The big bang isn't perpetual motion it's just 100% efficient.
More nonsense or do you want to prove that?
Topic: I'll Pay 5 BTC to Anyone that can build the following. - page 2. (Read 3554 times)
More nonsense or do you want to prove that?
That is quite false conclusion, and coming from you I don't know what to think because I started to respect the things you say on the forum lately. The answer to these perpetual moving machines is simple oscillators that get their impulse energy at resonance. The part you didn't get right is a known property of physics called inertia which is responsible for making them work. They are very real and simple to build, but tricky and require the builder attention at all details.
The argument I made explains precisely why these machines can't work. Whatever state they're in, whether resonant or not, can be assigned a number based on the minimum energy required to assemble the machine into that state. And no known law of motion, energy, inertia, or resonance allows a transition to a higher-numbered state or to a state with an equal number while withdrawing energy. It really is that simple.
You could make a dry pile, that's the closest you can get to "free" energy by using the humidity in the air to power a battery. A big enough one could power 12V devices or even your home if you could make it big enough and keep the efficiency up. They have working dry piles keep voltage for over 100 years.
5 BTC? I swear, people are fucking cheap...even if it's just trolling.
Yeah. Seems like perpetual motion would be worth more than 5 BTC... 
...
For any such fixed-sized machine based solely on motion, gravity, magnetics, and electricity, and consuming no input fuel, you can assign a number to every state of the machine based on how much energy it would take to assemble the machine, charge its capacitors, place its magnets, accelerate any moving parts, and so on, starting with all the components at rest, neutrally charged, and infinitely far apart. (Or, alternatively, you can call the machine's initial state zero if you like and use the minimum energy needed to transition from the initial state to that state.) All known laws of physics only allow the machine to transition to states with an equal number, and any energy removed from the machine (including radiated and conducted heat) reduces that number. This is sufficient to show that any perpetual motion machine is provably impossible if it uses only the known properties of physics.
For any such fixed-sized machine based solely on motion, gravity, magnetics, and electricity, and consuming no input fuel, you can assign a number to every state of the machine based on how much energy it would take to assemble the machine, charge its capacitors, place its magnets, accelerate any moving parts, and so on, starting with all the components at rest, neutrally charged, and infinitely far apart. (Or, alternatively, you can call the machine's initial state zero if you like and use the minimum energy needed to transition from the initial state to that state.) All known laws of physics only allow the machine to transition to states with an equal number, and any energy removed from the machine (including radiated and conducted heat) reduces that number. This is sufficient to show that any perpetual motion machine is provably impossible if it uses only the known properties of physics.
That is quite false conclusion, and coming from you I don't know what to think because I started to respect the things you say on the forum lately. The answer is that perpetual moving machines are simple oscillators that get their impulse energy at resonance. The part you didn't get right is a known property of physics called inertia which is responsible for making them work. They are very real and simple to build, but tricky and require the builder attention at all details.
Is this taking into count that a thing like this would potentially be a few hundred pounds of rubber balls on the outside pulling down, as the balls in the water is lifting up?
It makes no difference what else is going on. All that matters is that the energy that comes out is from the water pushing up on the air and the energy that needs to go in is an amount sufficient to raise any equal volume of water an equal distance. Since water is much denser than air, the energy that comes out of the machine must always be much less than the energy that goes into it unless the machine is slowing down, in which case it will soon stop.Yeah, the picture was rather irrelevant. Sorry for the confusion.
Don't sell yourself short, I thought it was a brilliant retort. 
Cool, thanks for crushing my dreams, and saving me tons of money, to produce this, because I was actually going to try.
Is this taking into count that a thing like this would potentially be a few hundred pounds of rubber balls on the outside pulling down, as the balls in the water is lifting up?
It makes no difference what else is going on. All that matters is that the energy that comes out is from the water pushing up on the air and the energy that needs to go in for the ball to enter the water is an amount sufficient to raise any equal volume of water an equal distance. Since water is much denser than air, the energy that comes out of the machine must always be much less than the energy that goes into it unless the machine is slowing down, in which case it will soon stop.Yeah, the picture was rather irrelevant. Sorry for the confusion.
Don't sell yourself short, I thought it was a brilliant retort. 
Quote
For any such fixed-sized machine based solely on motion, gravity, magnetics, and electricity, and consuming no input fuel, you can assign a number to every state of the machine based on how much energy it would take to assemble the machine, charge its capacitors, place its magnets, accelerate any moving parts, and so on, starting with all the components at rest, neutrally charged, and infinitely far apart. (Or, alternatively, you can call the machine's initial state zero if you like and use the minimum energy needed to transition from the initial state to that state.) All known laws of physics only allow the machine to transition to states with an equal number, and any energy removed from the machine (including radiated and conducted heat) reduces that number. This is sufficient to show that any perpetual motion machine is provably impossible if it uses only the known properties of physics.
