Okay, lets make this clear: Perpetual motion machines do not exist...

[Endangered Specie]

one also cannot get >100% effeciency out of any motor or battery or system.
and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

discuss.


http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

[SlipperySlope]

1. thermodynamics 101 - N/T

[FogerRox]

2. E=MC2

Shovel that coal, tote that barge
Aint no task that is too large
We gotta job, aint no doubt
Dont you dare stop & pout

I gotta belief thats pure and true--
in my red, and white, and Blue---
If you wanna join my crew---
Saving democracy is what I do--

[Guaranteed]

38. IOW, energy can be created, and matter can be destroyed.

Science has a lot of exceptions, I've noticed.

[Solon]

49. Err...only at the Quantum level, that I'm aware of...

subatomic particles seem to appear in vacuum, etc. But on the macro level, all energy created is simply transformations of matter to energy, with a loss obviously, though most of our energy comes in the form of heat.

Take a log, with the right catalyst(a flame), that log is transformed from the complex organic molecules it was made of to carbon, with a great deal of waste heat thrown off by it. However, calculating the amount of Calories that were produced by the flaming log will never equal what converting ALL its mass to energy would equal, never at 100%.

[VTMechEngr]

95. Eh, ditch the Calories. Stick with joules.

Join those of us on the science side ;-)

[Solon]

148. Heh...trying to keep it simple...

You know, a Calorie(capital C) is how much energy it takes to raise one kg of water one degree celsius at one atmosphere. Or something like that, did I say it was simple? :)

[libertypirate]

142. subatomic particles seem to appear in vacuum = EM photons

[Endangered Specie]

64. Not so...

E=mc^2 equation states that matter and energy are essentially the same thing (E "is proportional to" m,c^2 is merely a constant)... the conservation of mass and conservation of energy are more formally called the "conservation of mass-energy". Though since the topics dealing with the two require several different chapters, for convience, they get split up.

Nuclear fission 'converts' about .07% (I think) of mass into energy... the same amount of mass-energy that 'enters' = that which 'leaves'.

Nothing is being destroyed or created.

[Guaranteed]

82. Ahhh...so the sum of matter and energy can't be augmented.

That's different, though.

[JHBowden]

71. Wrong.

Energy is **always** conserved. QM is no exception.

[Guaranteed]

83. Not when mass is converted to energy.

Unless you're already calling mass "energy," of course. But we're not, here.

[VTMechEngr]

94. Energy cannot be created or destroyed! Period

But it can change form! In a closed system, you get more energy and loose mass. It is a balance. That is Thermodynamics 101.

Take gasoline. Liquid. Add a small bit of energy to the system (spark), Chemical reaction uses up gasoline and produces water and CO2. If you look at the products, the contained energy in the bonds is not the same. Where did the energy go? Heat. Changed form.

Fission, loose some mass, break apart atoms. Often called a "Fission Reaction." Technically, E=MC2 means that mass is a form of energy.

[julianer]

102. If C is really a variable

doesn't that mean that E=MC2 can also give variable results?

Is there a possibility of altering C in relation to a particular mass and thereby altering the energy output?

Or is E=MC2 invalid at different light speeds?

[Vladimir]

104. "c" is a constant

because it refers specifically to the speed of light *in a vacuum*, not anywhere else. The speed of light is variable between different media, but in a vacuum it is a constant.

[aeolian]

114. Tantalizing new evidence suggests that c, and the other fundamental

constants, are in fact, changing. By parts-per-million over billions of years.

[Vladimir]

116. This is a possibility, yes

but for all practical purposes they are constant. You are right though that there is some research going on into possible "evolutionary" models...

[ProfessorGAC]

157. However, The Quantum State Changes In A Reaction. . .

. . .take place in seconds, microseconds, picoseconds, or less. So, for those moments the relativistic theory indicates it's still a constant for that instant of the reaction, whether chemical, nucleothermal or quantum.

I read that piece in Science about the changing state of 'c', too! Interesting indeed. But, the rate of change is so slow as to be irrelevant to the state of change in a chemical or nuclear system in the short run.

Good catch, btw.
The Professor

[aeolian]

115. But in this context, no, "c" is a constant.

[Kraklen]

3. Yeah, we know that.

See the thread from earlier today.

[ananda]

4. Is this..

.. a Kansas joke?

They're about to vote on Creationism there.

Maybe there oughta be a song called Back to the Dark Ages.

Sue

[Endangered Specie]

8. i wish it was...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3919632

[SnoopDog]

5. I hate being told something can't be done...

Even if it is 'physical' laws...

Maybe we just have not discovered the a new 'law' yet... You never know...

[longship]

33. Not.

It's a matter of *everything* in the universe pointing in a particular direction and somebody comes along and says that it ain't so. For that somebody to be right we'd have to be wrong about *everything* we've learned about the universe.

Thermodynamics and statistical mechanics are very well understood principles, and have been for a whole century. This is undergraduate stuff. The problem with saying maybe there's a new undiscovered law is that the new law (reversing 100 years of theory and research in stat. mech) would reverse much of what we know and have validated about the universe. We see a universe governed by the very rules which would have to be set aside if stat. mech. didn't hold true.

[SnoopDog]

37. Well... thats like saying everything that could ever be invented ...

has already taken place.

They use to think the world was flat.
They never thought we could go to the moon.

Regardless of '100 years of knowledge and understanding', I am just saying it is naive to think that something cannot be done. Or 'no new laws could never be discovered'.

You never know what could happen in 500 years - that assumes we survive of course.

Please don't burn me at the stake for not accepting an unwavering 'norm'!

[longship]

39. I never said anything about inventions.

Please understand how science works.

The whole body of science is an interwoven tapestry of interlocking principles all of which are interdependent. One cannot merely remove one principle (e.g., statistical mechanics--the body of theory that gives rise to thermodynamics) without having profound changes in the rest.

We can conceptualize what the universe would be like if thermodynamics principles didn't hold true. It would be a far, far different place than what we see. In fact, there probably could not be life in such a place. You see, thermodynamics provides the asymmetry of the arrow of time in our universe. We just don't see a universe where the the time dimension is symmetric. We wouldn't be here if it was.

Yet this same principle is the one which says that perpetual motion machines can't work (and a bunch of other stuff).

On edit: Science is growing in two areas, at the leaves of the tree and in finding uniting principles which would enable us to merge different branches of the tree. There's plenty of work to do, especially in the uniting of quantum mechanics and gravitation. That would tell us a lot more about how the universe works. So there's plenty more inventions coming just as there's more theories coming. But just as Einstein's theory of gravity did not falsify Newton's we don't expect a new thermodynamic theory to falsify principles of Gibbs and Boltzmann.

[SnoopDog]

44. My analogy was with "inventions".

I am sorry my friend, but I feel that what you are saying is that 'everything that we could possibly ever know about physics - has already been discovered and there could no way be any changes to these premise".

I am saying, and history proves me right, that we have nothing but time (if we survive) to LEARN more and different laws and phenominae...and to change our thinking and reasoning and to explain our existence and natural occurrences.

Just because a new law (someday in the future) may screw up 'hundreds of years of the "way it is"' - thats just ok with me.

It reminds me of how these repuks want to stick with 'god' creating the universe instead of using science to, at least, explain progression.

What a concept... progression...knowledge...thinking...forward thinking...persistance...inspiration.....

[longship]

45. Sorry, bud.

I chose my words very carefully. But you insist on misinterpreting them. One cannot have an intelligent argument with somebody who just wants to quibble about rhetoric.

There is no perpetual motion machines. There never will be any perpetual motion machines because there is always energy lost.

*Always*

I'm done. Now please educate yourself about what thermodynamics means within the framework of the universe.

[SnoopDog]

47. I'm done to...sorry for 'flat earth society' mentality...

Just for the record, all I was saying is that we live in our current existence that has defined our knowledge, and, specifically, that we have nothing but time to learn more about nature.

It would appear you are an absolutist and I am more of a thinker you thinks beyond the 'norm' and welcome the possibility that we as earthlings may and will learn new things that could/would change everything.

My point of reference is past history. Hundreds of years ago, their life's were bound by their current knowledge levels. Then, they learned more and things changed.

Anyway, I agree, I am done to... I prefer to look into the future than stay in the present.

[DS9Voy]

55. You obviously have not been educated on sub space theory

I can also point to recent experiments that successfully altered the speed of light. A few years ago no doubt you and many others would have claimed that not to be possible.

Truly there are few (if any) laws in science. Only theories waiting to be changed and reformed over time with new knowledge.

[Endangered Specie]

57. by all means...

'point them out'

[DS9Voy]

67. Sure thing

It helps to actually pay attention to what's going on in the scientific community if you want to lecture others. This isn't exactly new news, and I don't appreciate the snide tone for doing your homework for you when making you aware of this information.

Regarding speed of light being accelerated (light actually left chamber BEFORE it even entered) at Princeton: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/07/19/tech/main216905.shtml

Regarding speed of light being slowed to a few MPH and actually being STOPPED at Harvard University: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3308109.stm

[Endangered Specie]

69. I thought you meant...

when you said "change" I was thinking you meant changing the actual value of "c".

weve known for some time that light travels at different speeds other than c (like when it travels through water). But the actual value of c, the 'max' speed of light in a vacuum. it quite constant.

