perpetual motion machine

ustasaaa Says:
30. January 2010 at 9:44 am

@pcharola … wind and looped video makes one helluva perpetuum mobile..

lordieuan777 Says:
30. January 2010 at 9:26 pm

Anyone with even a minor knowledge of thermodynamics will tell you that a true perpetual motion machine is impossible.

Everyone here who believes this is real, go read a text book or something…

derwoodvw Says:
1. February 2010 at 12:44 am

It uses more water than it pumps. It will stop. I feel sorry for people who build these things because they really think it will work untill they build it………

sirjcob Says:
3. February 2010 at 4:51 am

Hey – you don’t have to be a douche about it – I didn’t know it was running on electricity. Besides the description doesn’t mention that either.

Another thing – I know perpetual motion isn’t possible according to current theory – THEORY – the fact that it is a theory means that a very slim possibility remains that the current thought on the subject can be wrong. Anyone with half a brain can tell you that too. Why else would legitimate engineers still work on making one of these machines?

spottydog4477 Says:
3. February 2010 at 7:17 am

THAT – is a complete lemon!

zzytrewq Says:
3. February 2010 at 12:48 pm

@splatoontang – bullshit. Post a video of your perpetual motion machine and let us all see it. Of course you will win the Nobel physics prize.

LOL

BugNuggets Says:
3. February 2010 at 2:26 pm

You will not find the word “theory” anywhere near anything in physics that has to do with perpetual motion machines. The word used to describe what you are calling theories “Law”, as in the first and second law of thermodynmics.

BugNuggets Says:
3. February 2010 at 2:34 pm

It’s so humble of you to hide your machine, foregoing the certainty of winning the Nobel prize in Physics, the $1.4M prize, not to mention the probability of them naming an element, planetary objects, a unit, and who knows what else after you. After all, the pressure of being a celebrity of science for centuries to come would be embarrassing, with your name dwarfing in importance the likes of Einstein, Newton, Tesla, and Carnot.

My hat is off to you sir! Your humility is astonishing!

uglyengineer Says:
3. February 2010 at 7:13 pm

Wrong. The second LAW of thermodynamics, which governs these topics, is a LAW. That means NOT POSSIBLE.

sirjcob Says:
4. February 2010 at 6:42 am

The second law of the THEORY of thermodynamics is a law which governs a theoretical system.

Though that theoretical system may be mathematically sound for a large percent of its application, it still can only be called a theory.

Same goes with Gravitational theory and the Law of gravity.

It is because these systems remain theory that scientist still attempt to overcome the boundaries of those laws which others refuse to accept may be broken with good sound science.

uglyengineer Says:
4. February 2010 at 6:25 pm

Incorrect. You posit nonsense sir. See wikipedia: Second_law_of_thermodynamics. It is a law. Not a law about a theory. Please go to school before commenting on things you know nothing about.

Winterborn92 Says:
5. February 2010 at 3:33 am

never seen anyone so close minded…can you PROVE that it is true? It has yet to be proven false but that’s why we try to.

uglyengineer Says:
5. February 2010 at 3:45 pm

Its not about being closed minded. Its about understanding the underlying principals in play… this is the foundation of current scientific procedures people, not just some “mumbo jumbo” I made up. What you seem to be missing is the perp. motion has been tried and tried since ancient times. IT DOES NOT EXIST.

BugNuggets Says:
5. February 2010 at 6:39 pm

It’s not just about PMM’s being impossible, no one has yet to show even the most basic building block of one has yet to be achieved, which would be a process that violates either the first or second law of thermodynamics.

Of course this has been done by countless youtube posters, but the funny thing none of them have yet to bother to publish their efforts.

You violate either law and you’re not only assured the Noble prize, but you will be the most famous scientist to ever live.

BugNuggets Says:
5. February 2010 at 6:46 pm

Please provide a link to any reputable website that has the word theory in the first or second law of thermodynamics.

