Perpetual motion/"free energy"

  • 301 Replies
  • 43543 Views
*

Snaaaaake

  • 1089
  • ROUND000
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #30 on: August 08, 2008, 06:12:22 PM »
Narc, it's past your bedtime at the mental hospital you live in.  :-*
We told you to go to rehab, but you were all like "no, no, no!" ::)

*

Wendy

  • 18492
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #31 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. :)
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.

?

narcberry

  • 5584
  • Reason > RET
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #32 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.

*

Wendy

  • 18492
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #33 on: August 08, 2008, 07:26:13 PM »
Or rather, what it is that isn't slowing it down.
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #34 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.

?

narcberry

  • 5584
  • Reason > RET
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #35 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.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #36 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.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #37 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?

*

Wendy

  • 18492
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #38 on: August 10, 2008, 11:24:01 AM »
Because you don't cut it. ololol ;D
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #39 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]

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #40 on: September 04, 2008, 10:45:41 AM »
Hummmm you might want to check out 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
 

*

JohnBreckman007

  • 82
  • Shaken not stired
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #41 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.

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #42 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?  ???





   


*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #43 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.

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #44 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.

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #45 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.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2008, 12:15:32 PM by jehkque »

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #46 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.

?

MrKappa

  • 448
  • Math abstracts reality... it does not create it...
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #47 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...
« Last Edit: September 05, 2008, 12:12:03 PM by MrKappa »

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #48 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.

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #49 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.

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #50 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.

?

MrKappa

  • 448
  • Math abstracts reality... it does not create it...
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #51 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...

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #52 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.

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #53 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.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2008, 01:13:32 PM by jehkque »

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #54 on: September 05, 2008, 01:24:27 PM »
dU = dQ + dW 

That is the first law of thermo dynamics

Windmills do not violate it. 

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Video proof that the Earth is flat!

Run run, as fast as you can, you can't catch me cos I'm in the lollipop forest and you can't get there!

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #55 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.

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #56 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.


Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #57 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!

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #58 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.



Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #59 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.