[DS9Voy]

72. Nice try to devalue the accomplishment of these physicists

but if you had even the most basic understanding of physics you would realize that even 15 years ago many would have told you accelerating light beyond it's base speed to be impossible, and many would have told you stopping it all together was as well. Fortunately these scientists have already been recognized in the community for the work they have done even though you'd like to pass it off as something that had been done before.

Furthermore, although the first experiment did not utilize a vacuum results were still achieved that had not been before. Likewise, the Princeton experiment was done using significantly different means than Harvard to also accomplish something that had not been done before.

You have not exactly defined what "c" is. I'm assuming you have defined it as the base speed of light. Fortunately thanks to this work "c" can now be a variable. :-)

There has also recently been new work on accelerating matter to and above light speed. Although it is very preliminary at this point.

Anyway - This doesn't even touch on sub space theory, but if the theory of sub space is correct it blows the claims in your entire original post out of the water. Of course we'll have to wait for future experiments to know for sure.

[Endangered Specie]

73. Sub space...

sounds like something out of star trek. thats a big "IF", and until its proven, which would take quite alot, the current theories stand. And Id love to see this "new work" on making things go faster than light...

I like star trek as much as the next guy, but dont let it get in your head too much.

and by the way, c is a constant.

[DS9Voy]

74. c is not a constant

Look I understand you just now are being made aware of the work at princeton and harvard. Obviously the information presented by CBS and BBC is very simple and not detailed... so perhaps that's why you are not grasping the significance of this work.

Much more detail of this work has been published in papers. I would suggest you obtain a copy of them so you can bring your self up to date with current understandings.

And yes, sub space is indeed mentioned in star trek... however only because they've borrowed the terminology from physicists. Black holes are also mentioned. That does not mean they don't exist. Even Hawking has spoken on the subject of sub space. Perhaps you are more qualified than he is? How many degrees in physics do you have and if any from where?

I find your closed mindedness to theories and new information to be pretty bizarre. It's almost on a creationist level.

[smartvoter]

75. This is correct. It was a huge deal when they proved it can vary. nt

[Endangered Specie]

77. next time, try not to resort to ad hominem attacks.

Ive known about these experiments for some time, I try to read the BBC somewhat regularly. (not that I really need to explain these things to you).

if your going to accuse me of being an idiot, Id like to know what makes you a qualified officianato on the subject?

I still maintain that c is a constant. as an analogy can say my car has a 'maximum speed' of 100mph, that doesnt mean I cant go slower or stop, but that doesnt change the maximum speed, constant c.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
If youre going to stand here and keep refuting this somewhat basic scientific principle, well... if you change c, then your changing other constants of the universe as well. namely the constant c^2 (in E=mc^2), the permiability and permiativity of space too. Quite an interesting feat.

and you still havent shown me the 'real life' work on subspace, cmon, educate me :eyes:

[DS9Voy]

80. I did not accuse you of being an idiot

but I find you very presumptuous to discredit harvard and princeton physicists.

"but that doesnt change the maximum speed, constant c.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light "

<sigh> Wikipedia huh? An online collection of information ANYONE can write is clearly superior to the current new papers of harvard and princeton physicists isn't it? Perhaps this is why your info is so out of date.

"Id like to know what makes you a qualified officianato on the subject?"

*I* am not making claims. YOU are. The information *I* am bringing is from scientists that been recognized in the scientific community and have years of study and work to show for it. I cite papers, physicists, and hawking and you cite wikipedia.

I spent 15 minutes searching for those articles for you only to have you discredit the work of those harvard and princeton physicists. I'm not going to spend anymore time doing research for you. I'm not your personal librarian. I've already directed you to papers from harvard and princeton, and I've made you aware of lectures from hawking on sub space theory - two of which I personally attended. Go read them and you'll have your information.

If you want me to take more of my time (and money to obtain the papers) for you I will be happy to do so if you pay me a research fee. Starts at $50/hour. Otherwise do your own research with some of the sources you have already been given. That's half the work right there.

[Endangered Specie]

84. Im sorry if I dont just up and buy what these new expirements say

youll note these are all relatively new, are they peer reviewed? have the experiments been replicated and similiar results obtained?... I can recall numerous scientific "breakthroughs" that had to be recalled shortly thereafter (cold fusion, super heavy elements 114,116,118 etc...). Some of them serve as quite an embarrasment to the science community on occasion, because people jumped on the bandwagon prematurly.

and if were going to pick at sources, cbs and the bbc arent exactly science journals either. Id have to say they sound a little bit sensationalized. (I certainly hope you arent going on these alone, as I dont go on wiki alone, i quoted it as a matter of quick convience, there are an inordiante number of text books which will say about the same thing)

Incidentally, you are making claims (sub space theory), the burden of proof is not on me.


I will always be skeptical of the "newest and breaking" theories in science, they have a long LONG path before becoming "established" science. Until then I plan to stick with the established stuff rather than the fringe stuff. The burden is on the fringes to elevate themselves to a more worthy status, and that burden is no small hurdle.

[DS9Voy]

86. Fortunately

we don't all stick with the "established stuff" or we would still be talking about what a great flat earth we live on.

The people with skill are on the bleeding edge, and are advancing the scientific community. The people who only do the "established stuff" are found in your community college and high school physics classes.

I truly don't understand your anti-science attitude when you started this by lecturing. Apparently the work of Harvard and Princeton physicists is "fringe stuff" we shouldn't even consider because it's "fringe"? Ok sure whatever you say. After this post I see we are not going to get anywhere.

I'm sorry you have such a closed mind to anything new, or anything you may not understand. Though I suppose it's your choice to make.

[Endangered Specie]

88. I may be a lot of things...

but Im not "anti-science", I resent that statement. I love science. Whats anti-science is not considering the immense weight with which established theories rightfully carry.

There is the possibility that some of the 'new' science will become established science in their own time... I leave it to the top of the line who are far more qualified sort that out first.

In the mean time, I will always keep a skeptical (but not closed) mind of 'new' things, mainly due to a rather high failure rate of them. Theories that are of merit do make their way through that rigourous process of moving from fringe to established.

To contrast you, if all we ever did were accept the newest idea with very little evidence, and give no consideration to what we knew to be the best explination so far we wouldnt have gotten anywhere either!

By the way, other people who do the "established" stuff are 4-year undergraduate colleges science and especially engineering courses.

[Vladimir]

105. You may wish to check my post below

good thread btw., and you are of course right about perpetual motion and 100% efficiency.

[AngryAmish]

81. This is somewhat childish

C is C. C is an agreed upon constant that is useful for our math. However, it has yet to be pr oven (and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof) that there is anything faster than C. And in information theory (again it is a theory) but it is still impossible to move information faster than C.

[Kraklen]

124. "subspace" is a mathematical term, not a physical one.

Elementary linear algebra.

If I took a typical phrase from Star Trek:

"Subspace emitters are down 40%, Captain. I'm rerouting power through the main subspace conduit."

And replaced "subspace" with another mathematical term:

"Polynomial equation emitters are down 40%, Captain. I'm rerouting power through the main polynomial equation conduit."

Same thing.

Please don't think what they say on Star Trek has anything to do with science. I know they say they have a science advisor on hand to make sure everything's fine. But it's nonsense. It's bad science, and IMHO bad fiction.

The same thing goes with CBS and BBC. They're good journalists, but journalists and their editors know nothing about science. Science in the modern media is ridiculously bad. Scientific findings are routinely misinterpreted and obfuscated by people who just don't know any better. If you want to stay up to date with science news, try the news sections of the journals Nature and Science.

C is a constant. If you shine it through something with a refractive index, such as water or glass, it appears to slow down. But it doesn't really slow down. Consider droping a ball and dropping a ball through a Pachinko game. Both the balls are travelling at the same speeds, but the Pachinko ball takes longer to get to the bottom because it takes a longer path, bouncing around the various pegs. Same thing with glass or water, the atoms representing various pegs.

Bose-Einstein conduits are the essentially the same thing. They've got a tremendous reflective index, so they've got lots of really big pegs, and light can appear to slow to ridiculously speeds.

[Vladimir]

103. There are some subtelties here

The "constant" in this matter is the speed of light *in a vacuum*, which is equal to roughly 3x10^8 m/s and is in fact a constant. In both these cases, the issue is one of the speed of light in a medium, which has always been known to be variable. To deal with the second experiment, it is certainly an interesting piece of work, but people ought to note that they have created a standing wave of light, not stopped the photons themselves.

As for the first experiment, it is much more interesting. The problem with things travelling faster than light in a vacuum is that you end up with an imaginary factor in the equations governing the transformation of coordinates between the frame of the observer and the frame of the thing travelling. On the other hand, it has been known for a long time that the phase velocity of waves can exceed c, and indeed in some cases the group velocity too. You will wish to read this, and follow up the references, because he explains it much better than I have the time to do:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_3_25/ai_74523975

PS In case you are wondering, yes I am a physicist, and yes these things are immensely interesting. But they need to be understood for what they are - which is funky enough.

[Endangered Specie]

119. Thanks for your input....

:hi:


I had read an analogy that the way 'phase velocity' waves exceed c is similiar to a bunch of people getting in a very long line and all making the same noise at the exact same time (thus breaking the speed of sound).

