion actually accelerates, in which case ultimately even the strong nuclear force won't be able to counteract the expansion of space and everything will be destroyed in a 'big rip'.  I prefer that option personally.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: MrKappa on September 22, 2008, 06:54:14 AM
Quote
where if the Universe does not collapse or otherwise end, the result will be what cosmologists call a 'heat death'

What would change this? If matter were being reproduced in the universe itself, not the result of a big bang and it was continually recycling energy to matter would the heat death happen?

If you assume the Universe is a closed system (seems reasonable) and that energy within that closed system is conserved, then there really aren't many options.  Ultimately it could be that matter is fundamentally unstable over extreme timescales (perhaps even quarks, neutrinos and electrons) and so all you end up with is photons.  The energy of those photons is then governed by the size of the Universe (or more accurately, it's expansion) - all evidence points to a Universe expanding forever, so ultimately the photons will reach arbitrarily long lengths - the infamous 'heat death'.

If somehow you either stop the expansion of the Universe, introduce new energy or find some way of stealing energy from the zero-point vibration (or other such crazy sci-fi-ness) then you might be able to get around it.  The other option is that the Universal expansion actually accelerates, in which case ultimately even the strong nuclear force won't be able to counteract the expansion of space and everything will be destroyed in a 'big rip'.  I prefer that option personally.

This is interesting... Could the possibility of the Universe rather than expanding infinitely somehow invert onto itself? I offer this argument from a YouTuber as a possible proof that redshift has been mis-interpreted as an accurate way to gauge distance in a fixed Euclidean space. ( if that is the correct term to use as I have not figured out if redshift is parabolic in nature or not )



Additionally... This paper on Pair Production suggests that the Universe is capable of producing matter from energy. If the mechanism exists... Is it a safe bet to think it's happening?

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003hep.ex....6017L

Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: cmdshft on September 22, 2008, 07:19:32 AM
find some way of stealing energy from the zero-point vibration

Two things come to mind: Zero-Point Modules and Project Arcturus.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 22, 2008, 07:21:46 AM
This is interesting... Could the possibility of the Universe rather than expanding infinitely somehow invert onto itself? I offer this argument from a YouTuber as a possible proof that redshift has been mis-interpreted as an accurate way to gauge distance in a fixed Euclidean space. ( if that is the correct term to use as I have not figured out if redshift is parabolic in nature or not )



There is some interesting statistical information here, but this guy is way too crackpot-like in a few regards for my liking - he has his little catchphrase "The Big Bang is Bung" which he seems to like the sound of, and he provides no other evidence to support his claims about quasar redshifts.  It's true that the apparent correlation he presents between redshift and separation is interesting, although there should be much more data available now on distant objects which should support his suggestions.  Additionally, it could be disingenuous to assume that the only factor involved in separation is distance - remember that the Universe was much smaller in the past (according to the Big Bang model) and so it may be unreasonable to assume that mater distributions have remained unchanged over that period.  The correlation could in fact be very strong evidence for the Big Bang, if argued another way - hence the need for other supporting data.

I have my own concerns about using redshift, although they are more GR-based and involve frame-dragging-like effects that appear to have been neglected in certain astrophysical calculations.

Additionally... This paper on Pair Production suggests that the Universe is capable of producing matter from energy. If the mechanism exists... Is it a safe bet to think it's happening?

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003hep.ex....6017L

For some reason the full text link wasn't working from that page, but from the abstract it doesn't look like they're claiming any unusual matter creation events... mass and energy are equivalent and largely interchangeable given the right conditions, but you can't create matter from nothing (in the case of the LEP the 'extra' matter was created from the kinetic energy of the electrons and positrons).  I don't mean that to sound patronising if you know all about this already, but I have no idea how much you do know on the subject!

The vacuum produces particle-antiparticle pairs constantly (which actually have measurable effects - see 'loop binding corrections') although these quickly annihilate and return the energy 'borrowed' after a very short space of time.  These processes would be subject to heat death as well.

The 'third option' you refer to is the 'Big Crunch' where there is enough mass-energy to counter the expansion of the Universe and space-time begins to collapse again.  This would essentially be the reverse of what has already happened, ending up with everything collapsing into a singularity-like object.  Models predicting this behaviour can be subject to problems such as 'black hole disease', however, where black holes produced in the previous Universe can survive the 'crunch' and pass into the new Universe.  This would quickly end up with a Universe made of nothing but supermassive black holes, which is not what we see today.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 22, 2008, 07:25:19 AM
find some way of stealing energy from the zero-point vibration

Two things come to mind: Zero-Point Modules and Project Arcturus.

Where's Col. O'Neill when you need him? (Yes I want Col. O'Neill on the case, not the later General O'Neill.  Col. O'Neill/Gen Hammond were the ultimate tag team.)

As for those Atlantis jokers... well... O'Neill would have had that galaxy cleaned up in no time.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Jack on September 22, 2008, 07:56:30 AM
I don't understand this... How can perpetual motion not be applied to the universe? Nothing is applying external energy to it correct? It was the result of the big bang correct? There is no external energy source.

Hence... due to the laws of conservation... the Universe will continue to "move" in perpetual motion correct? If not... how does the law of conservation apply to the universe? With increasing space-time/distance... energy must be lost. What am I missing?

I am not arguing to argue... This is certainly something I am trying to understand better.
I'm arguing with you because you said this,

Perpetual motion itself is the definition of the law of conservation.

Perpetual motion violates the law of conservation of energy, because it doesn't conserve energy; why the hell would perpetual motion be the definition of it?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: MrKappa on September 22, 2008, 08:00:03 AM
There is some interesting statistical information here, but this guy is way too crackpot-like in a few regards for my liking - he has his little catchphrase "The Big Bang is Bung" which he seems to like the sound of, and he provides no other evidence to support his claims about quasar redshifts.

There was nothing crackpot about him.

It's true that the apparent correlation he presents between redshift and separation is interesting, although there should be much more data available now on distant objects which should support his suggestions.

Here are two interesting references...


NGC 7603
http://quasars.org/ngc7603.htm

I have my own concerns about using redshift, although they are more GR-based and involve frame-dragging-like effects that appear to have been neglected in certain astrophysical calculations.

This frame dragging is very interesting... loop binding corrections as well... thank you... what do you mean by GR-based?

Models predicting this behaviour can be subject to problems such as 'black hole disease', however, where black holes produced in the previous Universe can survive the 'crunch' and pass into the new Universe.  This would quickly end up with a Universe made of nothing but supermassive black holes, which is not what we see today.

I don't understand why this would happen. What would cause the universe to end up dominated by black holes? This assumes that nothing escapes a black hole. I am currently under the impression that large jets of energy and matter are spit out at its poles.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: MrKappa on September 22, 2008, 08:04:28 AM
Perpetual motion violates the law of conservation of energy, because it doesn't conserve energy; why the hell would perpetual motion be the definition of it?

Perpetual (continuing forever) - Nothing destroyed...

Laws of Conservation (continuing forever) - Nothing destroyed...

If nothing is destroyed then the energy is conserved and it continues forever.

Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Jack on September 22, 2008, 08:08:20 AM
Perpetual (continuing forever) - Energy gets created.

