RE: Can't be done ?

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Can't be done ?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Can't be done ?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Can't be done ? - 5/29/2008 2:18:07 PM

LotusSong

Posts: 6334
Joined: 7/2/2006
From: Domme Emeritus
Status: offline

I thought it had been done:

http://www.officeplayground.com/perpetualmotion.html?engine=adwords!8540&keyword=%28perpetual+motion+toy%29&match_type={ifcontent:content}&gclid=CLO_3NjQzJMCFR4vagodCg81hQ

_____________________________

Life Lesson #1

I'm not your type.
I'm not inflatable.

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 21

RE: Can't be done ? - 5/29/2008 4:09:45 PM

Zensee

Posts: 1564
Joined: 9/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

FR

I agree with Hk: any perpetual motion machine is prohibited from violating the laws of thermodynamics.

Nevertheless in fact various such perpetual motion machines that do not violate the laws of thermodynamics already exist: wind mills and oil pumps for example. If it costs more to tap into an energy source such as wind or oil than is gained from them neither windmills nor oil pumps would have been built. Use x litres of oil to pump up a larger amount of y litres of oil and have a profit of y - x litres; next use the x litres again to repeat the process ad infinitum. (Or until either the oil runs out, or the pump breaks down.)

So find an energy source, think of a way to access it and there you are.

Those mills and pumps are not perpetual motion machines. A PMM must either have a greater output of energy than is put in OR must not lose any energy while in motion (forever), meaning they require no additional energy to function. To be a mechanical PMM it cannot physically degrade (bearings, lubricants etc.).

The only thing that comes close is a supercooled super conductor. The current will flow as long as the near absolute zero temperature is maintained, which requires a considerable input of energy - so actually the whole system is not anywhere near close to a PMM.

Oh well, I tried.

Z.

_____________________________

"Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." (proverb)

(in reply to Rule)

Post #: 22

RE: Can't be done ? - 5/29/2008 5:04:51 PM

Hippiekinkster

Posts: 5512
Joined: 11/20/2007
From: Liechtenstein
Status: offline

Nice try, too. One can see why it is no mystery Intelligent design, quack medicine, and other such scams are so popular.

_____________________________

"We are convinced that freedom w/o Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism w/o freedom is slavery and brutality." Bakunin

“Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we are saved by love.” Reinhold Ne

(in reply to Zensee)

Post #: 23

RE: Can't be done ? - 5/29/2008 5:32:04 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

Whether it can or can't be done, you can debate it until the cows come home. The concept seems to violate the laws of physics, but at one time so did heavier than air aircraft.

Perhaps it truly is impossible, though I will never concede that anything is impossible, well not something like this. Five years is impressive though, and I think it would be a valuable study just to find out how it got to this point.

I will have to wait and see. So will eveeryone else.

T

(in reply to Hippiekinkster)

Post #: 24

RE: Can't be done ? - 5/29/2008 6:02:51 PM

xxblushesxx

Posts: 9318
Joined: 11/3/2005
From: Kentucky
Status: offline

This guy seems to be generating some interest...

http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/300042

http://gizmodo.com/tag/thane-heins/

http://mwiner.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/thane-heins-perpetual-motion-free-energy-or-simply-releasing-a-brake/

I'm not smart enough about any of this stuff to comment. I just found it interesting.

_____________________________

~Christina

A nice girl with a disturbing hobby

My femdom findom blog: http://www.MistressAvarice.com

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 25

RE: Can't be done ? - 5/29/2008 6:06:59 PM

bipolarber

Posts: 2792
Joined: 9/25/2004
Status: offline

The rules of the universe:

1. You can't win the game.
2. You can't even break even.
3. You can't get out of the game.

No special exceptions to the laws of thermodynamics. No machine built can continue to operate withough some kind of energy input. To do otherwise, would invalidate all that we have learned and know about how the macro universe works. ENERGY and MATTER cannot be created or destroyed... they can only be converted from one form to another.

Now, IF this guy has found some way of tapping into "Q space" and draw energy from the stress of it's geometry alone, he might have something. Or if he is taking energy from sone hitherto unknown chemical reaction, then I might be interested... but PMM's are just a waste of time, and keystrokes.