I, of course, have no way of validating that, but its seems like a good way of doing it :shrug:

[T Town Jake]

85. I haven't been educated on sub space theory, but my friend...

...Chewie gave me a grunting overview of Hyperspace before he left orbit to join this spice smuggler who was on the run from this tubby sack of suet named Jabba...

Does that count?

:eyes::tinfoilhat:

[Endangered Specie]

89. could someone explain the difference between hyperspace

and sub space, I never quite got that... though Im well immersed in Internal Dampners and Heisnberg compensators

:sarcasm: :)

edit: oh and am I not the only one who doesnt just blindly buy string theory just yet?

[T Town Jake]

100. Well, according to my furry friend the difference comes down to a worm...

...drink the whole bottle of Tequila, and you're in "Hyperspace"; consume the included worm on top of that, and you'll soon be in "subspace," which is why they call that particular phenomena "falling into a wormhole." Remember when that happened to Captain Kirk & his intrepid Crew on the Enterprise in "Star Trek: The Motion Picture"? I'm given to understand that the physical effects are quite similar to that event - except instead of firing a photon torpedo to save the day, everyone just passes out...

:sarcasm: :evilgrin:

Seriously, regarding "string theory" I honestly don't know. The limit of my Calculus (if you'll pardon the obvious mathematical pun) usage has always been practical and immediately related to the task at hand, not theoretical. But I watched a PBS documentary a few months back with my son - who aspires to be an engineer once he gets out of high school - that discussed "string theory" in some depth.

To the extent I grasped what was being presented, I thought it a theory in search of further data, which, scientifically, is never very reassuring. But I honestly don't know enough to speak with any sort of authority to it. :shrug:

[Vladimir]

111. As for string theory

the real problem is that there is no way to systematically test it just now, and by "it" I mean the couple of dozen different flavours of string theory doing the rounds. Where it diverges from the current theories of the world around us, which are pretty accurate in 99% of the cases lets remember, it does so in ways which do not lend themselves to easy experimenting. Everyone knows that the Standard Model is broken, and that something is going to be needed to reconcile general relativity and QM, but whether string theory (or what kind of string theory) is the answer remains to be seen.

[Endangered Specie]

120. Ah, that explains why

Ive heard various values of the number of dimensions in string theory (anywhere from 9 to 20something). Too bad the Standard model is 'broken', I like it hanging on my wall :)

[longship]

99. Sorry, bud.

I graduated with honors in physics, so I *do* know what I'm talking about.

[libertypirate]

150. Have you seen this

http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cnr/cnrexp1.htm

[Vladimir]

155. You may wish to see this

http://www.csonline.net/bpaddock/scalar/50087/default.htm

"First lets cover what we are not talking about here. It is important to realize that negative resistance is not a gain in energy, but a special case where Ohms Law seems to be violated."

on edit: or indeed, see below

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

"It may be more correct to say that a circuit element has a negative differential resistance region than to say that it exhibits negative resistance because even in this region the static resistance of the circuit element is positive, while it is more precisely the slope of the resistance curve which is negative.

Some work by Professor Deborah Chung at the University of Buffalo has discovered a composite configuration of carbon nanotubes which appears to exhibit anomalous results which resemble a static negative resistor. However, the physical interpretation of this observation is still controversial."

[libertypirate]

160. It is not a gain in energy absolutely, but it does reduce the loss

significantly....

Then I found this...

A common battery can do the same thing...

http://www.keelynet.com/bedmot/bedmot.htm

[Vladimir]

166. So do superconductors

and substances exibiting superfluidity... and this has been known for a while.

From the original paper:

"Although the negative resistance reported here is apparent
rather than true, its mechanism resembles that of true
negative resistance (which actually does not occur due to
energetics) in that the electrons flow in the unexpected
direction relative to the applied current/voltage. Although
electrons flowing one way in a part of a circuit and another
way in another part of a circuit is common, the occurrence
of backflow and forward flow of electrons in the same piece
of material such that the backflow and forward flow can be
distinctly and reproducibly detected and be controlled
makes the apparent negative resistance phenomenon technologically
attractive. Moreover, the relative amounts of
these flows can be tailored through composite design (e.g.
the number of laminae) and fabrication (e.g. the curing
pressure). This adds versatility to the design of structural
electronics as well as conventional electronics that use the
apparent negative resistance device as a circuit element."

I can't link to this, as the journal is only available to subscribers I'm afraid...

[libertypirate]

169. I know but what I find most amazing is that we have been

capable of this for some time. Most people would say that the results are impossible.

[patricia92243]

6. What about the two balls on a string that hit each other and causes them t

to go back and forth forever?

[htuttle]

9. Nothing is forever

Except diamonds.

[Endangered Specie]

11. no such thing has ever been devised...

the height the balls obtain on easch swing gradually decreases and they eventually stop (unless you restart them, of course)

[bennywhale]

17. Ok pay someone to continually restart them. About a dollar a day in

Burma or somewhere.

[Endangered Specie]

19. youll run out of dollars

;)

[patricia92243]

20. Well, shoot! Now I'm really disillusioned. :)

[Idylle Moon Dancer]

35. if you watch them long enough

you notice the distance travelled slowly decreases.

[htuttle]

7. As long as we're quoting rules...

Here's some paraphrases and illustrations:

- Anytime you transform energy from one state to another, you lose part of it.

- You lose energy through heat in almost every system using any type of energy.

- Anytime you transmit electrical energy from one point to another, you lose some. There is no perfect conductor.

[Endangered Specie]

12. sounds good

[KittyWampus]

14. When I Transform Mental Energy Into A Physical Object, What Is Lost?

think art.

In fact, if it's a collage... the sum is actually greater than the seperate parts...

[htuttle]

21. Do you eat? Do you breathe?

What was the paint or collage material made from?

The value added by art is not energy, but meaning.

[KittyWampus]

32. Thanks For Your Great Reply. But How Is Meaning Not A Form Of Potential

mental energy?

Isn't mental energy limitless in scope?

What about the millions I make selling it (well, I can dream)?

I am just trying to construct a friendly, philosophical/scientific argument here... will have to sleep on it :)

Wish Pepperbelly was here... he's better read than me.

[Endangered Specie]

34. "meaning" is just a complex

chemical reaction... whereby we are "pleased" (certain reactions in the brain) by somethings and "not pleased"(other reactions in the brain) by others. ;)

[Kraklen]

40. You mean "meaning" in an artistic sense?

A Michealangelo sculpture has no more "meaning potential energy" than a Pollock drip painting or a series of random drips.

[KittyWampus]

46. Symbols Have Meanings On A Subconscious Level.

If you use an eagle in artwork, our subconscious will be able to unlock-release the meaning that resides within.

Sorry I can't provide a better response.

[punpirate]

24. How many calories did you burn...

... thinkin' it up?

[sweetheart]

10. The same is true of social perpetual motion machines like constitutions

Societies degenerate unless they are renewed at the core.
Broken checks and balances cannot be fixed without re-editing
the system.

The second law of thermodynamics applies to postmodern social systems
as well.... constitutions are like batteries... they die.

[K-W]

43. Capitalism is more of a perpetual motion machine

It requires growth to continue to compel owners of capital to reinvest it in labor. But there are constraints to growth, some that cannot be avoided, some, like the enviroment, civil rights, and democracy can be destroyed.

If there was no more growth to be had, the investor class would sit on thier capital and the long treck back to feudalism would be complete, but perpetual growth is just as impossible as perpetual motion.

[sweetheart]

98. Yes, "pepetual growth economics" is a better analogy

An entire culture bent on exploitation of labour, then kapital/labour
and finally back to labour is like that spinning wheel, rotated by
6 billion hamsters for caesar, le borgeious, stalin, and mugabe-bush.

[mr_hat]

13. Oh yeah? What about *almost* perpetual motion? >

You can't say that wouldn't be fairly useful. And it doesn't have to be a bird that does the dipping, either.

[Endangered Specie]

16. I assume by "almost perpetual"

you mean a "finite" machine, which then really is not even close to *perpetual*?

[mopaul]

15. kkkondi rice's lyin' mouth

[Jacobin]

18. Another thing that is true that I find amazing

It is impossible to compress water in its liquid form.

You can compress any other chemical combination including steel, diamonds, anything, but not water.

That is quite bizarre, imho

[Kraklen]

22. Not sure where you got that from.

Take a given volume of water, take it to the depths of an oceanic trench, it will compress about 2%.

[Endangered Specie]

23. are you sure about that?

water is, like all the substances you listed very HARD to compress, but that doesnt mean it cant be:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae15.cfm

[Jacobin]

131. Doh.

I should google before I post. Heard that from a source I trusted a long time ago, but it appears that yes, while it is very difficult to compress, liquid water can in fact be compressed.

Thank you for pointing out my error and not rubbing my nose in my carelessness.

:-)

peace

[htuttle]

25. The really bizarre thing about water

The solid form is LESS dense than the liquid form. That's why ice floats.

I'm not sure we've ever seen another substance with that quality.

[Kraklen]

26. Yeah, there are other substances like that.

As far as I know, only man-made alloys used for molding purposes.