Laws of Conservation (continuing forever) - Energy doesn't get created.

If energy gets created, then the energy isn't conserved and thus total violation of the law.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: MrKappa on September 22, 2008, 08:14:15 AM
Perpetual (continuing forever) - Energy gets created.

Laws of Conservation (continuing forever) - Energy doesn't get created.

If energy gets created, then the energy isn't conserved and thus total violation of the law.

Essentially...

The Big Bang is Perpetual while the Laws of Conservation would apply to a Steady State?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Parsifal on September 22, 2008, 08:14:53 AM
Essentially...

The Big Bang is Perpetual while the Laws of Conservation would apply to a Steady State?

Uh... do you understand Steady State theory?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: MrKappa on September 22, 2008, 08:25:36 AM
Uh... do you understand Steady State theory?

Actually... no I don't... that's probably why I added the question mark to the end of the sentence. I am not familiar enough with cosmology to know all the theories which are out there.

There must be a few million of em eh? I mean... we still don't understand gravity yet... kidding...

When I refer to a steady state I just mean a continual recycling of the Universe. Whether that includes the big bang or not... I really don't care.

I just have a feeling that if you cut a mobius strip. Infinity ends... or so to say right? Perhaps I watched to many re-runs of back to the future... time paradoxes and such...

I mean... the only other option would be to fall back on some sort of grand creator waving his magic hands and within six days creating the universe...
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Parsifal on September 22, 2008, 08:33:51 AM
Actually... no I don't... that's probably why I added the question mark to the end of the sentence. I am not familiar enough with cosmology to know all the theories which are out there.

There must be a few million of em eh? I mean... we still don't understand gravity yet... kidding...

When I refer to a steady state I just mean a continual recycling of the Universe. Whether that includes the big bang or not... I really don't care.

I just have a feeling that if you cut a mobius strip. Infinity ends... or so to say right? Perhaps I watched to many re-runs of back to the future... time paradoxes and such...

I mean... the only other option would be to fall back on some sort of grand creator waving his magic hands and within six days creating the universe...

Steady State theory says that as the Universe expands, matter is constantly being created in the space between galaxies to keep the average distance between galaxies the same. This is one of the many reasons why it is widely regarded as bullshit.

The Big Bang theory really doesn't violate the Law of Conservation of Energy, because nobody even pretends to understand what went on at the instant that the Universe began; we can only model it from about 10-34 seconds after the Big Bang, I think. So there isn't a model that suggests the energy came from nowhere, only that we don't know where it came from. The most plausible idea I've heard is that when the Universe was small enough, quantum effects dominated its development, and due to the uncertainties involved in quantum mechanics the idea of there being an instant at which the Universe began loses all meaning.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 22, 2008, 09:25:47 AM
There was nothing crackpot about him.

Sorry, I've spoken to quite a few people with 'alternative' theories at conferences and so on and tragically he does share some characteristics with some of the more stubborn and determined ones.  By 'alternative' here I mean, of course, 'pet' - his approach instantly set alarm bells ringing which sadly coloured his presentation, to my mind.

Here are two interesting references...

I have no doubt that there are serious issues with objectivity in scientific research - politics and 'orthodoxism' are two cancers that need to be removed.  However, data is always available to those who request it - you might not get exactly what you would like, but you can usually dig interesting facts out of other observations which have already been made.  I didn't like the style of this video since it was very pop-culturey and presented in a bit of a dramatic way which, while it makes it inclusive to people without a lot of background knowledge, can make it a bit dumbed-down.  I certainly take the point that it is trying to make, however, and agree there are problems in research.  Peer review is a LOT better than the alternatives, however.

NGC 7603
http://quasars.org/ngc7603.htm

This is a nice picture, but does nothing to discredit the hypothesis that it could just be a line of sight co-incidence (there are a lot of objects out there, so this will happen frequently) - there would need to be more evidence that the objects were linked and that we weren't looking at two distant objects behind two nearer objects (the light-bridged galaxies at lower redshift).

This frame dragging is very interesting... loop binding corrections as well... thank you... what do you mean by GR-based?

This is where I start to get a bit uncomfortable, since the paper I'm basing this on seems to imply that you can make local measurements of the absolute gravitational potential that you are in, which violates the principle that gravitation is a local theory (that is, locally all space looks the same).  I personally don't have a huge problem with the idea of there being some way of you telling what the local gravitational field is (the gravitational equivalent of an altimeter with respect to some 'true' zero-gravitation field), although it would mean that the strong equivalence principle was wrong.

The paper in question was written partially to address the next generation of GPS satellites and signals sent to and from the ISS, to account for GR effects such as frame dragging on timing signals and so on.  The paper shows that there are effects that manifest as you transmit from a rotating body to an orbiting body high above... but the effects don't go away if you set the two altitudes to be the same (ie - in a lab, on a tabletop).  This kind of lab-based GR experiment is becoming more popular but is still hated by general relativists.  In turn, I think the majority of the GR community is disturbingly closed-minded and indoctrinated, but that's another story.

This is the paper in question (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0711/0711.0034v1.pdf)

...and has also been published in Phys. Rev. D, although I don't have the reference to hand. I believe the interesting effect enters at order (1/c3), if you're interested.

I don't understand why this would happen. What would cause the universe to end up dominated by black holes? This assumes that nothing escapes a black hole. I am currently under the impression that large jets of energy and matter are spit out at its poles.

Large amounts of energy are emitted from the accretion discs of black holes, not from the black holes themselves - it is true that you can extract work from the 'ergosphere' of a black hole, although again this does not constitute a large amount of energy emission.  The 'black hole disease' originates from the idea that in the Big Crunch event itself, a true singularity is averted due to magical, horrifically complex things that I have no idea about (and I suspect the authors of the idea took some artistic license with the nature of physics beyond the standard model in concluding this) and that and singularities created in the Universe before the collapse could pass through to the 'other side' of the crunch, having soaked up loads of energy in the fireball.  This leaves less and less available energy outside of the surviving black holes, eventually leading to a Universe composed entirely of slowly radiating black holes, endlessly expanding and collapsing.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: sokarul on September 22, 2008, 09:55:29 AM
I thought absolute Zero was impossible to achieve... Isn't everything in perpetual motion?

It's actually mostly due to the uncertainty principle. 
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Parsifal on September 22, 2008, 09:56:21 AM
I thought absolute Zero was impossible to achieve... Isn't everything in perpetual motion?

It's actually mostly due to the uncertainty principle. 

What does that have to do with anything?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: sokarul on September 22, 2008, 10:01:42 AM
I thought absolute Zero was impossible to achieve... Isn't everything in perpetual motion?

It's actually mostly due to the uncertainty principle. 

What does that have to do with anything?
I'm letting him know why absolute zero is impossible. 
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Parsifal on September 22, 2008, 10:05:22 AM
I'm letting him know why absolute zero is impossible. 

I don't think he asked you that. Moreover, I don't think anyone would trust an answer from you.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: sokarul on September 22, 2008, 10:22:42 AM
I'm letting him know why absolute zero is impossible. 

I don't think he asked you that. Moreover, I don't think anyone would trust an answer from you.

I could care less what they do. 
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Parsifal on September 22, 2008, 10:23:48 AM
I could care less what they do. 