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 26

RE: Can't be done ? - 5/29/2008 7:03:52 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

But then bipolar, if he tapped into anything that means that by definition it is not perpetual motion. Recieving/using energy from any source violates the very definition.The rules are simple, but by promulgation they become very complex, and comprehensive.

Using light, radiation, even the heat of the atmosphere is a nono. They have those swan or duck shaped glass vessels with alcohol in them, at under atmospheric pressure. Like the things that boil in your hand, they use energy from the environment. Against the rules. Those dipping dodos or whatever you call them use energy. To not use energy is rule number one, or more aptly put, to use no more energy than that which was required to start the process - EVER.

Perhaps the rules merit some discussion.

My frame of mind it that the device can use gravity. That does not mean it can use any heat or anything else, just gravity. That is due to the fact that gravity is a force rather than an energy. The distinction, IMO is that what goes up must some down.

In my view the device can internally use convection, evaporation, all of that, but it must be in a sealed environment.

Now that's my opinion based on years of, whatever I had. I wonder if there is actually a published set of rules somewhere. I don't mean for a reward, but based in firm scientific principles. I mean accepted rules worldwide.

T

(in reply to bipolarber)

Post #: 27

RE: Can't be done ? - 5/29/2008 7:49:09 PM

Irishknight

Posts: 2016
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline

But, if he's tapped into an unknown source of energy, he may have stumbled upon a way to power vehicles and homes cleanly and efficiently. How many important discoveries were made by accident? Let them keep trying for PMMs and maybe one will discover broadcast energy or something.

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 28

RE: Can't be done ? - 5/29/2008 10:35:11 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

Agreed IK, in fact that's why I brought it up.

In anything we know we will never achieve perfection. Some take that as a clue to not even try. I do not.

On another note, I would like to know more about Smokey. That was called a first stage adibiatic engine, he already had planned the stage four when the article came out. This would use a ceramic engine block and components, synthetic lubricants and coolant if any. His idea was to optimize it to run as hot as possible. What he really did was only a part of it, he managed to get the intake charge into the cylinders under those conditions. You would get a third degree burn touching the engine, and there would be insulation to keep the heat in.

See the major problem is that at those temperatures the intake charge expands so fast that it would not make it to the cylinders, or not enough of it. He solved that problem. He didn't invent engines, but he did improve on them.

This was not the 200 MPG carb, nor any hocus pocus. The author of the article sounded like he knew something, and the principles were somewhat explained, but not the implementation. This was in Car and Track or something like that, or maybe Popular Science.

I also read a very interesting piece that was basically a transcript of a discussion between some sharp automotive engineers. They were discussing using direct cylinder injection on gas engines. This was of course already the norm with most deisels. One of them said "If all you are talking about is getting more gas in there all you have succeeded in is to burn more gas". Now that guy was thinking about efficiency. And he was right, the only thing you gain by direct cylinder injection is the ability to pump more fuel in there, if it can't get enough air to mix with the fuel, it is a waste of time.

But that's not to the point. We have a serious crisis on our hands at the mercy of the oilmen. Cars are very inefficient, if we found a way to make them more efficient we gain manyfold. Quadrupling their efficiency can be done, it just isn't easy or cheap. A 200 MPG carb ? could happen if you were already getting 50 MPG. But if you are getting 10 MPG I don't think there is much hope, at least in the near future.

Some of it is pipe dreams, but there are a few things that are real. But everything is real, those insoles that claim to suck the toxins out of your body and cure just about everything are real. Might not work, but they are real.

T

(in reply to Irishknight)

Post #: 29

RE: Can't be done ? - 5/30/2008 1:44:39 AM

Rule

Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
1) if he tapped into anything that means that by definition it is not perpetual motion.

2) Receiving/using energy from any source violates the very definition.

3) To not use energy is rule number one, or more aptly put,

4) to use no more energy than that which was required to start the process - EVER.

Perhaps the rules merit some discussion.

Indeed. Of your four different rules above the first three are wrong as in violating or not complying with the fundamental laws of our universe.

That is why I changed the definition of a perpetual motion principle.

Energy is like water in a lake: it does not perform any labour as long as it is in the lake - so in that condition is useless. The water in the lake represents potential energy. The water in the lake will only perfom work when a sluice is opened and it thus is enabled to fall down into another lake at a lower level of potential energy. When water falls potential energy is transformed into kinetic energy that may be used to perform work and that as a waste product will produce heat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
Cars are very inefficient, if we found a way to make them more efficient we gain manyfold. Quadrupling their efficiency can be done, it just isn't easy or cheap.