[Endangered Specie]

27. in other words, it might be the only "naturally occuring" substance

to have the property

[Kraklen]

29. That we've found to date.

It is a pretty interesting feature of water.

People like to claim that's proof of an anthropogenic universe, and the existence of God.

Bullshit, naturally.

[Endangered Specie]

31. people have used 10 month old toast and a water stain on a freeway

bridge to try and prove the existance of God...

bullshit is a perpetual motion machine ;)

[Vladimir]

106. Gallium also

although I don't know if it occurs naturally in liquid form. And some other things too...

[Egalitariat]

36. You're right. Can you imagine the environmental devastation

that would occur if ponds, lakes, rivers, and oceans froze from the bottom up (instead of vice versa)?

Worldwide oxygen production would be obliterated during one winter and the human (and all other oxygen-breathing) species and all photosynthetic species (which depend on CO2 created by the oxygen-breathing species) would disapear in a single year.

The universe is amazing!

[Kraklen]

41. Nonsense.

Very little of the worlds oxygen supply freezes in winter.

[NuttyFluffers]

93. i think they are thinking like this...

oceans are where most of the O2 is made due to algae on ocean surface. so when winter comes, a lot of algae would die. so far, that's what i'm getting from the post. might be wrong about it though.

...but earth has winter 1/2 in one area, then 1/2 in another, so all algae wouldn't be wiped out so rapidly. weather dynamics would be extremely fucked up, though. also ecosystems would be massively disrupted. life would definitely not be what we're used to now. and we could easily say civilization would collapse, humanity would decline in population drastically. one or two years of huge losses in 02 production from the oceans, and lack of CO2 absorption from the oceans would definitely screw things up. there might be a marked decrease in world atmospheric 02, but it'd take some time before we couldn't walk outside without gasping for lack of oxygen.

but then, i wouldn't be surprised if life finds a way to exploit even that. life's a stubborn bugger, always trying to find a way to survive. but then, you can also plop me down in the camp that firmly believes that life exists outside of earth somewhere in the universe. a few bacterium set loose in the universe definitely will find *some way* to survive, i have high faith in their stubbornness to survive. eventually natural processes would take over and some strange ecological cycle will start up.

[Kraklen]

125. No, I don't think that's what they're getting at.

It sounds like a Intelligent Design argument from a few years back. Only changed around a bit so many of the details have changed. Sort of like that "telephone" game played in Kindergarten,

The argument held that in small lakes and ponds in the winter, the ice would form at the bottom, choking bottom dealing plants. Since these plants produce the dissolved oxygen needed for fish in lakes and ponds to breathe, then the fish couldn't live if ice were denser than water. And since humans evolved from fish, then humans wouldn't be here if it ice was denser than water. Therefore, there was an Intelligent Designer who planned the whole thing. God made ice less dense than water.

I hope I don't have to point the many ridiculous flaws in that argument.

[aeolian]

66. What?

:wtf:

[aeolian]

65. not quite true

changing its temperature will cause water to expand/contract, and increasing pressure will slightly compress water.

C'mon, "anything excpept water?"

[Jacobin]

134. I forked up

Yes, liquid water can be compressed, but it takes an enormous amount of energy. Some kind poster above cites a link.

I was rong.....:-(

[VTMechEngr]

96. It actually can be compressed.

But it takes a lot of energy. So when soccer mom laura decides to u-boat commander her minivan in the flooded street, her puny steel pistons and rods are no match for water.

[jokerman93]

28. Also...(FYI)

The Vulcan High Command has determined that time travel is impossible.

B-)

[Endangered Specie]

30. lol

[sendero]

42. It would be a great thing..

... if all Americans understood energy and technology a bit more.

People talk about solar power as if you could actually run a modern home with typical modern conveniences from it. You could, but the system would cost at least $100K and would be physically huge.

We are going to be facing a real, permanent energy crisis in the somewhat near future. Folks are going to have to learn how to conserve energy, there is going to be no other choice.

[alpha_sion]

48. One word....

"Magnets"

Although you may not be able to power a house or possibly anything with magnets. You can create a perpetual motion machine with them. A machine that has no outside force assisting with the movement other than the machine (magnets) itself.

Prove me wrong momma! :-)

[Solon]

50. Magnetism degrades over time...

granted, it takes a long time for magnetite to lose the force, hundreds of years for most magnets, but it is a basic force of the universe, along with three others(strong force, weak force, and gravity) and therefore follows the law of entropy.

[alpha_sion]

51. Hmmmm...

I've never met an unattractive magnet.

[alpha_sion]

52. What about?

What about an electromagnet that is recharged by it's own force?

I know, I know..."the force it takes to turn the magnet doesn't produce enough energy to power blah blah blah..."


Shirley it can be done!

[Solon]

54. Nope, you forget a couple of things...

An electro-magnet uses copper wire and an iron core, copper wire has resistance in it, giving off as a small amount of heat, not used to make the iron magnetic, in other words, wasted. This reduces the efficency of the electro-magnet tremendiously, having to put much more energy into the system, than the amount of magnetism will be produced. Even a super conductor used instead of copper will still have resistance in it, though only a small amount(difference between let's say 60% efficiency and maybe 98% efficiency).

[Endangered Specie]

60. sorry, it just can't...

:(

[Endangered Specie]

59. Perpetual motion machines are impossible because

of the 1 and 2 law of thermodynamics


you have been proven wrong.

And from the sound of it I doubt you know that much about magnets/magnetism... mainly because they (and electromagnets) are present in every electric motor, your computer, tv, etc... Do you know what causes a magnetic force?

[alpha_sion]

159. I'm not sure...

I'm not sure what "magnets being in my computer, tv, etc"...has to do with the conversation at hand. However, I do know that there is a very simple way to make a "machine" using magnets that will move using only it's own force and nothing more. That to me is a "perpetual motion" machine. Therefore, You say "Nay!, surely it can't be!" And I responded with a simple way that it can. If you can live long enough (that is outlive the magnets force) to prove me wrong, Please do so. If you can't then you stating that the magnets will eventually lose force etc... is a moot point.

BTW....You are quite the smart ass....I like it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

194. It's the word "perpetual"

that means it has to go on moving forever - not just a long time; and with no loss of energy from its components. Any moving machine will lose energy due to friction, and the energy stored in the magnet will be (measurably) less.

[sendero]

108. While I try hard ..

.... to not be constrained by "conventional wisdom", which I generally find to not necessarily be that wise :) - I'm not ready to toss out the basic laws of physics, which I intuitively believe in.

[SnoopDog]

61. There are many many homes that run on Solar right now...and,

it does not cost $100k. Not sure where you are getting your info...

There is a Animal Conservancy that runs everything on Solar and it cost about $50k - normal house and animal environments.

Besides, what exactly does $100K mean? 'Money' is a human concept. What would you do you? Select continued life or $100k so you could buy a car (or two)?

[sendero]

107. Thanks for making my point...

... yes there are homes, but note I said "with typical modern conveniences".

A house with central electric heat/AC, electric clothes dryer, maybe even electric range/over will not run on a 30K solar electric system. In fact, $100K is probably low.

Sure, if you convert everything you can to gas, and eschew the real energy-guzzling appliances, you can run off of solar. That's not the point.

[SnoopDog]

110. Actually, I countered your $100k point - it cost less...

These houses have all the 'modern conveniences'.

The power companies go out of there way to say 'oh it costs so much' and it does in a sense. $30-40k is alot of money to implement a solar system. But, if all homes had it, the price would fall tremendously.

[sendero]

113. $100K is an overestimate...

.. for sure, but $30-$40K is contingent on making changes around your house (for most people).

Nobody recommends running high-current devices like dryers and ranges off of a solar system - it can be made to work but it will be hell on your batteries, which are about 30% of the cost of a system.

Folks act like you put up a solar system and you never pay for electric again - again, wrong. Batteries wear out and they can be made to last for 10 years by carefully not over-discharging them, but they will eventually die.

To take a typical suburban house and make it 100% solar is not a simple matter of slapping up some panels and disconnecting from the grid. It costs a lot of money, takes careful management, and sets you up with a system you will have to maintain.

I am not against solar power, far from it. I intend to be off the grid in about 8 years (when I move to my country place). My beef is with folks who don't know jack about technology talking about pie in the sky solutions to problems that will not be easily solved (the coming energy crisis).

[SnoopDog]

117. One of my ideas and of course others thought of it before me...

is to place solar cells on EVERY ROOF TOP in America - at least in CA, NV, AZ, NM, etc. These states have tremendous solar days.

This will 'feed the grid'. Is it easy? - no fucking way, because of the cost, the power companies fighting against it (so they can burn coal to run their generators, to pollute and kill our earth - so they can make money), and the mind set of America. Our so-called leaders in Washington want to continue to contaminate our entire earth so corporations can make money.

It would have to be a national effort. Eventually, when Washington is filled with intelligent, progressive, honest leaders, they will enact the USA Solar Initiative - because they will have to. Our country and our planet is in deep peril with energy and pollution problems.

