48 of 50
48
Perpetual motion is finally here!
Posted: 08 June 2008 05:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 518 ]
Five Star Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4243
Joined  2005-06-05

There’s no acceleration term in the formula for work done, so what are you asking?

Talking of a curved surface is the wrong way of thinking about it (unless you are doing a path integral). Just think of the forces acting on the mass at some point along the line.

The force of gravity is always down, and always Fg, but this will resolve into two forces on the ball, whose relative magnitudes depend on the slope, First there is a force perpendicular to the slope, called the normal force or Fn, this is the force the ball exerts on the slope due to gravity and from Newton’s 3rd law, also the force of the slope upon the ball (shown as Fn’). The second force is the bit of gravitation that comes out parallel to the slope, which I’ve labelled Fr, and it is in this direction that the ball will accelerate.

Notice that the steeper the slope is, the more of Fg ends up in Fr and the less goes to Fn, so on a steeper slope you accelerate faster and are less firmly fixed to the path. Having cycled over a pothole half way down a 1:4 gradient in my youth, I can personally attest that this is the truth.

Conversely the shallower the slope the more you are pressed to it, but the slower you accelerate. The obvious extremes are a vertical ‘slope’ where you experience full free-fall acceleration, but do not adhere to the slope at all, and horizontal, where you are pressed against the ‘slope’ with all of gravity’s might, but don’t accelerate (because of gravity) one whit.

At every point along a curved path, the mass will be instantaneously experiencing the curve as one particular gradient of slope. I.e. there will be a characteristic pair of normal and tangential vectors for the force of gravity to be resolved into.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2008 01:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 519 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  12
Joined  2008-05-24

The total number of smaller wheels involved with only two being rotated means that a constant state of imbalance is maintained in the system.By selecting the outcome of the rotation of one smaller wheel in the total ignores the effect of all other smaller wheels in rotation.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2008 03:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 520 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6927
Joined  2005-10-21

Oh sunnuva…

Look, on most forums, necroposting is considered rude. So unless your form of perpetual motion involves beating a dead horse, this thread died its quiet, deserved death back in June.

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsability to disprove your claims, but rather your responsability to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2008 07:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 521 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5511
Joined  2007-03-14

I think the perpetual motion he is talking about is the continuation of the thread ad infinitum.

 Signature 

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you’re a mile away and you have their shoes.

Seen on a tshirt - “If life gives you melons you may be dyslexic”

When life hands you lemons make apple juice. Then laugh while life tries to figure out how you did it.

My blog
My Website

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 October 2008 03:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 522 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  12
Joined  2008-05-24

HA HA

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 October 2008 03:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 523 ]
Senior Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  218
Joined  2005-04-22

you guys are idiots

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 October 2008 03:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 524 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8446
Joined  2006-02-28
buba - 17 October 2008 07:19 PM

you guys are idiots

I resemble that remark sir!

*wait, what?*

 Signature 

Life is what happens when you are busy making other plans. - John Lennon
You can twist perceptions, reality won’t budge. - Rush

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 June 2009 06:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 525 ]
Five Star Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4243
Joined  2005-06-05

As reported way back in post #53 of this thread, Irish company Steorn claimed in 2007 to have a working free energy device, and moreover were calling the scientific community out, asking qualified scientists and engineers to come check their claims. Well some did, and two years later this independent jury has finally delivered their verdict.

And the result is… (link)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 June 2009 05:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 526 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6927
Joined  2005-10-21

*gasp!* Shock and dismay!! Astonishment! Tell me it isn’t so!!

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsability to disprove your claims, but rather your responsability to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 June 2009 05:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 527 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  23
Joined  2009-01-17

I love it when thoeretical science and modern science clash. Heres how the conversation usually goes…

TS - Hey, I discovered this new way of doing things.
MS - No you didnt, because that breaks the rules, and once we say what a rule is it cannot be broken.
TS - But check it out, there is something interesting going on here, why dont you guys come check this thing out.
MS - Because it isnt interesting, it is actually freaky voodoo magic not worth the attention of science.
TS - But maybe this is a discovery that can shed light on some of the mysteries of the universe
MS - No, it cant. Listen, I have a phd and already know everything and clearly you dont understand that everything Einstein said was correct, just like Newton, and Darwin. So go back to your garage and build a new toy and when you can prove me wrong then i’ll listen.