Why provide irrelevant information, then? It only serves to derail the thread.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: sokarul on September 22, 2008, 10:31:24 AM
I could care less what they do. 

Why provide irrelevant information, then? It only serves to derail the thread.

It is relevant. 
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Parsifal on September 22, 2008, 10:35:40 AM
It is relevant. 

How is it relevant why absolute zero cannot be achieved, as long as it is known that it cannot, for the purposes of this discussion?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: sokarul on September 22, 2008, 10:38:06 AM
It is relevant. 

How is it relevant why absolute zero cannot be achieved, as long as it is known that it cannot, for the purposes of this discussion?

Because the wrong information was posted. 
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Parsifal on September 22, 2008, 10:39:46 AM
Because the wrong information was posted. 

Where? ???
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: sokarul on September 22, 2008, 10:44:06 AM
Because the wrong information was posted. 

Where? ???


I thought absolute Zero was impossible to achieve... Isn't everything in perpetual motion?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Parsifal on September 22, 2008, 10:46:37 AM
Your information was not a correction to that. Ergo, irrelevant.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: sokarul on September 22, 2008, 10:47:45 AM
Your information was not a correction to that. Ergo, irrelevant.

It was the real reason why absolute zero is impossible to reach.  That is relevant. 
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Parsifal on September 22, 2008, 10:50:32 AM
It was the real reason why absolute zero is impossible to reach.  That is relevant. 

He wasn't stating that as the reason why absolute zero is impossible to reach.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: sokarul on September 22, 2008, 01:17:14 PM
It was the real reason why absolute zero is impossible to reach.  That is relevant. 

He wasn't stating that as the reason why absolute zero is impossible to reach.

He was asking if that was the reason. So answering the question is not relevant?   
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Parsifal on September 22, 2008, 01:19:33 PM
He was asking if that was the reason. So answering the question is not relevant?   

lrn2readingcomprehension
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: sokarul on September 22, 2008, 01:25:11 PM
He was asking if that was the reason. So answering the question is not relevant?   

lrn2readingcomprehension
No you are not. 

My post was relevant.  You have to accept that. 
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Parsifal on September 22, 2008, 01:29:05 PM
My post was relevant.  You have to except that. 

Except that what? ???
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: sokarul on September 22, 2008, 01:30:26 PM
My post was relevant.  You have to except that. 

Except that what? ???

Nothing as you already did by moving on. 
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Dead Kangaroo on September 22, 2008, 02:44:50 PM
AAAHROOOOOO... *dribbles*
WTF?!?
Indeed.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: MrKappa on September 22, 2008, 08:27:36 PM
I personally don't have a huge problem with the idea of there being some way of you telling what the local gravitational field is (the gravitational equivalent of an altimeter with respect to some 'true' zero-gravitation field), although it would mean that the strong equivalence principle was wrong.

This is interesting... it seems to be the difference between calibrating to perceived time and real-time... I have only just learned about the Terrestrial Reference Frame and I imagine this is exactly that...

You seem to be a very technical person... I did come across this thread discussion regarding a very arguable alternative mathematics for gravity... It is all I have to offer... I do not really understand it all but it might be of interest to you...

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34609
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 23, 2008, 02:10:48 AM
You seem to be a very technical person... I did come across this thread discussion regarding a very arguable alternative mathematics for gravity... It is all I have to offer... I do not really understand it all but it might be of interest to you...

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34609

Well glad to be of service in pointing you in the direction of interesting stuff!

Thanks for the link... sadly I can debunk their claims in 5 minutes (since that what I have spent the last 5 minutes doing).  Look at this video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6926891572259784994) and get hold of a stopwatch.  We will assume that the hammer and feather are being dropped from (1.5 +/- 0.3)m height (estimate, but a reasonable one with a suitably large uncertainty).

Now, I took 13 timings of the hammer drop and got a value for the time it took to reach the surface at (1.15 +/- 0.20)s, with the error there being one standard deviation.  We then plug these two facts into the well-known high school kinematic equation for motion:

d = v0t + (1/2)at2, which setting v0 = 0 and solving for a (acceleration due to gravitational attraction) gives us:

a = 2d/t2

So plug in the numbers and errors and we get a = (2.3 +/- 1.8)ms-2, which covers the accepted (Newtonian) value for the Moon of gMoon = 1.62ms-2 to within one standard deviation.  The '64% of Earth g' would be 6.28ms-2, which lies out beyond 2 standard deviations (even with my massive uncertainties).  This makes their claim unlikely to beyond 75% confidence.  Still, it's good to test these things ;)

EDIT: calculator fail! Modified error calculation due to me fucking it up the first time round...
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: MrKappa on September 23, 2008, 08:37:06 PM
So plug in the numbers and errors and we get a = (2.3 +/- 1.8)ms-2, which covers the accepted (Newtonian) value for the Moon of gMoon = 1.62ms-2 to within one standard deviation.  The '64% of Earth g' would be 6.28ms-2, which lies out beyond 2 standard deviations (even with my massive uncertainties).  This makes their claim unlikely to beyond 75% confidence.  Still, it's good to test these things ;)

I don't doubt that Newtonian physics works. I apologize for being unable to follow your math. Unless it's written in computer code I have a hard time understanding it. ( at least you haven't used latex ) I have a simple question for you.

If two pieces of paper are suspended in a vacuum facing each other free from external influence of other mass.

One paper is 10 miles square and the other is one mile square. They face each other two miles apart.

Which object crosses the halfway mark first?







I have tried to understand a piece of your math by translating it to what I know...

function gravity($v,$O,$a,$t){
 return ($v x $O x $t) + (($a x ($t x $t)) / 2) ;
}

I am actually close to being classically math notationally illiterate... It's quite embarrassing since I know a good handful of programming languages.

Is the above what d = v0t + (1/2)at2 translates to?

Where did you get $v, $O , $a from? I only see $t which is 1.15ms...
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Parsifal on September 23, 2008, 11:23:15 PM
I have tried to understand a piece of your math by translating it to what I know...

function gravity($v,$O,$a,$t){
 return ($v x $O x $t) + (($a x ($t x $t)) / 2) ;
}

I am actually close to being classically math notationally illiterate... It's quite embarrassing since I know a good handful of programming languages.

Is the above what d = v0t + (1/2)at2 translates to?

Where did you get $v, $O , $a from? I only see $t which is 1.15ms...

No, 0 is a subscript. v0 means v when t=0.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: MrKappa on September 23, 2008, 11:29:52 PM
No, 0 is a subscript. v0 means v when t=0.

Yes... Okay... But from a physics and science perspective... I have only seen the notation used in chemistry...

H20

Hydrogen plus two Oxygen atoms...

Essentially... does it hold the same in other areas of physics?

v0t

v = velocity?
t = time?

0 = the addition factor?

v + (0 x t)

Is this how it reads?

(t x 0) + v?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Parsifal on September 23, 2008, 11:33:14 PM
Yes... Okay... But from a physics and science perspective... I have only seen the notation used in chemistry...

H20

Hydrogen plus two Oxygen atoms...

Essentially... does it hold the same in other areas of physics?

v0t

v = velocity?
t = time?