Lets think a minute about the $40k for solar in a different light (that was a pun! too). Question: How many CARS have you bought in your lifetime? How much did they cost? What did you get in return? I guess I have bought 5 cars in my life (that might be very low for some people) and have spent, oh, I don't know, $80k maybe more. But every once in a while we all buy a 'new car'. Well, how about this mind set: You buy a solar system for $40k (go on grid to 'run the meter backwards) - get a 'car loan' for the solar system. Well, you get virtually free energy for life. That's 'for life' (minus repairs and maintenance - know anything that doesn't need up keep?).

So, fuck the power companies. Put solar cells on our roof tops. Clean up our environment. Create new industries and enhance the existing solar industry. Breathe cleaner air. Have more fresh water. Reduce doctors office visits for being healthier.

If your 'beef' is with people not having your knowledge levels - educate them with truth and facts.

My motivation is to have a cleaner environment with energy on 'auto-pilot'. And fuck the nuclear and coal power companies. They don't care that they are destroying EVERYTHING. We need to raise our collective foot, and stomp on them.

[sendero]

121. Well...

... I won't put you in that category. :) But, seriously, look at the American mindset. American's are in it for the short haul, the corporate CEOs, the average Joe.

How many people do you know that could come up with $30K to to that? Out of that number, how many do you know who would?

Hey, I'm with you on the power companies, they are just doing what all companies do, trying to create a monopoly demand for their products.

On the other hand, there are power companies who welcome this sort of idea. Why? Because in the hotter states, peak electric load comes from the heat of the day A/C use (when sun generation also peaks) - and these high peak loads require generation capacity which is expensive to build, especially when it sits idle all night because A/C is not needed as much then.

Another point I would make is that a standalone (no grid tie at all) system is substantially more expensive than the grid-tie (sell-back) system you speak of, because the need for storage batteries is much much less.

As a country, we are going to have to get serious about alternative power systems in the coming years. We dodged the bullet in 1973, this time I don't think we can.

[libertypirate]

184. Take a look at the lack of energy loss in this

http://www.keelynet.com/bedmot/bedmot.htm

[muriel_volestrangler]

190. Where was the Science Fair?

Who can we get in touch with, to ask why they awarded the prize?

[libertypirate]

199. Don't know....

I have seen this project replicated on other websites...

It was awarded because under it's operating conditions it only should have lasted 4-5 hours... It lasted 120hours that is quite a bit of difference.

[muriel_volestrangler]

202. But whose word have we for that?

The site that you linked - and that's all. The video clip just says it was 'an experimental electric motor' - nothing about it lasting a specially long time. The place sounds like 'Coeur d'Alene' (there's one in Idaho, and it could be the writing on one of the ribbons), and the girl's name something like "Shawnee Borman". Note also that the project has a sign "Spin Wheel to Start". That doesn't sound much like something that kept going during the entire science fair.

If this had actually shown remarkable results, why didn't the science teacher follow this up? It's been 5 years - I'd have expected something to have been made of this by now, beyond a web page and a few others referring to it.

[libertypirate]

203. Does science require the credibility of the scientist or the actual

science...

We are such a jaded culture, it has been replicated many times.

Why do you think it is in a girls science project to begin with and not in some science journal. It destroys the economics of power generation.

Here are some more examples

http://truthinheart.com/JohnBedini.html

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Bedini_SG

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bedini_Monopole/

http://www.icehouse.net/john34/index.htm

[snooper2]

We just need to stop building stick houses..

And start building Monolithic Domes!




http://www.monolithic.com/thedome/index.html

[snooper2]

195. We just need to stop building stick houses..

And start building Monolithic Domes!




http://www.monolithic.com/thedome/index.html

[Liberal In Texas]

53. Perhaps not perpetual motion as we know it but: Zero Point Energy ...

is possible.

Today's physics might allow the possibility of tapping virtually limitless quantities of energy directly from the fabric of space.
<snip>
The Heisenberg uncertaintly principle allowed quantum mechanical systems to "borrow" this energy for short periods of time. The ether came back into science not modeled as a material substance but rather as a randomly fluctuating energy. Could a space filled with fluctuations of electric flux be consistent with special relativity? Boyer (15) showed that, by invoking the postulate of Lorentz invariance, the spectral energy density p of the zero-point fluctuations must have the particular form as a function of frequency w :
p(w) = kw3
where the constant k is related to Planck's constant. This result gives a quantitative basis to the theory of random electrodynamics which strives to show that quantum mechanical effects arise FROM MATTER'S INTERACTION WITH THE ZERO-POINT ENERGY.
This cubic frequency relation implies an absurd result:
the energy density of the ZPE AT EACH POINT IN SPACE is INFINITE! (emphasis added)

-We haven't discovered everything yet.

For further arcane speculation:
http://www.sumeria.net/free/zpe3.html
or google "zero point energy"

[karlrschneider]

56. Someone read Heinlein's "WALDO" and added a bunch of pseudo-math

babble. Funny but hardly significant...

[Endangered Specie]

58. Indeed, the website in question also mentions things like

metaphysics, cosomology and other "alternative theories" (read: baloney)

[Liberal In Texas]

62. Not much can be said for people with closed minds.

The universe teems with energy. To think that we've discovered how to tap every possible source is like saying that vaccuum tubes would always be the state of the art for electronics.

The reaction of "balony" reminds me of the very learned who said that:

It's impossible for man to fly.
If you travel faster than 60 mph the wind will take your breath away and you will die.
The speed of sound is impossible to break.
Man will never walk on the moon.

[Endangered Specie]

63. More than what can be said for people with gullible minds.

and by the way, just because some past predictions of "impossibilities" are false doesn't make them all... there are quite a few statements of the impossible that have held up quite well.

[Liberal In Texas]

68. I'm not following what you mean precisely.

just because some past predictions of "impossibilities" are false doesn't make them all...

all....??? possible or will happen?

If that's what you mean, of course not. No one is saying that. My point is that you (and some others in this thread) seem to have closed minds. With that attitude you'd still be driving around in Edsels and I wouldn't have my nice flying car. ( I hope you have a sense of humor... )

One of the fine things about science, is that looking for things that might be impossible, we find other things that are unexpected. If, say, some are looking for ZPE, they may find a whole other way to tap the energy of the universe.

(In the interest of full disclosure, I'm not a proponent of ZPE, I just think it's interesting, and do not hold it out as IMPOSSIBLE.)

[Endangered Specie]

70. I prefer to think of it as having a skeptical mind.

[Liberal In Texas]

76. And I think being skeptical is good.

I'm not to start a war, but I must say you seem to have started this thread with kind of an "attitude".

One of the first things I was ever taught in a (real) science class was that NOTHING is impossible. If you are ever asked by someone, "Was it possible that..." you have to say, "YES" because, really, anything is possible.

And sadly, hieing back to this OP, perpetual motion is "possible."

Likely? Not very.

To be dogmatic and profoundly state that something is NOT POSSIBLE is very much akin to being like a prelate that told Copernicus that it was not possible for the Earth to orbit around the Sun.

The possiblilties of discovery are still endless. If people kick around something like ZPE or PPM they're not gullible. These are the kind of people that gave us integrated circuits, airplanes, the wireless, the printing press, beer, and the wheel.

Bon nuit.

[Occulus]

91. your outlook touches on MWI

Very slick, that. I wonder if anyone else will notice.

Quantum physics is quickly showing us that our understanding of the laws of physics is analogous to a child's understanding of a tree: inside, there are rings, which tell the age of the tree, but the child can only see its height, and makes a determination of its age based upon that factor.

It's a good indication, but there's much, much more beneath the bark. We're right, but only as far as we go.

[libertypirate]

176. They seem not to like anything that's not in a textbook...

I started with the link bellow and got flamed. I don't care I can read and I understand enough about all the different influences to know what I am seeing.

http://www.keelynet.com/bedmot/bedmot.htm

[sendero]

204. While I totally agree..

.... with you that the universe is teeming with energy, I also believe in the laws of physics that have withstood challenge for some time now.

Saying that there is some great energy source we can tap is great, I agree that we (technology) will eventually find better things than "fossil fuels" to use for energy.

What I dont' believe in is that you can have a motor that generates more power than it uses. An "electromagnetic" motor I should say. It just is not going to happen. It's not a matter of closed minds, its a matter of observations of our physical world and inviolate rules thereof.

[Pobeka]

78. ergo, the universe is a perpetual motion machine.

Because energy cannot be created or destroyed, and all energy is by definition in the universe.

[Liberal In Texas]

79. Bingo. But don't forget entropy. It's a bitch. n/t

[Occulus]

87. And yet.... and yet....

What qualifies to US as 'perpetual'?

If a machine I build consistently produces more energy than it consumes, even at an ever-decreasing rate, if it lasts beyond the life of the observer, it can be said by the observer to be 'perpetual', ONLY in the sense that it continues producing energy beyond the observer's lifetime. The observer cannot 'see' the machine lose its 'perpetual' state after he is dead, so for all practical purposes, all a machine needs to do to be considered 'perpetual' by the observer is for it to produce more energy than it consumes, even at an ever-decreasing rate, to the endpoint of the observer's life.

To the observer, it does not matter than the machine may run out of energy eventually.

