perpetual motion free energy by siphoning

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by tablariddim, Oct 23, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Haberdasher Registered Member

    Messages:
    1
    I was just passing through from a search about siphons and found this thread and had to comment...

    Wow...phlogistician...you are a royal jackass of the internet.



     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Then keep going.
    Byee!
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Klippymitch Thinker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    699
    Sounds like a personal experience.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    I'd like to add a strong second to what Oli said - keep on moving. Everything Philo said was accurate and truthful. In the immortal words from the movie A few good men, "You can't handle the truth." So I suggest you just skip on out of this thread and go elsewhere.
     
  8. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    This has been answered by Giesel's question in post 57 and by my "Yes" to his question in 58, but perhaps I need to make the logic explicit:

    Andre:
    Assume that it takes X uints of energy to set up the simply FLOATING fresh-water fountine which can CONTINUOUSLY produce Y units of energy annually. Then in X/Y years there is full recovery of the initial invested energy.

    BTW, I doubt there is any initial energy required to FLOAT (partically sink) a tube (OR any object) in the ocean but not sure as the level of the ocean will rise slightly and I do not want to think this thru carefully as no need to from the above which shows your comment in error. (Myquick guess is that the energy you get by lowering the object into the ocean to the level where it floats is exactly equal to the energy required to lift the ocean surface this small amount.)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 5, 2007
  9. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    I used to have a chemistry textbook that featured a number a "free energy" machines as "brain teasers" for the reader. It was very hard to spot the flaw in some of them.
     
  10. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    The one I like best is a wheel with curved tubes that are filled with mercury (any fluid) - As on one side the curve turns up (so the mercury is in near the hub) and on the other side, that same shape has the curve going down, away for the hub, the mercury is far from the hub. It sure looks like there would be a net torque, causing the wheel to turn. I can not draw it here but the following two of four (of more) curved tube spokes should give the idea:

    .....^
    .. O
    V

    Ignore the dots - they are just to space things corretly. (Both V & ^ are supposed to be the same shape, just 180 degrees displaced. Etc for other pairs of curved tubes.) The "O" represents the hub. As it turns (clockwise) the lower "V tube" (actually more "S" or "C" shaped) will have the mercury move in towards the hub and the top "^" will have it move away from the hub, giving a longer lever arm, making wheel turn even faster. - I once went to the trouble to calculate / approxiamte the torques (and total is zero, despite what it seems to be.)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 6, 2007
  11. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Yep, that's GOT to be one of the oldest classics.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And it still continues to pop up with some regularity when some new 'genius' comes along and reinvents it.
     
  12. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    Oh god that's good.
     
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,468
    Seems like the Dead Sea would be a reasonable place for the early installations.

    It also seems as though the transfer pipe could be fairly narrow, compared with the osmotic capturing structure - which could be a fairly large and more or less permanant installation on the bottom, too deep for storm problems.

    And that the transfer pipe would simply run along the bottom (suitably chosen route) to "shallow" (still too deep for storm trouble) water near shore - it wouldn't need to be vertical.

    And that it would be worthwhile forgetting, for the moment,the "totally free" aspect and installing a pump or two (make 'em solar, what the hell) at the critical, storm-hardened junction near the shore (I'm imagining something like those offloading structures for oil tankers too big to dock).

    So the question would be the cost of all this (especially, cleaning and care of the deep water membrane surface) compared with the cost of an ordinary desalinization plant on the shore. Seems like the professional verdict on that is in - nobody's built one.

    Re the moon being "thrown out", one informal way to think of it: as the spin of the earth (and its resistance to relaxation, the solidity of its urface) takes the tidal bump sligthly ahead of the moon, that bump's gravitational pull tugs the moon a little bit forward along its orbit - speeds it up a bit. The higher speed is too fast for the orbital distance of the moon around the center of the earth's mass (the earth's gravity at that distance is not sufficient to bend the new path enough) - the moon is being accellerated along its orbit, and consequently spiraling outwards.

    And of course the counterforce - the pull of the moon on the bump - pulls the bump back against the spin - so the earth's spin is being retarded, slowed, and the moon's orbital velocity is being boosted, speeded up, at the same time. The total energy involved is unchanged - what was earth's spin is now moon's speed.

    When the moon was closer, and the earth's spin faster, and the surface of the earth hotter and more easily deformed - even with liquid rock, in places - the tidal effects must have been spectacular.
     
  14. bkpaul Registered Member

    Messages:
    5
    'Perpetual Motion' should of course be put into perspective, as long as something generates more power than it comsumes (consistantly) and that setup will last longer than:

    1. Your lifetime

    or

    2. The lifetime of the human race.

    then it can be considered in all relative terms to be perpetual so maybe we are trying to seek the holy grail when in fact a close cousin will do just nicely?

    here endeth common sense 101

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    Dude, please go take a science class. A closed system cannot generate more power than it consumes.
     
  16. bkpaul Registered Member

    Messages:
    5
    I didn't actually say it could but people always look for the holy grail of perpetual motion thus I was offering them the possibility of something infinately more attainable which to them would be perpetual (time based)

    We all know they can't even achieve that but if they want to try who am I to try and stop them!.
     
  17. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    You left out a few important words. I have added them in Capitals:

    "... ILL-EDUCATED AND IGNORANT people always look for the holy grail of perpetual motion..."
     
  18. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Well said!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And to the poster who said, "...but if they want to try who am I to try and stop them", you certainly do them NO favor by just allowing then to continue wasting their time, effort and possibly money by chasing ghosts.

    Instead, you should encourage them to actually LEARN some real science.
     
  19. bkpaul Registered Member

    Messages:
    5
    People as any good Psychologist will tell you only really accept the "truth" if they learn it for themselves, as is the nature of trial and error so I will stand by what I said.

    You also have the situation which is related in no small way to my last comment and that is just because someone tell's you its impossible doesn't prove it actually is impossible, it just means no one has proved it is possible yet.

    I wonder if I will get my PhD before I die

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .... probably not lol

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    What the heck are you babbling about??? I didn't say to try to "tell them it's impossible" - I said to tell them to LEARN something!! So you are not "standing by" anything worthwhile.

    Seems to me, from this post of yours, that you could stand to learn a little reading comprehension. :shrug:
     
  21. bkpaul Registered Member

    Messages:
    5
    Obviosuly you need to learn Psychology, people learn far quicker and understand far better and also accept far more when the information comes from trial and error than will ever be the case with structured classroom or 3rd party learning.

    anyway this subject is boring me so I'll tootle along....
     
  22. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Even more obvious is that I know far more psychology than you.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And as for trial and error, that's OK in many instances - but actyally quite dangerous in others. Classroom and learning directly from studying information from reliable sources is *considerably* better as well as MUCH faster than trial and error.

    Well, it wasn't really all that boring - until you decided to muddle on in here. So, if you really ARE leaving the thread that will only benefit those who are left. Good riddance to you!
     
  23. DRZion Theoretical Experimentalist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,046
    This is a good point, it doesn't have to be perpetual to violate the second law of thermodynamics. Thats really a better definition of perpetual motion. Even if one were to build a truly perpetual machine, it would be of no lasting commercial value. As time goes on new perpetual motion machines will be created which create more power and the old ones will get torn down to make room.

    response-

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page