0 = the addition factor?

v + (0 x t)

Is this how it reads?

(t x 0) + v?

No. To use computer terminology, it's more like v is another function (think of it as a black box function; you don't know how it works) that you can pass a parameter to that represents a certain value of t, and it returns the value of v for that value of t. So v0 is just saying v(0).
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: MrKappa on September 23, 2008, 11:49:04 PM
Yes... Okay... But from a physics and science perspective... I have only seen the notation used in chemistry...

H20

Hydrogen plus two Oxygen atoms...

Essentially... does it hold the same in other areas of physics?

v0t

v = velocity?
t = time?

0 = the addition factor?

v + (0 x t)

Is this how it reads?

(t x 0) + v?

No. To use computer terminology, it's more like v is another function (think of it as a black box function; you don't know how it works) that you can pass a parameter to that represents a certain value of t, and it returns the value of v for that value of t. So v0 is just saying v(0).

Okay... So...

H20

Translates to...

H = Hydrogen new function('Whatever parameters Hydrogen requires'){return $Hydrogen_Atom';}
O = Hydrogen new function('Whatever parameters Oxygen requires'){return $Oxygen_Atom';}

Water = H + (2 x Oxygen)



Where as...

v0t

translates to...

v = Velocity new function('Whatever value velocity is in kilometers'){return $kilometers;} // really this should be distance...
t = Time new function('Whatever parameters time requires in seconds'){return $seconds;}

v0t

d = v +  (0 x t)

Since the multiplication factor = zero... then velocity is the only thing that matters and time is thrown away from the equasion?

This seems to be like we do not understand how to measure velocity... I apologize for strange assumptions I just cannot understand how this as supposed to work out and I have been trying for a while now...

What is d supposed to equal? Distance?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Parsifal on September 23, 2008, 11:53:05 PM
Okay... So...

H20

Translates to...

H = Hydrogen new function('Whatever parameters Hydrogen requires'){return $Hydrogen_Atom';}
O = Hydrogen new function('Whatever parameters Oxygen requires'){return $Oxygen_Atom';}

Water = H + (2 x Oxygen)



Where as...

v0t

translates to...

v = Velocity new function('Whatever value velocity is in kilometers'){return $kilometers;} // really this should be distance...
t = Time new function('Whatever parameters time requires in seconds'){return $seconds;}

v0t

Answer = v +  (0 x t)

Since the multiplication fact = zero... then velocity is the only thing that matters and time is thrown away from the equasion?

This seems to be like we do not understand how to measure velocity... I apologize for strange assumptions I just cannot understand how this s supposed to work out and I have been trying for a while now...

What is d supposed to equal? Distance?

Um, no, that isn't how it works at all. Velocity is measured in metres per second, not kilometres, and time is an independent variable, not comparable to a function.

The zero isn't a multiplier, it's a parameter. v(0) might be equal to zero metres per second, or it might be equal to sixty metres per second, or it might be equal to the speed of light. As I said, it can be considered to be a black box function for the purposes of this discussion.

Yes, d is distance - or, more correctly, displacement (though for the purposes of this discussion, they can be considered the same thing).

Also, the subscript belongs to the v, not to the t. In H20, there are two hydrogens, not two oxygens. Subscripts nearly always refer to the thing before them.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: MrKappa on September 24, 2008, 12:00:49 AM
Also, the subscript belongs to the v, not to the t. In H20, there are two hydrogens, not two oxygens. Subscripts nearly always refer to the thing before them.

Oh my god... Thank you so much for dumbing this down for me...

Let me try again...

H2O

Translates to

Water = Hydrogen(2) + Oxygen(1)





v0t

Translates to...

Displacement = Velocity(0) + Time(1)




??? I think I understand this notation now...
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Parsifal on September 24, 2008, 12:03:22 AM
v0t

Translates to...

Distance = Velocity(0) + Time(1)




??? I think I understand this notation now...

Almost, but it really doesn't mean anything to pass Time a parameter, since it has a given value. It's more like $time is a variable, and velocity is a function. Acceleration may also be considered a function, so to properly translate the equation, we would have:

function distance($time){
 return (velocity($time) * $time) + ((acceleration($time) * ($time * $time)) / 2) ;
}

Incidentally, I don't know how much you know about calculus, but acceleration would always be the derivative function of velocity. That is, acceleration($time) is the rate of change of velocity($time) as $time increases.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: MrKappa on September 24, 2008, 12:11:41 AM
v0t

Translates to...

Distance = Velocity(0) + Time(1)




??? I think I understand this notation now...

Almost, but it really doesn't mean anything to pass Time a parameter, since it has a given value. It's more like $time is a variable, and velocity is a function. Acceleration may also be considered a function, so to properly translate the equation, we would have:

function distance($time){
 return (velocity($time) * $time) + ((acceleration($time) * ($time * $time)) / 2) ;
}

Incidentally, I don't know how much you know about calculus, but acceleration would always be the derivative function of velocity. That is, acceleration($time) is the rate of change of velocity($time) as $time increases.

I know nothing about traditional notations... I only understand programming logic...

Quote
$time is a variable

True... but time being a constant is only something we perceive at the moment... There is one thing I fundamentally understand... General Relativity was an attempt to free the "code" of physics from constants... any programmer will tell you that having constants in your code makes a big mess... it destroys your function...

The product of time itself is a measurement... the actual function of time could very well be influenced by other variables...

Again... Thank you for explaining the notation... Understanding math notation is not easy for me...
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Parsifal on September 24, 2008, 12:14:29 AM
Oops, that was actually wrong. I got confused myself.

That equation only works with constant acceleration, so that should be a constant, not a function, and instead of velocity($time) you want velocity(0), since we want the velocity when t=0, not when t=$time.

Hope that makes sense.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: MrKappa on September 24, 2008, 12:41:12 AM
Oops, that was actually wrong. I got confused myself.

That equation only works with constant acceleration, so that should be a constant, not a function, and instead of velocity($time) you want velocity(0), since we want the velocity when t=0, not when t=$time.

Hope that makes sense.

No... Gravity makes no sense to me in terms of mathematics... Velocity is the product of two measurements... Time and distance traveled... the product being meters per second...

When your trying to figure out the distance using only the time it took to travel... of course your going to need to throw in velocity as a constant... considering it's trusted to work within certain parameters... Is that what you meant?

Acceleration equals velocity for the purposes of gravity seeing as it is a constant.

I am not trying to understand gravity in full... I have learned a little bit about notation and I think that is a big victory for me today...
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Parsifal on September 24, 2008, 12:43:14 AM
Acceleration equals velocity for the purposes of gravity seeing as it is a constant.

No, acceleration doesn't equal velocity. Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity. To put it another way, acceleration is to velocity as velocity is to distance.

If you start in a stationary car, and one second later you are moving at 10 metres per second, then your average acceleration across that distance was 10 metres per second per second.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: MrKappa on September 24, 2008, 12:50:21 AM
Acceleration equals velocity for the purposes of gravity seeing as it is a constant.

No, acceleration doesn't equal velocity. Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity. To put it another way, acceleration is to velocity as velocity is to distance.

If you start in a stationary car, and one second later you are moving at 10 metres per second, then your average acceleration across that distance was 10 metres per second per second.

I understand that but have a tendancy to mash things together sometimes... ( bad habit)... the acceleration is expressed in "the power of two"... the velocity doubling itself every second...

one second... 9.8m/s
two seconds... 19.8m/s
three seconds... 39.6m/s

until terminal velocity which should be the speed of light correct in a vacuum? What external force counter acts a body in space under a gravitational pull?

So essentially...

Displacement = Velocity+ time;

Time = Displacement / Velocity2;

But if the Velocity is doubling every second...

Do we not have to do something along the lines of this? ( I do not expect this to be the right answer )

Time-2 = Displacement / Velocity;

???
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Parsifal on September 24, 2008, 01:01:39 AM
I understand that but have a tendancy to mash things together sometimes... ( bad habit)... the acceleration is expressed in "the power of two"... the velocity doubling itself every second...

one second... 9.8m/s
two seconds... 19.8m/s
three seconds... 39.6m/s

No, it doesn't double each second, it increases by the rate of acceleration multiplied by one second every second. In the case of gravitation on Earth, that means it is going 9.8, 19.6, 29.4, 39.2, etc.

until terminal velocity which should be the speed of light correct in a vacuum? What external force counter acts a body in space under a gravitational pull?

If we are discussing purely Newtonian physics (which I think we should, since trying to explain Special Relativity to you on top of this would be a nightmare), there is nothing stopping you exceeding the speed of light. That is, of course, wrong, but Newtonian physics serves well for speeds encountered in everyday life.

So essentially...

Displacement = Velocity + time;

Time = Displacement / Velocity;

Almost. Displacement = velocity * time, not + time, if and only if velocity is constant. If velocity is not constant, you would need to use calculus (or Newtonian equations of motion, if acceleration is constant) to perform such operations.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 24, 2008, 01:08:56 AM
I have a simple question for you.

If two pieces of paper are suspended in a vacuum facing each other free from external influence of other mass.

One paper is 10 miles square and the other is one mile square. They face each other two miles apart.

Which object crosses the halfway mark first?

Osama seems to be doing pretty well at answering your other questions so I'll just quickly answer this one - assuming no other interactions than gravitation between the two pieces of paper, that the paper is perfectly rigid and that effects such as the Casimir effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect) can be ignored, and additionally that the larger piece of paper is more massive (different thickness or density could change that), then the smaller piece will appear to cross the half way point before the bigger piece.  This is assuming we have some kind of rigid measuring stick reaching between the two with the initial half way point marked on it, since otherwise neither observer would be able to tell who had 'moved more' due to neither piece of paper experiencing any acceleration.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: MrKappa on September 24, 2008, 01:10:25 AM
Almost. Displacement = velocity * time, not + time, if and only if velocity is constant. If velocity is not constant, you would need to use calculus (or Newtonian equations of motion, if acceleration is constant) to perform such operations.

OKay...

H2O

Water = Hydrogen(2) + Oxygen(1);

(H x 2) + (O x 1)


Where as...

d = v0t

Displacement = Velocity(0) x Time(1);



Is this the exception in chemistry? Are they using different notation or is

H2O

really meant to be... ( for some unknown reason to me )

(H x 2) x (O x 1)



This is where I think my issues lay... just deciphering the notations...


If anybody has a good cheat sheet which is equivalent to the periodic table of the elements but only for math notation and physics constants I would be interested...
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Parsifal on September 24, 2008, 01:56:44 AM
If anybody has a good cheat sheet which is equivalent to the periodic table of the elements but only for math notation and physics constants I would be interested...

I'll try to put one together for how various physical terms relate to each other. For now, just remember that while in Chemistry the lack of a subscript means the same thing as a subscript of 1, in mathematics subscripts are not always necessary, so the lack of one doesn't mean a 1, it means there isn't one.

Also, subscripts can be arbitrary. v0 is used to notate velocity when t=0, which is why I said that if velocity is a function of time it means the same thing as velocity(0), but there are other ways of writing it. When I was in high school, we would always use "u" to mean initial velocity (when t=0), and "v" to mean final velocity. In that case, u would mean the same thing that v0 does here.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 24, 2008, 03:08:09 AM
If anybody has a good cheat sheet which is equivalent to the periodic table of the elements but only for math notation and physics constants I would be interested...

This is the only cheat sheet for physics you will ever need (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cambridge-Handbook-Physics-Formulas/dp/0521575079/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222250858&sr=8-1)

Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: MrKappa on September 24, 2008, 10:14:07 PM
If anybody has a good cheat sheet which is equivalent to the periodic table of the elements but only for math notation and physics constants I would be interested...

I'll try to put one together for how various physical terms relate to each other. For now, just remember that while in Chemistry the lack of a subscript means the same thing as a subscript of 1, in mathematics subscripts are not always necessary, so the lack of one doesn't mean a 1, it means there isn't one.

Also, subscripts can be arbitrary. v0 is used to notate velocity when t=0, which is why I said that if velocity is a function of time it means the same thing as velocity(0), but there are other ways of writing it. When I was in high school, we would always use "u" to mean initial velocity (when t=0), and "v" to mean final velocity. In that case, u would mean the same thing that v0 does here.


This is good information... I have found the cheat sheet book and taken this from it...

(http://growingearth.sitebyjames.com/Image/newtons_law_of_gravitation.png)

After translating it I have...

Code: [Select]
function newtons_law_of_gravitation($G,$m1,$m2,$r12){

# ^ unit vector
# r12 vector from m1 to m2
# m1 mass 1 (kg)
# m2 mass 2 (kg)
# F1 force on m1 ( Newtons )

$F1 = ( ($G * $m1 * $m2) / pow($r12,2) ) * $r12;

return $F1;
}


Is this essentially correct? All of the items above the line are multiplied and then r12 below the line is multiplied to the powe of two and then used to divide what is above the line and is then multiplied what is next to the line?


This I'm having trouble understanding... The Big G...

(http://growingearth.sitebyjames.com/Image/gravitational_constant.png)

I have translated it to this...

Code: [Select]
function gravitational_constant(){
    return 6.67 * pow(10,-11);
}

However I cannot understand the significance of the units...

m3 // is this mass cubed?

kg-1 // this is kg which is also mass to my knowledge... why is it negative...

s-2 // This is seconds... but it is negative as well...


How can there be three units ( two of which represent the same thing ) be lined up next to each other and some negative?

It makes no sense...


Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Raist on September 24, 2008, 10:28:54 PM
m3 is meters cubed, so it represents the volume.

the seconds are seconds squared, the -2 power implies inverse squared or 1/s2


hope that is helpful.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Parsifal on September 25, 2008, 12:59:28 AM
Raist is correct, what that means is metres cubed per kilogram per second squared.

That function isn't entirely correct, by the way. Force is a vector quantity, meaning it has both magnitude and direction. Multipliying it by the unit vector in the direction of r12 is just giving it that direction - note that a unit vector does not have the magnitude of the variable it corresponds to, it is called a unit vector because it has a magnitude of 1 (and whatever units the measurement is in) in the direction of that vector. So, multiplying the entire thing by $r12 is going to throw your answer out by a factor of whatever r12 is.