Now-

One thing that was not mentioned above when talking about the constant of c was quantum entanglement. We know this exists; Einstien called it, I believe, 'spooky behavior at a distance'. The information carried by two quantum particles that are entangled appears to violate c, or rather, the information is transmitted in spite of c as a constant.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/

"Suppose Alice and Bob share an entangled state of the sort considered by Bell, say two photons in an entangled state of polarization. That is, Alice has in her possession one of the entangled photons, and Bob the other. Suppose that Alice has an additional photon in an unknown state of polarization, u. It is possible for Alice to perform an operation on the two photons in her possession that will transform Bob's photon into one of four states, depending on the four possible (random) outcomes of Alice's operation: either the state u, or a state that is related to u in a definite way. Alice's operation entangles the two photons in her possession, and disentangles Bob's photon, steering it into a state u*. After Alice communicates the outcome of her operation to Bob, Bob knows either that u* = u, or how to transform u* to u by a local operation. This phenomenon is known as ‘quantum teleportation.’

What is extraordinary about this phenomenon is that Alice and Bob have managed to use their shared entangled state as a quantum communication channel to destroy the state u of a photon in Alice's part of the universe and recreate it in Bob's part of the universe. Since the state of a photon requires specifying a direction in space (essentially the value of an angle that can vary continuously), without a shared entangled state Alice would have to convey an infinite amount of classical information to Bob for Bob to be able to reconstruct the state u precisely. To see why this is so, consider that the decimal expansion of an angle variable represented by a real number is represented by a potentially infinite sequence of digits between 0 and 9. The binary expansion is represented by a potentially infinite sequence of 0's and 1's. Ever since Shannon formalized the notion of classical information, the amount of classical information associated with a binary alternative (represented as 0 or 1), where each alternative has equal a priori probability, is measured as one binary digit or ‘bit’. So to specify the value of an arbitrary angle variable requires an infinite number of bits. To specify the outcome of Alice's operation, which has four possible outcomes, with equal a priori probabilities, requires two bits of classical information. Remarkably, Bob can reconstruct the state u on the basis of just two bits of classical information communicated by Alice, apparently by exploiting the entangled state as a quantum communication channel to transfer the remaining information. (For further discussion of quantum teleportation, see Nielsen and Chuang, or Richard Josza's article "Quantum Information and its Properties" in Lo, Popescu, and Spiller.)"

There is also something called the "many worlds interpretation" or the "many universes interpretation" (they are the same thing) which Hawking and others agree with:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/

And then there's this fascinating paper, which I found last night, author unknown:

http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.html#zine

Our universe is obviously far, far stranger than our current interpretation of the laws of physics allow. More research is absolutely required, and I hold little doubt that, a century from now, we will be thought of as scientifically naive.

[Vladimir]

112. Yeah, entranglement is funky

and one of the less well understood bits of QM. It is one of the phenomena which are making philosophers of science rethink the materialism v. idealism debate, which had been though done and dusted a hundred years ago. And yes, it could be solved by introducing signals travelling faster than the speed of light... I recommend reading "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics" if you want a good understanding of this pehnomenon.

[Ravy]

90. You haven't seen my wife in a shopping mall. (n/t)

[Occulus]

92. oh yes I have,

and moreover, I've seen her in every mall that ever existed, exists, or will exist, and she's always shopping in a slightly different way. :P

[Warren DeMontague]

97. Define "exist". Anyway, just because they don't doesnt seem to stop

random kooks from trying to explain their theories about them to me. In person. At my old job, it was usually this Russian gent with B.O. who would, at the end of the 30 minute conversation about how Chevron was monitoring the ashtray in his Chevy Nova, hand me a "business card" containing his name handwritten with a sharpie and covered in dryer lint.

Yeah, or on the BART- for some reason I would always get the guy trying to explain to me about time travel. Either I was supposed to do it or I was not supposed to do it, I can never remember which.

With my luck, I'm living in some fucked up Philip K. Dick novel, and that's actually me in the future, sent back after the apocalypse physically altered and mentally unhinged, trying desperately through the hallucinogenic fog in my head to warn myself- warnings which I, inevitably, will not heed.

[ReadTomPaine]

101. John Titor, is that you?

;)

[H2O Man]

109. >100% efficiency out of any motor..."

I put 300,000 miles on a 1989 Dodge Omni, without having to do much other than change the oil, tires, belts, and the like. I'd like to think that this was well over 100%.

[Solon]

122. Was that on one tank of gas?

Cause if not, then I doubt it ever hit beyond 50% efficiency.

[H2O Man]

129. 1/2 tank

super

[Kraklen]

136. Then it wouldn't be 100%

If it were 100% it'd get 300,000 miles on no gas.

[KG]

118. Perpetual motion machines do not exist...

...yet.

[Javaman]

123. except for stupidity of republicans, that's perpetual.

[FogerRox]

126. does/can The speed of light be a contsant according to the observer?

[jzodda]

127. You mean do not exist at present

Right now energy cannot be created or destroyed but in the far future? Who knows....Science is only 100% till its re-invented again and it will happen. What we think is not possible using the laws of science today are only waiting to be re-written tomarrow.

[Toots]

128. When is the Earth scheduled to stop spinning?

Should I hide under the bed or what? :shrug: Everything is relative. In my life it is perpetual.

[Solon]

144. Its not, but that isn't really the point...

The Earth is slowing down, both in spin and orbit, ever so slowly, that it will stay in a relatively stable orbit till well into the sun's Red Giant stage, a long time, but not perpetual, or infinite. In fact the Earth will be consumed by the sun in this phase, burning up, and then, due to friction with the Sun's corona, losing its orbit much more quickly, and at that last moment, the end of whatever is left of the Earth will be colliding with the Sun's core.

The point being that nothing observed in the universe on the macro scale, so far, violates the 2nd law. Use that as a litmus test for technology at this point in time.

[Ravy]

170. But, we will capture the House and Senate BEFORE then, right??? (n/t)

[OrlandoGator]

130. There is quite a severely high level of ignorance in this thread.

I'll do my best to help out with the explanations, but read the title of the thread and just accept it.

By nature, a machine has moving parts...and moving parts always generate friction. Friction is an energy transfer (loss) from the moving part to the stationary parts. You can reduce friction with lubricants and bearings, but it is always there.

Perpetual motion machines, or those with equal energy input and output, are simply not physically possible.

[Desertrose]

135. according to the physical laws of earth as we currently understand them

but as many on this thread have tried to point out...things change.
really...all things do...another law as we know it...currently.
:evilgrin:

[ComerPerro]

132. "Lisa! In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"

[anarch]

133. wow...I never would have thought the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

would be so controversial. jeez.

[Endangered Specie]

162. seems as though all the laws of science are controversial...

thermo, evolution...


Theres some irony in the fact that many people (rightfully) dismess creationism, ID as being outright baloney barely worthy of the term pseudoscience, yet continue to believe in their own versions of pseudoscience :shrug:

[jokerman93]

137. Someone once suggested

Someone once suggested that what we consider to be the immutable laws of physics, might be nothing more that "local habits". It's all a matter of scale, and we really have no reliable sense of scale in an infinite universe.

[OrlandoGator]

139. The universe is not infinite. It has a finite mass and total energy.

And we are constrained by those limits.

[jokerman93]

201. can you prove it?

:shrug:

[libertypirate]

141. And is why people don't see EM flows as a potential source of

power generation on earth.

[Kraklen]

147. Solar power has been seen as a potential source

of power generation.

In fact, it's powering my calculator right now.

[jokerman93]

138. Immutable Laws?

Someone once suggested that what we consider to be the immutable laws of physics, might be nothing more that "local habits". It's all a matter of scale, and we really have no reliable sense of scale in an infinite universe.

[Endangered Specie]

167. But what we call the 'universe' is most likely not "infinite"

[libertypirate]

140. You just won't pay attention will you...

What I showed you didn't alter the universe; it should have made you think but alas it did not...

It's about efficiency and your lack of ability to see it tells me your holding out or you don't want anyone to see it.

Present Power Systems Are Designed to Forcibly Apply Lorentz Self-Regauging

Together the two equal halves of a conventional circuit's energy dissipation constitute forced Lorentz symmetrical self-regauging of the discharge of the excitation energy. In turn, this causes the excited system to forcibly maintain its equilibrium with its active vacuum environment while dissipating excitation energy in the circuit loads and losses. Classical thermodynamics with its infamous second law rigorously applies, because the system itself is diabolically designed to continuously and forcibly restore itself into equilibrium with its active vacuum environment by killing its own source dipole gusher of vacuum energy flow.

A priori the source dipole is killed faster than the load is powered, since half the circuit's excitation energy is discharged to destroy the dipole, while less than the remaining half of the circuit's excitation energy is discharged to power the load.

In a generator-powered system, continual input of energy to the generator shaft is required to continually add energy to perform work on the scattered charges, in order to restore the source dipole which the closed current loop continually destroys. Thus our present self-crippling vacuum-powered generator circuits/systems exhibit COP < 1.0 a priori, as do our self-crippling battery-powered circuits and systems.

We must pay for the initial energy input to the generator to establish the source dipole. Once formed, the dipole continuously extracts and pours out enormous observable EM energy flow from the vacuum. The typical closed current loop circuit receives only a single-pass of the energy flow, and therefore only intercepts, collects, and utilizes the very small Poynting component, simply wasting the enormous Heaviside component that misses the circuit altogether. Our present single-pass power systems waste some 1013 times as much energy as they catch and utilize. Scientists can easily do better than this if they (i) remove Lorentz's arbitrary and erroneous discarding of the Heaviside energy flow, and (ii) develop circuits and circuit functions to catch and use much of that available but presently neglected huge energy flow.