What I find so interesting about people disputing these laws is if you showed them a machine that outputted gold coins without any input whatsoever they would say it was impossible because they think they understand mass, but since they can’t hold energy they don’t accept the same limitations even though it is essentially same principal.

uglyengineer Says:
5. February 2010 at 9:15 pm

These people are the same ones who believed little gremlins living in their bodies upset the bodily humors and cause sickness. Or Islamic fundamentalists killing women for showing too much leg today.

sirjcob Says:
6. February 2010 at 5:17 am

I’ll admit that thermodynamics is a branch of science and not a theory- I never said the laws were theory though- the laws are necessary to test the theories of thermodynamics.

However, what I will say is that not all laws are set in stone- Flight was seen as a scientific impossibility and those who tried to break through this were crack pots in their day.

Even Newton’s Law of universal gravitation has been proven wrong on larger scales.

Can the laws be broken? Someone has to try to find out.

sirjcob Says:
6. February 2010 at 5:45 am

Note: Clausius himself opened up cause for dispute on the 2nd law by noting that he was a bit wary toward the equation’s conflict with natural reasoning.

“Although the necessity of this theorem [adheres to] strict mathematical proof … the [equation] nevertheless retains an abstract form, in which it is with difficulty embraced by the mind, and we feel compelled to seek for the precise physical cause, of which this theorem is a consequence.”

BugNuggets Says:
6. February 2010 at 6:46 am

Newton’s law of gravitation is law of approximations, meaning it has known limitiations.

The flight arguement is not new, but do you really think a phsicist ever claimed flight was impossible because of a law of nature?

You’re confusing a opinion of what is practical with a scientific law. I believe it’s impossible to ever build a fusion reactor small enough to fit in a car. That statement is based on my opinion of engineering, not on knowledge that it would violate some natural law.

BugNuggets Says:
6. February 2010 at 6:50 am

I don’t see anything in the quote that eludes to him thinking the law is disputable. He’s saying it’s difficult to comprehend and that it leaves us with the desire to prove it physically rather then mathematically.

sirjcob Says:
6. February 2010 at 7:54 am

Okay- so I get this on the straight and narrow- we could argue this forever- as many people do, but:

I do not dispute that the current laws that apply to thermodynamics work in scientific application as we know it today. I just hate that people take an unchangeable stance on current knowledge. This only halts progress.

- Yes, in all sciences (flight too), there is always “hard” science to refute alternate scientific theories/laws
- Newton’s Laws were the whole thing until discovered otherwise.

sirjcob Says:
6. February 2010 at 8:09 am

That is correct- and this comment was written during the process of creating the laws.

The comment itself is what people use as an opening to further explore the issue. Even in mathematical application the figures don’t always add up. And this gives legit science the opportunity to explore these “anomalies” to the current laws as a path to PMMs and other discoveries.

Scientific knowledge evolves by pushing to break laws. We got past religion – now its stale science we need to get past.

sirjcob Says:
6. February 2010 at 8:26 am

Last thing- we will never know if the “laws” are irrefutable.

Science always has unexplainable events to what we know to be true-and this is what gives good scientist motivation to test beyond what the laws allow.

We’ve conquered the physical world many times – why stop? Modern science isn’t the end all of scientific knowledge.

-I’m not even arguing about theories and laws anyway – I’m just disgusted at comments to not even try… we may not get PMM but something close wouldn’t be bad either.

indianchief741 Says:
7. February 2010 at 3:35 am

I agree!

ChOwToo Says:
7. February 2010 at 7:05 pm

sirjcob, you are my hero. A while back I said speaking to someone here “you should know the difference between a law and a theory and should appreciate the rock solidity of laws versus the flaky nature of theories”. Well, it turns out that I was darn wrong and people like you are darn right. There is no difference. Hold your ground man, and hold it strong against people like (he doesn’t deserved to be named)!