Reduce the weight of the car by 75 per cent and its efficiency will indeed be quadrupled, as in one has increased the distance one may go by a factor of four.

Long ago I was thought that the efficiency of any generator is about 33 per cent, at best 37 per cent. The rest of the energy used / transformed ends up as heat, which is the tax demanded by the universe. Quadrupling that efficiency will give a yield of about 130 per cent efficiency. One cannot get a single something from nothing. Even a magician cannot pull a rabbit out of a hat if that rabbit does not exist somewhere already.

Ik: Broadcast energy need not be invented. It already exists in various forms, such as e.g. sunlight.

< Message edited by Rule -- 5/30/2008 1:45:38 AM >

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 30

RE: Can't be done ? - 5/30/2008 8:57:54 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

I don't see the violation there Rule. Tapping into something heretofore unknown is cheating, just as using solar cells would be.

It would be a small matter to put up a three hundred watt solar panel witrh a bank of batteries to store for the dark times. Keep a little DC motor running for the rest of your life, but it does not meet the criteria.

I respect your opinion and all, but, well it is my turn.

IMO opinion your belief has another flaw. You described heat as waste, as a "tax" in the universe. I believe that they key to greater efficiency is to find a way to use that "waste" heat. The ecosystem does it, the universe does it. The universe may be the only perpetual motion machine that will ever exist, but we will never know.

I think the whole point is to not waste energy. If you call heat waste, you are wasting it.

Part of designing anything like this requires alot of money. First of all it says motion and there is no motion without friction except in a vacuum, with the rotating body touching nothing. And it would be rotating.

But then, if you took a perfectly balanced weighted wheel, like a gyroscope, I don't know the proper term for the part, but the round thing. Take it out of it's gimball and free of the bearings, set it to spinning in outer space. Theoretically it spins forever unless something happens to it. It would be an easy matter to make it detectable from Earth via telescope or radio telescope. Just make one side of it one color and the other another. It would never stop in any of our lifetimes.

But would that qualify as a perpetual motion machine ? In my book no. I guess technically I am caught on that one. I think Rule's post pointed it out, but really it is improper wording.

What I mean is that every word matters, and that means the word machine matters. A machine by definition converts one form of energy to another, even if it is only by changing the direction of force. All this of course to accomplish work, by the scientific definition of work.

Words fail me, I wish I had learned German. They got words for this shit. Even that statement isn't quite right because then the transmission of a car almost qualifies. But for this definition it does not.

There is another thing that alot of people think that is inaccurate, although I do not make that assertion here, not at all. That is that if the perfect the PPM we will all get to drive our cars for free forever and all that. That is simply not how it is. You can't pull any energy out of a system like that. It would stop for sure.

Thing is, the benefit to humanity comes via the technologies introduced. The fact that someone has gotten REALLY REALLY close to 100% efficiency is a sign of the times. A sign that we can do better.

Brings German back to mind. I used to read all the car magazines I could get my hands on. They had this forty three letter word for the design of an engine [head] that meant tricellular precombustion chamber(s). The translation did not define whether it was something like a cloverleaf, or if it had a precombustion chamber with it's own precombustion chamber. But this thing moved, I think it was Benz, but I am not sure. It was well over a horse per cubic inch, although somebody had to figure that out because metric figures were given.

However the world goes in two different directions at once. Engines have improved. A V6 can do what it used to take a V8 to do. Racing professionals actually do us a service researching and building and rebuilding. How did you think roller cams came into the common market ? Fuel injection, all that. You turn the key now at 0 degrees F and you have full power on tap amost immediately. Cars are alot more efficient than they used to be.

But we could do better.

T

(in reply to Rule)

Post #: 31

RE: Can't be done ? - 5/30/2008 9:18:10 PM

DomAviator

Posts: 1253
Joined: 4/22/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

IMO opinion your belief has another flaw. You described heat as waste, as a "tax" in the universe. I believe that they key to greater efficiency is to find a way to use that "waste" heat. The ecosystem does it, the universe does it. The universe may be the only perpetual motion machine that will ever exist, but we will never know.