[Kraklen]

143. It's just random "scientificy" words thrown together.

It's nonsense.

Just like this stuff:

www.timecube.com

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kraklen]

146. A ten year old hasn't proven anything.

A ten year old won a blue ribbon at a science fair by using a 9 volt battery to power an LED.

Nothing to do with perpetual motion machines or drawing "massive amounts of EM energy out of a vacuum" or timecubes or any of that other nonsense.

Honestly. Who's smoking crack?

[libertypirate]

149. Read before you open your trap

She powered an electromagnet to turn a small stock car motor which in turn powered that little tiny led.

Go learn a little about current experiments being done here.
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/qedynmnu.htm

I will submit that the heat generated by all electronics is wasted energy. Stop wasting that energy we get a more efficient circuit, and we don't waste as much of the source energy it lasts much longer.

Check this out if you still think what I am saying is horse shit.

http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cnr/cnrexp1.htm

[Kraklen]

151. I did read what you posted.

It's still just a science fair project that doesn't change anything, plus an extra bunch of pseudoscience nonsense that somebody else added. Such as links to sites about perpetual motion machines.

Just like this guy: www.timecube.com

Honestly, it's like that film where the guy buys a time machine on Ebay.

[libertypirate]

154. Pseudoscience my ass link bellow

http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cnr/cnrexp1.htm

[Kraklen]

161. Yeah, I saw that the first time you posted it.

Pseudoscience.

Just a bunch of pictures of wires and numbers and random words, signifying nothing.

[Endangered Specie]

164. Same tactics the creationist use...

dress up their weightless speculations with fancy and long words. Words can be dangerous.

[Vladimir]

168. Its scientifically sound actually,

at least the negative resistance part of it, it just doesn't mean/imply what the original poster wants it to - please see my post here, and the one right above it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3923229&mesg_id=3929396

[Kraklen]

171. Yes, and scientifically there's a planet called Mars.

But if I link to a website about alien civilizations on Mars, it's pseudoscience.

[libertypirate]

173. So imply I am wrong so you never have to prove a thing....

That is the nature of pseudo bullshit!

[Kraklen]

175. You are wrong.

Any way you look at it.

A scientist would say, "OK, I'm wrong, I'll do better next time."

The pseudoscientist would get offended and keep posting links to nonsensical websites that they obviously don't understand in the first place.

[libertypirate]

177. I didn't do anything I showed you what others had done and you

targeted me... I don't care what you call false science if your not bright enough to figure out what a 10 year old has; that's your problem.

As for my problem understanding, it's only a problem for you because you can't find it in a textbook; again not my problem.

Your problem is you are protecting you views of science, a utter mistake and again not my problem.

[Kraklen]

178. You claimed the existence of perpetual motion machines.

You didn't use those exact words, but that's what you did. And it was false.

I'll repeat myself, "A scientist will admit when they've made a mistake, whereas a pseudoscientist..."

[libertypirate]

180. That was what you were claiming I said...

Now read it.. or do me a favor and shut up...


http://www.keelynet.com/bedmot/bedmot.htm

[Kraklen]

181. That is what you said.

And here's the link to you doing it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3919632

Do I have to repeat for the third time about admitting to one's mistakes?

[libertypirate]

183. Your mistake -- My whole post bellow -- the last bit very interesting

Edited on Wed Jun-22-05 10:29 AM by libertypirate

A 10 year old girl built this for a science fair and won every prize.

That is not what was astonishing, it ran for 5 days 120 hours on one 9v battery. The battery read +7v after 120h at 4000 rpm and turning a slot car motor to power a led. It should have used up the 9v in a couple of hours.

There is nothing new and it could be built from parts bought at Radio Shack.

http://www.keelynet.com/bedmot/bedmot.htm

Scale up to generate more energy, compensate the battery power loss with solar and you don't need fuel to generate electricity.


PS> YOU HAVE NO SHAME

[Kraklen]

185. Well there you go.

What you're describing is a perpetual motion machine. An apparatus that produces more energy that it consumes.

[libertypirate]

187. dumber than dirt to define two sources of energy as one

[Kraklen]

189. You're describing using solar energy...

to power a machine that produces more energy than is put in by the solar cell.

Do you not see the logical flaw of that apparatus?

[libertypirate]

193. NO you didn't read,

but good luck with that...

[Vladimir]

188. If I may explain one thing here

and it concerns this 'regauging' that comes up in a lot of the links that you posted. Gauge invariance does not imply, whether in QM or elsewhere, that one can change the potential energy of a system. Most specifically, it does not mean:

"By gauge freedom, one can freely change the potential—and thus the potential energy—of an EM system at any time, as one wishes."

(Quote taken from : http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3919632&mesg_id=3920753)

What gauge invariance means is, in very rough terms, that if one consideres force being propagated by fields, we are allowed to change the phase of these fields as we please, without changing the physics. The reason this has nothing to do with energy is, mathematically speaking, that a phase enters our equations through factors of the type:

e^(i*Phase)

and when these factors are squared (which is how you calculate the energy), such terms come to 1 (to square an imaginary quantity, you multiply it by its complex conjugate), thus not affecting the magnitude of the final answer.

PS Any physicists here - I know how rough this explanation is, if anyone has a better one, I'd love to hear it.

[Endangered Specie]

156. Now you see why I made this thread...

we as a group cannot blast creationists, ID, and other pseudoscience bull at the same time people promote this other nonsense that is equally ridiculous.

pseudo science appears to be a perpetual motion machine ;)

[Kraklen]

163. Actually, no I still don't see why you made it.

We have, and in that other thread you linked to, pretty much pounced on perpetual motion crackpots, just as much as we do with Creationists or other pseudoscience crackpots. Just because theres one or two still running around doesn't mean anything. They're ubiquitous to any given public message board. Given how well they've been trounced at this particular message board I think speaks volumes about our level of scientific literacy.

[Endangered Specie]

165. Well, the previous thread was supposed to be about

economy and power :shrug:... and Id say there are more than "one or two". and its somewhat reassuring to me to see the majority acccept the 'mainstream' science.

Oh well, tis my thread ;)

[Kraklen]

172. The previous thread was started...

by the same guy with all the Tom Bearden links.

I think it IS only one or two crackpots, and several laypersons who don't really know much about physics anyway, nothing wrong with that, chiming in and asking valid questions.

[Stuckinthebush]

152. Don't exist! You haven't met my three year old

Jeez! Talk about a perpetual motion machine!

Can I patent her?

[KittyWampus]

153. Okay, Here's My Latest Try- The UNIVERSE Is A Perpetual Motion "Machine"

it is, in fact, expanding.

And it's been found to expand at a rate faster than expected considering all known laws regulating energy (gravity etc.)

This means there is a fourth force in the Universe.

I would posit that fourth 'Dark' force is Mental Energy or Consciousness.

[Endangered Specie]

158. There are all ready four fources:

gravity
strong
weak
EM

We dont know nearly enough but only to speculate about extra "mass" in the universe. Mental Energy sounds like something straight out of a pseudoscience handbook.

[KittyWampus]

182. Astrophysicists Have Already Noted The Universe Is Expanding More Rapidly

than can be accounted for using known laws.

They have already posited the necessary "Dark Force".

And there is a group of physicists who have also posited the existance of "Mental Energy" or Consciousness as the root of the Physical Matter & the Universe.

Edit, here's an article from Sciencenews.com


.....................................................................
A Dark Force in the Universe
Scientists try to determine what's revving up the cosmos
Ron Cowen

Three years ago, observations of distant, exploding stars blew to smithereens some of astronomers' most cherished ideas about the universe. To piece together an updated theory, they're now thinking dark thoughts about what sort of mystery force may be contorting the cosmos.


Observations of distant supernova, including 1997ff, suggest that over the past few billion years, a mysterious substance called dark energy has caused gravity, at its largest scale, to become repulsive. When the universe was smaller and the density of matter therefore higher, dark energy would have had a negligible effect. Gravity would have exerted its familiar universal attraction, slowing cosmic expansion.

According to the standard view of cosmology, the once infinitesimal universe has ballooned in volume ever since its fiery birth in the Big Bang, but the mutual gravitational tug of all the matter in the cosmos has gradually slowed that expansion.

In 1998, however, scientists reported that a group of distant supernovas were dimmer, and therefore farther from Earth, than the standard theory indicated. It was as if, in the billion or so years it took for the light from these exploded stars to arrive at Earth, the space between the stars and our planet had stretched out more than expected. That would mean that cosmic expansion has somehow sped up, not slowed down. Recent evidence has only firmed up that bizarre result (SN: 3/31/01, p. 196).

In 1929, Edwin P. Hubble discovered that distant galaxies are fleeing from one another as if the entire universe is swelling in size. Ever since, astronomers have been hoping to answer a key question: Will the expansion of the universe, slowed by gravity, go on forever, or will the cosmos eventually collapse into a Big Crunch?