If you are only interested in the magnitude of the force, take out the last * $r12 in that expression and it will work fine. If you do want the direction, there's no easy way to code that. That mathematical expression tells a human reader how the force is defined, but not how to calculate it. By contrast, a programming language needs to tell the computer exactly how to calculate that direction, so unless you're using a specialised language that can natively handle vectors, the best thing to do is just drop the * $r12, get the computer to tell you the magnitude and then remember that it must be in the direction of the vector pointing from 1 to 2.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: pieces on June 22, 2021, 08:14:05 AM
Einstein was a freemason. So was Charles Darwin.
It is all about keeping free energy from society.
The earth is flat and stationary and is basically one big magnet. There is no such thing as gravity. Only different mediums of density through which objects move.
Nor is there climate change. Just an excuse to take control over all resources on the planet by the cabal.

See the following link
WHAT ON EARTH HAPPENED PARTS 1-6
https://www.bitchute.com/video/JBoVxbV6616N/?fbclid=IwAR26N_lhiBYFkmg3dG95SbU0QCp_ReILzhSmShGMjKPo72diwW27oJ7cIU4







Perpetual motion violates the law of conservation of energy, because it doesn't conserve energy; why the hell would perpetual motion be the definition of it?

Perpetual (continuing forever) - Nothing destroyed...

Laws of Conservation (continuing forever) - Nothing destroyed...

If nothing is destroyed then the energy is conserved and it continues forever.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: pieces on June 22, 2021, 08:14:48 AM
Physically impossible. Well unless you count fundamental forces and gravitation. Lolinfinite energy!!

There is no such thing gravity.

WHAT ON EARTH HAPPENED PARTS 1-6
https://www.bitchute.com/video/JBoVxbV6616N/?fbclid=IwAR26N_lhiBYFkmg3dG95SbU0QCp_ReILzhSmShGMjKPo72diwW27oJ7cIU4
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: pieces on June 22, 2021, 08:22:24 AM
They can't work, they all lose energy due to friction, and have horribly inefficient ways to reuse gravitational potential energy or magnetic energy.

You are thinking inside the system. Think outside of the system. Just like people are made to believe that chemo is the only way to cure cancer etc.
If you believe the earth is flat, surely you can grasp the fact that we have lied to about so many more things
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on June 22, 2021, 10:15:25 AM
They can't work, they all lose energy due to friction, and have horribly inefficient ways to reuse gravitational potential energy or magnetic energy.

You are thinking inside the system. Think outside of the system. Just like people are made to believe that chemo is the only way to cure cancer etc.
If you believe the earth is flat, surely you can grasp the fact that we have lied to about so many more things

First, way to revive a dead topic.

Second, Energy Loss is a reality.

For a perpetual motion/"free energy" machine to work, it would have to generate energy that is greater than or equal to the energy it needs to operate.  That's not possible because energy loss is a reality.

Nothing has 100% energy efficiency.



Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: boydster on June 22, 2021, 11:37:52 AM
They can't work, they all lose energy due to friction, and have horribly inefficient ways to reuse gravitational potential energy or magnetic energy.

You are thinking inside the system. Think outside of the system. Just like people are made to believe that chemo is the only way to cure cancer etc.
If you believe the earth is flat, surely you can grasp the fact that we have lied to about so many more things

First, way to revive a dead topic.

Second, Energy Loss is a reality.

For a perpetual motion/"free energy" machine to work, it would have to generate energy that is greater than or equal to the energy it needs to operate.  That's not possible because energy loss is a reality.

Nothing has 100% energy efficiency.
I'd add to this to say not only does it need to generate energy that is greater than or equal to the energy it needs to operate, but it actually needs to generate greater than 100% efficiency to be useful. Your point still stands, because a machine that generates energy equal to what it needs to operate could create a perpetual motion machine - I don't want to take away from that. But to provide any additional free energy (or in other words, to do anything actually useful), it needs to generate more than it needs to continue operating because it's the extra energy that could be used to do something useful while the machine keeps self-sustaining.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Stash on June 22, 2021, 12:57:41 PM
Agreed. It would be like creating a car engine that can 100% run without any loss, but no more. (A perpetual motion engine) Then it would be just an idle engine running. In order to make it useful to propel the car forward or backward, it would need to have greater than 100% efficiency.

We haven't found anything to be 100% efficient, let alone anything above that that could produce useful energy.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: boydster on June 22, 2021, 01:07:26 PM
It would be like creating a car engine that can 100% run without any loss, but no more. (A perpetual motion engine) Then it would be just an idle engine running.
Exactly! It's still a really cool discovery/invention that pretty much spits in the face of the laws of thermodynamics, but it is more like an art piece than a machine until it hits >100% efficiency. At 100% efficiency, I'm interested in reading the article. At 100.0000000000001%, I'm investing in the future of the company that demonstrated this is actually possible and not a scam.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: JJA on June 22, 2021, 01:19:11 PM
It would be like creating a car engine that can 100% run without any loss, but no more. (A perpetual motion engine) Then it would be just an idle engine running.
Exactly! It's still a really cool discovery/invention that pretty much spits in the face of the laws of thermodynamics, but it is more like an art piece than a machine until it hits >100% efficiency. At 100% efficiency, I'm interested in reading the article. At 100.0000000000001%, I'm investing in the future of the company that demonstrated this is actually possible and not a scam.

Yeah, getting close to 100% efficiency is just an engineering challenge.

The ironic thing is the discovery of an over-unity device would make that company's stock worthless in the long run as it would usher in a post-scarcity Star Trek like era where money is worthless.

Not to mention breaking several major laws of physics in the process.

What seems to be missed by a lot of free energy, perpetual motion proponents is they don't seem to understand it's not the SCALE of how much free energy is produced, it's that you are getting over 100% at any value at all.

It's like casually mentioning you invented a telephone that lets you connect to God, but only for one minute so it's not that big a deal.  It's not how long or how much you break the laws of physics, it's that they are broken AT ALL that is the big deal that so many people seem to miss.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on June 22, 2021, 01:22:19 PM
100% efficiency will never happen on a combustion engine.  Anyone that says they are even close is full of shit.

Combustion results in 2 forms of energy, heat (primary source of energy for combustion engines) and light.  The light energy is all wasted in a combustion engine.  Even if they figure out how to ensure all the fuel combusts, until you can figure out how to harness the energy that is emitted as light from the combustion of fuel, you'll never have 100% efficiency.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: JJA on June 22, 2021, 01:22:49 PM
Einstein was a freemason. So was Charles Darwin.
It is all about keeping free energy from society.
The earth is flat and stationary and is basically one big magnet. There is no such thing as gravity. Only different mediums of density through which objects move.
Nor is there climate change. Just an excuse to take control over all resources on the planet by the cabal.

Going for a conspiracy theory hat trick here I see.

This cabal is pretty powerful, how come they haven't silenced you yet? In fact the seem to be so powerful they have made the laws of conservation of energy just to stop perpetual motion machines from working. I'd love to know how they managed that one.

I assume you have no actual proof of evidence of any of your claims?  Did the cabal steal it all from you?