I get into these conversations with a physicist friend of mine and thats usually the way it goes, which this post reminds me of. Like the whole perpetual motion example, exothermic chemical reactions in biological systems are loosely explained using conservation. The one problem I have is that the law of conservation states that energy can neither be created or destroyed, except of course in the case of the big bang, which is how all energy and matter was created…..from nothing. An interesting logical leap in our current understanding of the universe. But the universe started as a singularity you say, which contains an infinite amount of energy. Thus, it created the universe, which by all modern acounts is not infinite. So was energy destroyed or created in this process, or neither. Any answer is illogical unless the “singularity” does not contain infinite mass, then by definition, it is not a singularity. Just another case of an unproven theory existing in some minds as a reality.

The point I am trying to make is that we dont know shit, especially when it comes to the behavior of electromagnetic fields. We know that strong EM fields can reduce the mass of objects to induce levitation. But why? Is it possible that a rotating self-propelling magnetic wheel can create an electromagnetic field with which we can produce electricity, of course, they are called generators. But simply stating that because an engine uses x amt of energy and produces x + n amount of energy that it must break the laws of conservation is short sighted. Overunity is possible because our laws of conservation are incomplete because we dont understand how or what all the forces of the universe really are.

Is it possible to travel faster than the speed of light? of course not, thats just crazy talk. But wait, electrogravitional energy can thoeretically be used to travel objects faster then the speed of light. But thats just a thoery right? its not proven.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2009 01:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 528 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
BlogBuster - 30 June 2009 09:07 PM

I love it when thoeretical science and modern science clash.

Ummmmm. . .they’re one and the same thing.  That’s like saying “when statics and mechanical engineering clash”.

Heres how the conversation usually goes…

TS - Hey, I discovered this new way of doing things.
MS - No you didnt, because that breaks the rules, and once we say what a rule is it cannot be broken.
TS - But check it out, there is something interesting going on here, why dont you guys come check this thing out.
MS - Because it isnt interesting, it is actually freaky voodoo magic not worth the attention of science.
TS - But maybe this is a discovery that can shed light on some of the mysteries of the universe
MS - No, it cant. Listen, I have a phd and already know everything and clearly you dont understand that everything Einstein said was correct, just like Newton, and Darwin. So go back to your garage and build a new toy and when you can prove me wrong then i’ll listen.

No, actually, that’s not how it usually goes.  As you can tell, for example, by the new discoveries and the new applications of old discoveries that are announced daily.  In this case, the scientists asked the people who made the device to show anything in favour of their claims, and those people could produce nothing.  The scientists and engineers then spent literally years looking into this claim. . .and found nothing.  Not just that they couldn’t figure out how it was producing more energy than it used, but they couldn’t even find that it was producing more energy than it used.

Like the whole perpetual motion example, exothermic chemical reactions in biological systems are loosely explained using conservation.

In large part due to there never, ever, ever having been a case where the laws of conservation have not worked.  Which is part of what makes them laws, y’know.  Plus, of course, we can actually look at these chemical reactions and see what’s going on.

Incidentally, you do realise that exothermic reactions are by definition non-closed systems, don’t you?

The one problem I have is that the law of conservation states that energy can neither be created or destroyed,

Not quite.  For one thing, there are different laws of conservation.  But I think the one you’re going for is the one about conservation of mass and energy.  Which is a bit more detailed than what you seem to be thinking it is.  It basically states that in a closed system, the total amount of energy and mass cannot be increased or reduced. . .but that they can swap places, or turn into different forms of theselves (such as potential energy being changed into kinetic energy).

except of course in the case of the big bang, which is how all energy and matter was created…..from nothing.

Who ever gave you that idea?  I don’t know of any physical cosmologist who claims such a thing.  Rather than “starting from nothing”, the Big Bang started from everything.  But it was everything really really really really small.

But the universe started as a singularity you say, which contains an infinite amount of energy. Thus, it created the universe, which by all modern acounts is not infinite. So was energy destroyed or created in this process, or neither. Any answer is illogical unless the “singularity” does not contain infinite mass, then by definition, it is not a singularity. Just another case of an unproven theory existing in some minds as a reality.

No, you just have the wrong idea about singularities, infinite energy, and suchlike.  Ummmm. . .it would take a very lengthy and complicated explanation to get into the subject, though, and I don’t really know all of it myself.  But I do know enough about it to know that the seeming contradiction you pointed out above exists in your mistaken picture of the theory, rather than in the theory itself.  Things such as volume and infinity exist in somewhat different manners in singularities than they do in ordinary space.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
   
48 of 50
48