Despite decades of effort and countless studies devoted to the ballooning of the universe, the recent findings stunned astronomers. Few suspected that all along they were asking the wrong question.

"For 70 years, we've been trying to measure the rate at which the universe slows down. We finally do it, and we find out it's speeding up," says Michael S. Turner of the University of Chicago.

An accelerated expansion would seem to contradict all common sense, says Andreas J. Albrecht of the University of California, Davis. Throw a ball into the sky, and after it reaches a certain height, it will come back down, he notes. Now imagine throwing another ball upward and finding that instead of it falling back down, it somehow keeps moving up faster and faster. For that to happen, there would have to be some force pushing upward on the ball strongly enough to overcome gravity's downward tug.

Astronomers have come to believe that just such a force is stretching the very fabric of space.

What is this mystery force?

Cosmologists have proposed that it derives from dark energy—a substance whose properties and origin scientists have only begun to explore. At stake is more than just a better understanding of the fate of the universe: The very presence of dark energy may enable scientists to explain the fundamental forces of the universe and tease out the hidden connections among them.

Says Albrecht: "This is the most exciting endeavor going on in physics right now."

snip info on Dark Matter and on towards Dark Energy:

Dark energy

In its simplest version, dark energy would be a true constant, equally distributed throughout the universe and continuously exerting the same amount of force as the universe expands. In 1917, Einstein posited a version of this energy, which he called the cosmological constant. Physicists have sporadically been returning to that idea ever since. Because the cosmological constant would exist even in the absence of matter or radiation, its origins might lie within empty space itself.

This property could tie dark energy to one of the stranger properties of quantum mechanics. Quantum theory dictates that empty space—what physicists call the vacuum—seethes with energy as pairs of particles and antiparticles pop in and out of existence.

This vacuum energy has some subtle but measurable effects. For example, it shifts the energy levels of atoms slightly and exerts a force between closely spaced metal plates (SN: 2/10/01, p. 86). In 1967, the Russian astrophysicist Yakov B. Zeldovich showed that vacuum energy has an intriguing property. The energy associated with this nothingness has negative pressure.

That means vacuum energy could push galaxies apart at ever-increasing speeds, making it an ideal candidate for being the dark energy.

Alas, there appears to be a huge problem. Calculations reveal that the energy stored in the vacuum is 120 orders of magnitude larger than the dark energy that cosmologists are positing.

"If the vacuum energy density really is so enormous, it would cause an exponentially rapid expansion of the universe that would rip apart all the electrostatic and nuclear bonds that hold atoms and molecules together," note Paul J. Steinhardt of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and Robert R. Caldwell of Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H., in a recent review article. "There would be no galaxies, stars, or life."

It's likely, physicists admit, that they don't really know how to calculate vacuum energy. That complication may have to do with their limited knowledge about the nature of gravity. Einstein's theory holds that gravity curves empty space—the vacuum—but scientists don't yet know how gravity does so on a quantum mechanical scale.

Thus, scientists have yet to unify quantum theory with gravity. Some hold out the hope that when they do, they'll miraculously find that the 120 orders of magnitude drop to zero—almost. There might be just enough vacuum energy left over to account for the amount harbored by dark energy.

Many researchers think that's a forlorn hope, however. They believe that a better understanding of the vacuum energy will reveal it to be exactly zero.

In that case, dark energy would have to be something else. Several theorists believe this something else blankets the universe and varies with time and place. Steinhardt, his University of Pennsylvania colleague Rahul Dave, and their collaborators call this variable form of dark energy "quintessence."

Quintessence takes on a different form and strength depending on what time it is in the universe. Scientists have established that just after the Big Bang, high-energy radiation filled the universe and was the dominant form of energy. Matter contributed very little to the cosmic-energy budget. In that era, quintessence would have mimicked the properties of radiation, Steinhardt says. Like radiation, it would have exerted positive pressure.

As the universe cooled and particles slowed, the energy balance shifted in favor of matter. Material started to clump together to form larger structures. Steinhardt proposes that at the onset of that era, some 50,000 years after the Big Bang, quintessence changed. As he and his colleagues see it, quintessence—dark energy—settled down to a fixed value and began exerting a negative pressure throughout the cosmos.

In this vision, the dark-energy density initially paled in comparison with the density of matter. Gravity thus acted in its familiar fashion, slowing the expansion of the universe. But as the volume of the universe continued to expand, its matter density decreased. As matter density dwindled, the energy density associated with quintessence remained constant—or nearly so. Consequently, quintessence became gravity's new boss. The expansion of the cosmos would then have gone into overdrive.

It's no coincidence that humans are living at a time when it's possible to observe cosmic acceleration, says Steinhardt. The same shift in the mass-energy balance that gave rise to stars, galaxies, planets, and life also transformed quintessence into a cosmic accelerator.

Steinhardt admits he hasn't come up with any fundamental explanation of why the quintessence field would change in this way. The answer, he says, could lie in new physics, perhaps in a new elementary particle implied by quintessence. The explanation could also provide a hint about how physicists might tackle one of their thorniest and most intriguing challenges—explaining the existence of the fundamental forces and how they intertwine. Quintessence, or dark energy, could be a linchpin that holds together both old and new physics.

In a version of quintessence proposed by Albrecht and his University of California, Davis colleague Constantinos Skordis, the repulsive force may come from other, unseen dimensions or even from other universes beyond our own. That dovetails with a theory from elementary particle physics, which posits that our three dimensions plus time are but a tiny part of a much broader, multidimensional canvas.

The extra dimensions wouldn't have a direct influence on our own four-dimensional space-time. But because gravity exerts itself by distorting space, the gravitational field associated with the extra dimensions might affect our own. Albrecht suggests that gravity's ability to repel as well as attract could stem from the existence of those other dimensions. Those dimensions in turn could provide additional hints about another deep puzzle of physics—the quantum nature of gravity, he notes.

Albrecht says his theory offers another advantage. It describes quintessence by using only simple constants of nature, such as the speed of light, the gravitational constant, and Planck's constant of quantum mechanics. The quintessence field that he and Skordis construct from these constants could indeed have become dominant long after the Big Bang, prompting the current phase of accelerated expansion.

Albrecht acknowledges the ad hoc nature of quintessence theories, which are still in their infancy. "We each have our own angles," he notes. "They all have a lot of weaknesses."

snip

[Kraklen]

186. No real physicist

is going to posit "mental energy."

[KittyWampus]

191. Quite A Few Already Have. And BTW, It's Nothing New. Scientists Have

posited this for thousands of years.

Fred Alan Wolf is a very readable author, for example.

[Kraklen]

192. Modern science has only been around a couple hundred years.

So they haven't been doing it for thousands of years.

And those claiming "mental energy" are just plain wrong.

Fred Alan Wolf? Good old "Captain Quantum?" Author of "The Yoga of Time Travel?"

Crackpot with a degree.

[KittyWampus]

197. Evan Harris Walker, Edward Close, Steven Weinberg, Robert Laughlin,

DAvid Bohm, Amit Goswami.

All physicists with Phds, one is a nobel laureate.

And is Pythagorian Mathmatics any less valid today then it was in ancient times?

Also, your ad hominem attack on Wolf doesn't do much for your credibility.

[Kraklen]

198. All crackpots.

Carl Sagan wrote a book called Contact. You may have heard of it or the movie. It's about aliens who contact human astronomers and teach them how to build a fancy spaceship. Carl Sagan was a famous scientist.

That doesn't mean the events of his novel "Contact" actually took place. Same thing with Goswami and Wolf et. al. They all got their degrees, it's very likely some of them published real scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals, if they all got their degrees from accredited universities then they all published peer-reviewed scientific theses. But the stuff that they do outside of peer-reviewed science isn't real science. What they've been doing (apparently since they already have tenure and figure it's a quick way to make a buck) is write books or star in popular documentaries that have nothing to do with real science and they just use their degrees to make an unsuspecting cash-paying audience think that it's real science. What The Fuck Do We Know is not a scientific peer-reviewed documentary.

The Pythagorean Theorem is still valid today, but Pythagoras's loonier ideas like numbers having masculine and feminine qualities are not.

[KittyWampus]

200. You Never Studied The Meaning Behind "Masculine & Feminine"

as he meant it to be understood. Therefore it appears to be "loony" although the concept of Dark Energy and Dark Matter imply "positive and negative" phases of energy. In the language of the ancients... that seems quite compatible.

And again, "all crackpots" is a pathetic excuse of a reply.

Especially since one holds a Nobel prize, many hold seats at universities and I could list more that are following their pathways.

[Kraklen]

174. Alright.

And I posit that it's being caused by the Ghost of Christmas Expansion.

In fact, I've got extraordinary evidence, but not enough room in this message to post it.

[iconoclastNYC]

179. All this scientificating is making me nervous n/t

[DireStrike]

196. Let's make this clear: It is impossible to hit the other cat in the mirror

He is invincible! All of our observations prove it.

[alpha_sion]

205. ok....ok....ok...

I've been pondering, pontificating if you will. After much thought I have come to the conclusion that the oceans waves could be considered a "perpetual machine"!

I think that there are already ways to capture that energy using underwater impellers. I'm pretty sure waves never stop. If they do it's probably not a good sign. Anyways, there...I have done it :-p

Flame away! :-)