     
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: boydster on June 22, 2021, 01:59:51 PM
It would be like creating a car engine that can 100% run without any loss, but no more. (A perpetual motion engine) Then it would be just an idle engine running.
Exactly! It's still a really cool discovery/invention that pretty much spits in the face of the laws of thermodynamics, but it is more like an art piece than a machine until it hits >100% efficiency. At 100% efficiency, I'm interested in reading the article. At 100.0000000000001%, I'm investing in the future of the company that demonstrated this is actually possible and not a scam.

Yeah, getting close to 100% efficiency is just an engineering challenge.

The ironic thing is the discovery of an over-unity device would make that company's stock worthless in the long run as it would usher in a post-scarcity Star Trek like era where money is worthless.

Not to mention breaking several major laws of physics in the process.

What seems to be missed by a lot of free energy, perpetual motion proponents is they don't seem to understand it's not the SCALE of how much free energy is produced, it's that you are getting over 100% at any value at all.

It's like casually mentioning you invented a telephone that lets you connect to God, but only for one minute so it's not that big a deal.  It's not how long or how much you break the laws of physics, it's that they are broken AT ALL that is the big deal that so many people seem to miss.
Hang on though, there's always the "Trade Secret" route of things, instead of the "I have a patent now" way of doing business. If someone came up with a way of generating energy over unity, I'd be willing to bet they'd opt for Trade Secret and keep things under very tight wraps. Once it is patented, too much info is available to other people to try and come up with a competing product.

But of course you can't get more energy out of something that you put into it. Even less so if it is doing work.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Bullwinkle on June 22, 2021, 04:47:33 PM
entropy
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: JJA on June 22, 2021, 05:22:43 PM
Hang on though, there's always the "Trade Secret" route of things, instead of the "I have a patent now" way of doing business. If someone came up with a way of generating energy over unity, I'd be willing to bet they'd opt for Trade Secret and keep things under very tight wraps. Once it is patented, too much info is available to other people to try and come up with a competing product.

But of course you can't get more energy out of something that you put into it. Even less so if it is doing work.

You can't win, you can't break even, you can't even quit the game. One of my favorite quotes. :)

Whatever they have might be slightly more efficient, might or might not be revolutionary, probably is just trying to get investment money.

As for all the over-unity claims elsewhere, I see no possible motivation for a company to invent a machine that produces free energy, and then to just bury it.  It would at the very least, be MASSIVE short term profits, and what do CEOs like more than short term profits? Nothing at all.

Even if a CEO told their R&D department to bury it, they would need to murder the entire team as who wouldn't want to publish those findings and go down in history as the person who broke physics and unleashed a worldwide (hah I didn't say global) revolution that would literally change everything?

The idea that there are dozens of free energy devices collecting dust in company vaults is just nuts.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: MouseWalker on June 22, 2021, 09:26:54 PM
Water will not react with anything readily available on Earth.
LOL what is Rust.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Timeisup on June 23, 2021, 12:51:17 AM
Water will not react with anything readily available on Earth.
LOL what is Rust.

It’s amazing how stupid people can be. Did that person not realise he was 75% water give or take.

Even although rust is iron oxide rust won’t form on iron if there is no water present. Water is not only the universal solvent but is a requirement for many chemical reactions particularly those of a biological nature!

Another golden oldie of belief over knowledge.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: markjo on June 23, 2021, 08:41:21 AM
Water will not react with anything readily available on Earth.
LOL what is Rust.

It’s amazing how stupid people can be. Did that person not realise he was 75% water give or take.
Did you not realize that you guys are replying to a nearly 13 year old post?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: JJA on June 23, 2021, 10:46:34 AM
Water will not react with anything readily available on Earth.
LOL what is Rust.

It’s amazing how stupid people can be. Did that person not realise he was 75% water give or take.
Did you not realize that you guys are replying to a nearly 13 year old post?

To be fair, is there any difference between 13 year old flat earth posts and today? I haven't really seen any progress having looked over posts from that era. Well, EA and UA were introduced 10 years ago so that's progress of a sort?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: boydster on June 23, 2021, 11:25:16 AM
Water will not react with anything readily available on Earth.
LOL what is Rust.

It’s amazing how stupid people can be. Did that person not realise he was 75% water give or take.
Did you not realize that you guys are replying to a nearly 13 year old post?

To be fair, is there any difference between 13 year old flat earth posts and today? I haven't really seen any progress having looked over posts from that era. Well, EA and UA were introduced 10 years ago so that's progress of a sort?
Yes, there is one important difference - if you quote and reply to someone that posted today, the odds of getting a response from them are wildly higher than if you quote and reply to someone that in practical terms stopped posting almost 7 years ago. Trying to dunk on someone that doesn't post here anymore and hasn't for quite some time is a bit of a self-dunk, if you ask me. Who wants to be the person that, upon seeing ancient cave paintings depicting a hunt, borrows their girlfriend's stick of lipstick to write "LOL get guns you idiots DERPPPPPP" on the wall right next to the paintings?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: sokarul on June 23, 2021, 11:45:27 AM
Correct me if I’m wrong but the oxygen  in iron oxide rust didn’t come from the oxygen in the water molecule. It comes from the dissolved oxygen, which is what fish breath. Or just oxygen from air.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: boydster on June 23, 2021, 12:00:10 PM
Correct me if I’m wrong but the oxygen  in iron oxide rust didn’t come from the oxygen in the water molecule. It comes from the dissolved oxygen, which is what fish breath. Or just oxygen from air.
100% correct. Water is the usual catalyst, but it isn't exactly reacting. I almost pointed that out earlier too, but figured it would devolve into people pointing out water reacts with lots of other things (hello, sodium!), so Raist was still wrong but so were MouseWalker and Timmy.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: markjo on June 23, 2021, 01:12:43 PM
To be fair, is there any difference between 13 year old flat earth posts and today?
Do you mean other than the fact that this thread has nothing to do with the shape of the earth?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: JJA on June 23, 2021, 01:39:48 PM
Water will not react with anything readily available on Earth.
LOL what is Rust.

It’s amazing how stupid people can be. Did that person not realise he was 75% water give or take.
Did you not realize that you guys are replying to a nearly 13 year old post?

To be fair, is there any difference between 13 year old flat earth posts and today? I haven't really seen any progress having looked over posts from that era. Well, EA and UA were introduced 10 years ago so that's progress of a sort?
Yes, there is one important difference - if you quote and reply to someone that posted today, the odds of getting a response from them are wildly higher than if you quote and reply to someone that in practical terms stopped posting almost 7 years ago. Trying to dunk on someone that doesn't post here anymore and hasn't for quite some time is a bit of a self-dunk, if you ask me. Who wants to be the person that, upon seeing ancient cave paintings depicting a hunt, borrows their girlfriend's stick of lipstick to write "LOL get guns you idiots DERPPPPPP" on the wall right next to the paintings?

That assumes the sole reason for responding to a post is to get some kind of reaction from the poster and that there is no value in the debate itself. Just because something was said in the past means it no longer has any meaning?

So what if he won't respond, several other people have already chimed in. Maybe another flat earther will take up the mantle and defend his honor.

Ehh. On of my pet peeves is the entire concept of necro-shaming. I don't see why people get so uptight over it. It's just weird.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on June 23, 2021, 02:08:12 PM
To be fair, is there any difference between 13 year old flat earth posts and today?
Do you mean other than the fact that this thread has nothing to do with the shape of the earth?
The shape of what now?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: markjo on June 23, 2021, 03:55:54 PM
The shape of what now?
The shape of the gears in a perpetual motion machine, of course.
(https://i.imgur.com/nzwfYO3.gif)
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: boydster on June 23, 2021, 05:18:24 PM
That assumes the sole reason for responding to a post is to get some kind of reaction from the poster and that there is no value in the debate itself.
I'm not sure you paid attention to the quotes you left nested in your last post if you think MouseWalker and Timeisup added something of value. They both took the opportunity to attempt a cheap shot at someone who isn't here.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: MouseWalker on June 23, 2021, 09:59:53 PM
That assumes the sole reason for responding to a post is to get some kind of reaction from the poster and that there is no value in the debate itself.
I'm not sure you paid attention to the quotes you left nested in your last post if you think MouseWalker and Timeisup added something of value. They both took the opportunity to attempt a cheap shot at someone who isn't here.
oops I started to read the thread in the very beginning I got there and had a knee-jerk reaction I was not watching the dates; I will endeavor to do better next time.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: JJA on June 24, 2021, 03:39:02 AM
That assumes the sole reason for responding to a post is to get some kind of reaction from the poster and that there is no value in the debate itself.
I'm not sure you paid attention to the quotes you left nested in your last post if you think MouseWalker and Timeisup added something of value. They both took the opportunity to attempt a cheap shot at someone who isn't here.

It's clear the initial post was made not realizing how old the post was, which in no way invalidates anything said about it.

One persons valuable entertainment is another's necro post. I can value whatever I want, and pointing out the ridiculousness of an argument is something I always value. :)
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: markjo on June 24, 2021, 06:34:15 AM
I can value whatever I want, and pointing out the ridiculousness of an argument is something I always value. :)
Do you think that you pointed out anything that wasn't already pointed out 13 years ago in the previous 9 pages?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: boydster on June 24, 2021, 06:36:19 AM
That assumes the sole reason for responding to a post is to get some kind of reaction from the poster and that there is no value in the debate itself.
I'm not sure you paid attention to the quotes you left nested in your last post if you think MouseWalker and Timeisup added something of value. They both took the opportunity to attempt a cheap shot at someone who isn't here.

It's clear the initial post was made not realizing how old the post was, which in no way invalidates anything said about it.

One persons valuable entertainment is another's necro post. I can value whatever I want, and pointing out the ridiculousness of an argument is something I always value. :)
Which is why you really enjoyed pointing out that water doesn't react with iron to make rust, right?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Bullwinkle on June 24, 2021, 08:58:02 PM
Ahhhh, my HEAD Hurts !!!
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on June 25, 2021, 05:30:42 AM
Ahhhh, my HEAD Hurts !!!

That's why your supposed to your lube.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: JJA on June 26, 2021, 07:00:34 AM
That assumes the sole reason for responding to a post is to get some kind of reaction from the poster and that there is no value in the debate itself.
I'm not sure you paid attention to the quotes you left nested in your last post if you think MouseWalker and Timeisup added something of value. They both took the opportunity to attempt a cheap shot at someone who isn't here.

It's clear the initial post was made not realizing how old the post was, which in no way invalidates anything said about it.

One persons valuable entertainment is another's necro post. I can value whatever I want, and pointing out the ridiculousness of an argument is something I always value. :)
Which is why you really enjoyed pointing out that water doesn't react with iron to make rust, right?

That was someone else, I never pointed it out. I just enjoyed seeing someone else do it.

For me, that's entertaining. For the OP it was responding to, it was educational since they clearly didn't know that fact. So when they come back here they will have the chance to learn something. Win-win!
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: JJA on June 26, 2021, 07:01:35 AM
I can value whatever I want, and pointing out the ridiculousness of an argument is something I always value. :)
Do you think that you pointed out anything that wasn't already pointed out 13 years ago in the previous 9 pages?

Sure I did. Where in the previous 9 pages was there a discussion about necroing threads? My entire conversation here is brand new to this thread. I'm a content creator!
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: boydster on June 28, 2021, 10:48:00 AM
I can value whatever I want, and pointing out the ridiculousness of an argument is something I always value. :)
Do you think that you pointed out anything that wasn't already pointed out 13 years ago in the previous 9 pages?

Sure I did. Where in the previous 9 pages was there a discussion about necroing threads? My entire conversation here is brand new to this thread. I'm a content creator!
You misspelled "thread derailer."

Which is why you really enjoyed pointing out that water doesn't react with iron to make rust, right?

That was someone else, I never pointed it out. I just enjoyed seeing someone else do it.
Right, I know, which is kind of the point. You first indicated that those posts were adding something of value to the conversation. And now that it was pointed out that they weren't, you have pivoted.

Perhaps a separate thread is warranted for the very important conversation around necro posting that JJA would like to... perpetuate. If so, JJA I invite you to make such a thread. This is not that thread. This thread is about perpetual motion machines and extracting free energy.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Timeisup on July 04, 2021, 06:16:57 AM
Correct me if I’m wrong but the oxygen  in iron oxide rust didn’t come from the oxygen in the water molecule. It comes from the dissolved oxygen, which is what fish breath. Or just oxygen from air.
100% correct. Water is the usual catalyst, but it isn't exactly reacting. I almost pointed that out earlier too, but figured it would devolve into people pointing out water reacts with lots of other things (hello, sodium!), so Raist was still wrong but so were MouseWalker and Timmy.

Sorry for the late reply, but some Joker keeps banning me!

Iron oxide will only form in the presence of moisture where the moisture or water, call it what you may, is a catalyst. Pop a lump or iron in a moisture free oxygen rich atmosphere and it won't react.

So how was I wrong, he who keeps banning people?
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: boydster on July 04, 2021, 07:48:47 AM
Water doesn't react with iron. Do try and keep up.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: sokarul on July 05, 2021, 07:40:08 PM
Correct me if I’m wrong but the oxygen  in iron oxide rust didn’t come from the oxygen in the water molecule. It comes from the dissolved oxygen, which is what fish breath. Or just oxygen from air.
100% correct. Water is the usual catalyst, but it isn't exactly reacting. I almost pointed that out earlier too, but figured it would devolve into people pointing out water reacts with lots of other things (hello, sodium!), so Raist was still wrong but so were MouseWalker and Timmy.

Sorry for the late reply, but some Joker keeps banning me!

Iron oxide will only form in the presence of moisture where the moisture or water, call it what you may, is a catalyst. Pop a lump or iron in a moisture free oxygen rich atmosphere and it won't react.

So how was I wrong, he who keeps banning people?
We all said the same thing sort of. I probably said the only thing possible wrong. I just like pointing out fish dont breathe the oxygen molecules bonded to a hydrogen molecule.
Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: narcberry on July 31, 2021, 12:56:50 AM
I probably said the only thing possible wrong.

Yeah, and then some.

Title: Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
Post by: Lorddave on July 31, 2021, 02:34:22 AM
Since y'all want to talk about rust...

https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/worlds-cheapest-energy-storage-will-be-an-iron-air-battery-says-jeff-bezos-backed-start-up/2-1-1044174