Really? What about this one:My sole point here is that you can't do this with the known laws of motion, gravity, magnetics, and electricity.
Quote
For any such fixed-sized machine based solely on motion, gravity, magnetics, and electricity, and consuming no input fuel, you can assign a number to every state of the machine based on how much energy it would take to assemble the machine, charge its capacitors, place its magnets, accelerate any moving parts, and so on, starting with all the components at rest, neutrally charged, and infinitely far apart. (Or, alternatively, you can call the machine's initial state zero if you like and use the minimum energy needed to transition from the initial state to that state.) All known laws of physics only allow the machine to transition to states with an equal number, and any energy removed from the machine (including radiated and conducted heat) reduces that number. This is sufficient to show that any perpetual motion machine is provably impossible if it uses only the known properties of physics.
Really? What about this one:My sole point here is that you can't do this with the known laws of motion, gravity, magnetics, and electricity.
5 BTC? I swear, people are fucking cheap...even if it's just trolling.
It's a better deal than Tesla got.
Wasn't being sarcastic, displace what water? The water is already displaced, the balls would all be of equal size, and the same mass would be in the water at any given time. As half of 1 ball leaves the water, half of 1 is already entering.
Since one ball is leaving at the top and one ball is entering at the bottom, you need to convert a space at the top of the water (left by the leaving ball) to a space at the bottom of the water (needed by the entering ball). How can you do that without lifting the water up?The energy you get from the air rising comes from the water lowering as the air rises. Since water is denser than water, it takes more energy to lift the water up to make space for the entering ball than you get from the rising of that ball.
Imagine a tube with a fixed amount of water in it. Now imagine that same tube with the same amount of water but an air bubble in the bottom. The water level must be higher in the second tube. Thus it takes energy to place an air bubble in the bottom of a tube of water without removing water from it, since the existing water must be raised. This applies regardless of what's going on at the top of the tube.
Is this taking into count that a thing like this would potentially be a few hundred pounds of rubber balls on the outside pulling down, as the balls in the water is lifting up?
Wasn't being sarcastic, displace what water? The water is already displaced, the balls would all be of equal size, and the same mass would be in the water at any given time. As half of 1 ball leaves the water, half of 1 is already entering.
Since one ball is leaving at the top and one ball is entering at the bottom, you need to convert a space at the top of the water (left by the leaving ball) to a space at the bottom of the water (needed by the entering ball). How can you do that without lifting the water up?The energy you get from the air rising comes from the water lowering as the air rises. Since water is denser than water, it takes more energy to lift the water up to make space for the entering ball than you get from the rising of that ball.
Imagine a tube with a fixed amount of water in it. Now imagine that same tube with the same amount of water but an air bubble in the bottom. The water level must be higher in the second tube. Thus it takes energy to place an air bubble in the bottom of a tube of water. This applies regardless of what's going on at the top of the tube.
The water suffers an equal force from the balloons as it places upon them (Newton's third law). This force, because the water has nowhere to go, is transferred to the entering balloon, and prevents it from coming in. The other balloons, which are trying to tug it, are halted as well because the two forces are equal. The two forces balance out and nothing moves.
In a way, this means that the balloons being lifted by water means the water is being suppressed by the balloons, so it takes all the force gained to keep the water up.
5 BTC? I swear, people are fucking cheap...even if it's just trolling.
Wasn't being sarcastic, displace what water? The water is already displaced, the balls would all be of equal size, and the same mass would be in the water at any given time. As half of 1 ball leaves the water, half of 1 is already entering.
Since one ball is leaving at the top and one ball is entering at the bottom, you need to convert a space at the top of the water (left by the leaving ball) to a space at the bottom of the water (needed by the entering ball). How can you do that without lifting the water up?The energy you get from the air rising comes from the water lowering as the air rises. Since water is denser than water, it takes more energy to lift the water up to make space for the entering ball than you get from the rising of that ball.
Imagine a tube with a fixed amount of water in it. Now imagine that same tube with the same amount of water but an air bubble in the bottom. The water level must be higher in the second tube. Thus it takes energy to place an air bubble in the bottom of a tube of water without removing water from it, since the existing water must be raised. This applies regardless of what's going on at the top of the tube.
Simple: In order to enter the Water tank, you balloons would have to displace the water at first, thereby raising the Waterlevel. This would require the same energy the water uses later to displace the balloon upward.