I think the whole point is to not waste energy. If you call heat waste, you are wasting it.

Part of designing anything like this requires alot of money. First of all it says motion and there is no motion without friction except in a vacuum, with the rotating body touching nothing. And it would be rotating.

But then, if you took a perfectly balanced weighted wheel, like a gyroscope, I don't know the proper term for the part, but the round thing. Take it out of it's gimball and free of the bearings, set it to spinning in outer space. Theoretically it spins forever unless something happens to it. It would be an easy matter to make it detectable from Earth via telescope or radio telescope. Just make one side of it one color and the other another. It would never stop in any of our lifetimes.

Gyroscopes precess. Period. Once it has accumulated enough precession it is useless for its intended purpose and needs to be restarted and realigned.This is true whether it is a gyroscopic instrument in a aircraft like an Inertial Nav System or an attitude indicator, or whether it is a generator armature. Rotational motion is useless unless it is in the right plane or rotation to do usable work... To oversymplify a vertical shaft lawnmower engine wont do to much to power the horizontal shaft hydraulic pump on a log splitter. So one the gyroscope progresses beyond the limits of the power coupling - poof failure.

Second - wasted heat is in fact wasted heat if you can not do usuable work with it. To apply it to my area of expertise - aviation - there is an assload of heat removed from the turbine bleed air before it is used in cabin pressurization. Literally hundreds of thousands of BTU's BUT it cannot be applied to generation of thrust, electric power or anything useful. The closest they can do with it is duct it to critical points for deicing. On something like a bulldozer it is insanely impractical to recover every calorie of frictional heating on every bearing, the friction heating of the tracks on teh ground, the heating of the engine block and raditor hoses etc.... A million insignifigant sources of heat adding up to a substantial loss when summed up.

Nobody is REMOTELY CLOSE to 100% efficiency because the rules of physics say its not possible. Even on things like fuel cells, there is nothing even close to 100% efficiency because of the need to produce cyrogrnic liquids - LOX / Liquid Hydrogen. The supercooling of the fuels produced makes the "perfect system" FAR FAR FAR from effiecnt.

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 32

RE: Can't be done ? - 5/30/2008 9:25:31 PM

bipolarber

Posts: 2792
Joined: 9/25/2004
Status: offline

Sorry if I was being confusing in my earlier post. I wasn't saying that if this inventor had tapped into something new, it would qualify as a PMM... I was saying that if he claimed something like that, then I'd be interested. PMM's are flatly impossible in a universe that has the condition of entropy. (Which ours is, and does.) Systems break down, parts wear out, electronics get hot and degrade... the sun will eventually run out of fuel and die. The universe will either expand until it fuzzes out into nothing (the big rip) or possibly collapse back into the seething monoblock it originally exploded from. (The big crunch)

In the meantime, no, I really don't want to take a look at your PMM made from kitchen magnets, mason jars, and a rusty 50gal steel barrel, thanks... I have better things to do with my time... like spanking a certain redhead I know of, and using her mouth in interesting ways.

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 33

RE: Can't be done ? - 5/30/2008 9:27:00 PM

Plano6439

Posts: 2
Joined: 10/9/2005
Status: offline

Dear Deranged,

If you reduce the weight of a car to -nearly zero- you will still have air resisitance. Reduce the weight of a car by 75% and your gas mileage will go from 20 mpg to 21 mpg. No big deal. You certainly can get the car to go faster with a certain amount of fuel ... but that doesn't help your argument.

If you have a ten-ton vehicle and no air resisitance, heck, that car will go miles on a ounce of gasoline given a nice flat level road. Even curves shouldn't be much of a problem since turning only requires a force perpendicular to the velocity (speed and direction of motion) and therefore that force creating the turn results in no deceleration, or acceleration.

I dare say that 100% of every unit of energy produced (or should I say transformed) by any engine will end up as heat. Sooner or later you come back to your own garage, and park your car. And all that kinetic energy ends up as wind and heat in your brakes.

I think you guys are mixing up real-conditions and idealized-conditions.

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 34

RE: Can't be done ? - 5/30/2008 9:27:53 PM

NumberSix

Posts: 1378
Joined: 12/30/2006
Status: offline

I gotta agree with this.

The next largest 'efficiency' as we are using that word is to select a system of compnoents, that do the best job at the best time. So, just like it rains and your very 'efficient' digital dish goes to hell, it isnt efficient to have cable to every house, now; I understand that is a poor example, but; as we talked out here once before, there is the possibility of using plasma burners with coal, for instance.

_____________________________

"Who are you?"
"The new Number Two."
"Who is Number One?"
"You are Number Six.".
"I am not a number — I am a free man!"

Be seeing you...

(in reply to DomAviator)

Post #: 35

RE: Can't be done ? - 5/30/2008 9:39:14 PM

DomAviator

Posts: 1253
Joined: 4/22/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Plano6439

Dear Deranged,

If you reduce the weight of a car to -nearly zero- you will still have air resisitance. Reduce the weight of a car by 75% and your gas mileage will go from 20 mpg to 21 mpg. No big deal.

Let me give you an example to show you how signifigant air resistance is... and this is a test question right off the FAA Instrument rating written test...

How much effect do you think a layer of frost, not ice, just FROST with the thickness and consistency of medium grit sandpaper on the leading edge of a wing has on performance???

Just a teeny litte bit of frost on the wing leading edge???

THIRTY PERCENT REDUCTION IN LIFT AND A FOURTY PERCENT INCREASE IN DRAG...

PMM Machines are a fairy tale. Unless there is a perfect vacuum, which doesnt even exist in space, there will always be drag....

(in reply to Plano6439)

Post #: 36

RE: Can't be done ? - 5/30/2008 9:58:38 PM

NumberSix

Posts: 1378
Joined: 12/30/2006
Status: offline

There is a question of theoretical physics, and then practical physics here, and thats where the bear shits in the buckwheat.

to lower one liter of waters temp by one degree is how many Kcal or joules or BTU's?

Its fucking HUGE.........nature can do it....its got time and mass on its side, and forever....at least to us.

if we need it in some time place and space------ well; you can have power, performance and economy, (pick any two)................

do you know what fantastic power it takes to make fog in the spring and summer or to turn lakes into ice? Yes, it happens and is natural but to 'harness' that sort of power for 'efficient' ends.........

LOL, drag----------

if there wasn't drag, there would be nothing that could fly. So, drag is not a bad thing, there must be a difference in loft and (i forget the word) but we are taking advantage of it, and could (possibly) take a slice of advantage more, but then you run inot the cost benefit ratios of it. There are no big gains in that area to be had, just like the carbohydrates in corn and sugar and hydrocarbons (see how that is related carbohydrates and hydrocarbons?) and then people fuck you up and gotta eat and make ethanol as we percieve it today expensive, but garbage provides methane, and cellulose (read woody plants) can provide scads of energy, and we throw it away...... not that it provides energy in more proportion than the energy we put into it.........but it is a convienient trade.

_____________________________

"Who are you?"
"The new Number Two."
"Who is Number One?"
"You are Number Six.".
"I am not a number — I am a free man!"

Be seeing you...

(in reply to DomAviator)

Post #: 37

RE: Can't be done ? - 5/30/2008 10:01:09 PM

Plano6439

Posts: 2
Joined: 10/9/2005
Status: offline

Dear Bipolarber,

Sounds like you either haven't heard of "the dark force" (accidentally discovered a few years ago) or you have an explanation that dismisses the whole notion.

Cosmologists (or perhaps astronomers) had long concluded that we didn't have enough information to reliably predict whether the universe (as we know it) had more-than-enough kinetic eneregy to continue expanding forever (albeit a bit more slowly with each passing year) or if we had less than enough kinetic energy, and in that case, the universe's expansion would have to come to a stop someday (in the far, far future) and then reverse from expansion to contraction ... I imagine it's much like calculating escape velocity.

So 2 teams set out to measure the rate at which thousands of gallaxies recede from the milky way (our gallaxy), which took about a year. And then they took the same measurements a year later, hoping to find that the reduction in the rate of expansion was either "too big" for endless expansion, or too small to cause an eventual contraction.

The end result, of course, was totally unexpected.

The end result was so shocking that they feared public ridicule, so, rather than make any public announcement, they repeated the measurements a third year.

The measurements in the 3rd year confirmed the unexpected results.

(in reply to Plano6439)

Post #: 38

RE: Can't be done ? - 5/30/2008 10:11:06 PM

DomAviator

Posts: 1253
Joined: 4/22/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NumberSix

LOL, drag----------

if there wasn't drag, there would be nothing that could fly. So, drag is not a bad thing, there must be a difference in loft and (i forget the word) but we are taking advantage of it, and could (possibly) take a slice of advantage more, but then you run inot the cost benefit ratios of it.

Actually drag is one of the four forces of flight but it is a negative force - ie one that has to be overcome for flight to take place. Drag is the opposite of thrust and lift is the opposite of gravity. In straight and level unaccellerated flight lift = gravity and drag = thrust. Drag actually is a "bad thing" from an aircraft performance standpoint. However, drag is in no way related to lift. Lift, in heavier than air aircraft, is a result of Bernouli's equation - presure is reduced as the airflow accellerates to round the curved surface of an airfoil. That pressure differential results in a positive lifting force.... Nothing at all to do with drag... Drag is the resistance of movement through the air - ie the friction and disruption of airflow that acts opposite thrust - the forward motive force...

As for weather, all weather is the result of pressure differentials resulting from variations in solar heating on various surfaces of the earth. That is the net cause of ALL weather... Fog forms for a number of reasons, none of which require energy input it is actually energy loss as fog is a cooling process - where heat is lost and the relative humidity reaches saturation but there is an abscense of condensation nuclei to cause rain... For instance advection fog is when warm moist air masses move over a cooler surface, upslope fog forms due to adiabatic cooling as warm moist air stable air is forced up a slope and cooled, radiaton fog happens on clear nights when moist air is above flat terrain and there is a small temperature / dewpoint spread. These are energy LOSS systems not energy gain systems...

< Message edited by DomAviator -- 5/30/2008 10:18:43 PM >

(in reply to NumberSix)

Post #: 39

RE: Can't be done ? - 5/30/2008 10:43:03 PM

NumberSix

Posts: 1378
Joined: 12/30/2006
Status: offline

some of us dont fly anymore if we dont have to.

where heat is lost and the relative humidity reaches saturation but there is an abscense of condensation nuclei to cause rain... For instance advection fog is when warm moist air masses move over a cooler surface, upslope fog forms due to adiabatic cooling as warm moist air stable air is forced up a slope and cooled, radiaton fog happens on clear nights when moist air is above flat terrain and there is a small temperature / dewpoint spread. These are energy LOSS systems not energy gain systems................

exactly my point, guy..... this is perspective, it is advantageous in an air conditioning system, but fucked up shit in a furnace plenum. That is practical physics. You can pick any type of fog you want, but as in your airfoil, as in anything, where we as humans can take any sort of advantage, comes from a repeatable (and very narrow) delta between two "apparently' opposing forces.

I will maintain my original position.......plainly. If you set the most efficient airfoil (regardless of stability) on your desk.............it aint gonna do a fucking thing.........there is a unit of expelled energy, (erg, who gives a fuck?) and so if you ain't got heat, if you aint got drag if you aint got oppositon, you aint doing any work, end of fucking joke, and if you aint overcoming, you are at inertia, and there is no difference between steady motion and 'at rest' a point which we all can take some comfort in, only occurs in mind experiments (gendanken experiments). That is the point of invariants theory (relativity) and why there can NEVER be a perpetual motion machine, or anything even 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% close to one.

at some point there is a law of diminishing return.

Can we build machines of any sort more efficiently? Hell YES!!!!

Can we EVER overcome the inputs of energy greater than the outputs for 'real' work.

No, never. If we pick some number and say all our machines as a whole are 94% efficient, can we make them 98% efficient, yes-------we can, the way we will assume that is thru sinergistic effects of discrete systems over the spectrum of use. But, what is that cost?

Are we not in some better stead, to consider what energy, we toss uncaring like and take 10% or 20% of it?

0.20/.0000000000000000001 is a large sandbox to play in.
the .00000000000000000001 is some mythical number I came up with for a garbage constant (G!)

LOL!

6

_____________________________

"Who are you?"
"The new Number Two."
"Who is Number One?"
"You are Number Six.".
"I am not a number — I am a free man!"

Be seeing you...

(in reply to DomAviator)

Post #: 40

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Can't be done ?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109