For any such fixed-sized machine based solely on motion, gravity, magnetics, and electricity, and consuming no input fuel, you can assign a number to every state of the machine based on how much energy it would take to assemble the machine, charge its capacitors, place its magnets, accelerate any moving parts, and so on, starting with all the components at rest, neutrally charged, and infinitely far apart. (Or, alternatively, you can call the machine's initial state zero if you like and use the minimum energy needed to transition from the initial state to that state.) All known laws of physics only allow the machine to transition to states with an equal number, and any energy removed from the machine (including radiated and conducted heat) reduces that number. This is sufficient to show that any perpetual motion machine is provably impossible if it uses only the known properties of physics.
It can't work because of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy. Generating energie out of nowhere is impossible. It (hypothetically) might be possible to create something thats keeps spinning at a constant speed, in a vacuum and with no friction.
That's it period.
Fake.
That's it period.
Fake.
Really?
Excuse my bad paint skills.
Picture (see above)
Why do people always assume that things are impossible? Nothing is.
Ok, if you just being sarcastic, sorry for not understanding.
Do I really have to explain why this wouldn't work?
Simple: In order to enter the Water tank, you balloons would have to displace the water at first, thereby raising the Waterlevel. This would require the same energy the water uses later to displace the balloon upward.
At next a drawing where you lift yourself up by pulling on your legs please.
Wasn't being sarcastic, displace what water? The water is already displaced, the balls would all be of equal size, and the same mass would be in the water at any given time. As half of 1 ball leaves the water, half of 1 is already entering.
Please explain how it would be affected, I'm willing to learn (And that's not sarcastic I'm really willing to learn.)
It can't work because of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy. Generating energie out of nowhere is impossible. It (hypothetically) might be possible to create something thats keeps spinning at a constant speed, in a vacuum and with no friction.
That's it period.
Fake.
That's it period.
Fake.
Really?
Excuse my bad paint skills.
Picture (see above)
Why do people always assume that things are impossible? Nothing is.
Ok, if you just being sarcastic, sorry for not understanding.
Do I really have to explain why this wouldn't work?
Simple: In order to enter the Water tank, you balloons would have to displace the water at first, thereby raising the Waterlevel. This would require the same energy the water uses later to displace the balloon upward.
At next a drawing where you lift yourself up by pulling on your legs please.
Wasn't being sarcastic, displace what water? The water is already displaced, the balls would all be of equal size, and the same mass would be in the water at any given time. As half of 1 ball leaves the water, half of 1 is already entering.
Please explain how it would be affected, I'm willing to learn (And that's not sarcastic I'm really willing to learn.)
Simple: In order to enter the Water tank, you balloons would have to displace the water at first, thereby raising the Waterlevel. This would require the same energy the water uses later to displace the balloon upward.
For any such fixed-sized machine based solely on motion, gravity, magnetics, and electricity, and consuming no input fuel, you can assign a number to every state of the machine based on how much energy it would take to assemble the machine, charge its capacitors, place its magnets, accelerate any moving parts, and so on, starting with all the components at rest, neutrally charged, and infinitely far apart. (Or, alternatively, you can call the machine's initial state zero if you like and use the minimum energy needed to transition from the initial state to that state.) All known laws of physics only allow the machine to transition to states with an equal number, and any energy removed from the machine (including radiated and conducted heat) reduces that number. This is pretty much sufficient to show that any perpetual motion machine is provably impossible if it uses only the known properties of physics.At next a drawing where you lift yourself up by pulling on your legs please.
It can't work because of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy. Generating energie out of nowhere is impossible. It (hypothetically) might be possible to create something thats keeps spinning at a constant speed, in a vacuum and with no friction.
That's it period.
Fake.
That's it period.
Fake.
Really?
Excuse my bad paint skills.
Picture (see above)
Why do people always assume that things are impossible? Nothing is.
Ok, if you just being sarcastic, sorry for not understanding.
Do I really have to explain why this wouldn't work?
Simple: In order to enter the Water tank, you balloons would have to displace the water at first, thereby raising the Waterlevel. This would require the same energy the water uses later to displace the balloon upward.
At next a drawing where you lift yourself up by pulling on your legs please.
Also sorry for using the term impossible.
"With our current understanding of physics it is epistemically impossible" - better?
To the initially device in the video, its basically this:
It can't work because of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy. Generating energie out of nowhere is impossible. It (hypothetically) might be possible to create something thats keeps spinning at a constant speed, in a vacuum and with no friction.
That's it period.
Fake.
That's it period.
Fake.
Really?
Excuse my bad paint skills.
Why do people always assume that things are impossible? Nothing is.
lol
Jump to: