Recall Steorn, the company that we've discussed before? They are the ones who claim to have produced magnet-powered "free energy" with their "Orbo" invention, suitable for powering devices "ranging from portable music players to cars".
Orbo produces free, clean and constant energy - that is our claim. By free we mean that the energy produced is done so without recourse to external source. By clean we mean that during operation the technology produces no emissions. By constant we mean that with the exception of mechanical failure the technology will continue to operate indefinitely.
The sum of these claims for our Orbo technology is a violation of the principle of conservation of energy, perhaps the most fundamental of scientific principles. The principle of the conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created or destroyed, it can only change form.
Steorn's universe-altering invention was supposed to be demo'ed today. But, unfortunately, there were some "technical difficulties" caused by "intense heat from the camera lighting". So, it looks like humanity is going to have to wait until Steorn fixes their cameras. Then, they should have no problem changing the fundamental laws of physics.
I built one of these things once, but as soon as I fired it up it sped off into deep space at an exponentially increasing rate of acceleration never to be seen again.
I couldn't get my camera up quick enough to get a snapshot and the dog ate the blueprints so I was never able to reproduce it.
Too bad.
Anyways I thought NXS had this one figured out already...
PS: Jon, the demonstration that you linked to seems to have hyper-accelerated off somewhere also.
I didn't read the original claim but the excerpt you show states one of the laws of thermodynamics. If conservation of energy was the only law that pertained, then it would be conceivable to come up with some contraption that could transfer energy indefinitely. However even then it could do no useful work or it would be consumed. There is no such thing as free energy. I am assuming however that the 'inventors' stop there and ignore the second law (common mistake made by inventors of all perpetual motion machines/free energy devices/self propelling spaceships you name it). That law states that energy cannot be used, transferred, or otherwise manipulated without an increase in entropy. In English, this law means that even though energy is conserved, when it is transferred, there is a lost in usability of that energy. You burn 1 gallon of gasoline and get 1/4 gallon worth of work out of it. You consume 100watts of electricity and get 95 watts worth of light/power/ whatever from it. You bounce a rubber ball 10' high, the next bounce will be 9.9' high. Start a top spinning and it will eventually stop. Implications of these few simple laws are staggering and folks spend lifetimes working with applications of them. Of course they are pop culture favorites for disproving perpetual motion. But they are incredibly more expansive than that. For example, they prove the universe had a beginning and will have an end. It isn't infinite. They disprove spontaneous generation of life. They disprove evolution. And on, and on, and on.
Amazing how this science 101 basic principle is unknown. Either most people have not taken Jr. Hi science or more likely slept through it.
I didn't read the original claim but the excerpt you show states one of the laws of thermodynamics. If conservation of energy was the only law that pertained, then it would be conceivable to come up with some contraption that could transfer energy indefinitely. However even then it could do no useful work or it would be consumed. There is no such thing as free energy. I am assuming however that the 'inventors' stop there and ignore the second law (common mistake made by inventors of all perpetual motion machines/free energy devices/self propelling spaceships you name it). That law states that energy cannot be used, transferred, or otherwise manipulated without an increase in entropy. In English, this law means that even though energy is conserved, when it is transferred, there is a lost in usability of that energy. You burn 1 gallon of gasoline and get 1/4 gallon worth of work out of it. You consume 100watts of electricity and get 95 watts worth of light/power/ whatever from it. You bounce a rubber ball 10' high, the next bounce will be 9.9' high. Start a top spinning and it will eventually stop. Implications of these few simple laws are staggering and folks spend lifetimes working with applications of them. Of course they are pop culture favorites for disproving perpetual motion. But they are incredibly more expansive than that. For example, they prove the universe had a beginning and will have an end. It isn't infinite. They disprove spontaneous generation of life. They disprove evolution. And on, and on, and on.
Amazing how this science 101 basic principle is unknown. Either most people have not taken Jr. Hi science or more likely slept through it.
Willys, you take all the fun out of it...now if we could only devise a self powered gasser with no parasitic loss of energy that would feed itself in constantly increasing proportions that would be a hoot!
Seriously, I respect people that attempt to create new things, but they are going to have to do a better job of proving themselves than this. Who knows, maybe someday a way around the existing laws of physics will be discovered...so I hope people keep trying.
Yes it would be fun and I would be the first to cheer. But if and when it happens, it won't be hampered by a couple 100W light bulbs at it's debut. If something like that worked, it would be moving continents or maybe readjusting the orbit of Jupiter, after it finished supplying the earth with infinite free energy.
Yes it would be fun and I would be the first to cheer. But if and when it happens, it won't be hampered by a couple 100W light bulbs at it's debut. If something like that worked, it would be moving continents or maybe readjusting the orbit of Jupiter, after it finished supplying the earth with infinite free energy.
Well, we are always devising things that will undo us in the future...so who knows.
Imagine the consequences of readjusting the orbit of jupiter...after al it would probably end in our destruction, but hey; isn't that what science is all about: explanation with no regard to life?
This kinda reminds me of the old "you can't get there from here" argument. First you have to go half way, then half way again, then half way again, ad infinitum.
simple: each of these additives acts in correspondence to each other
it's not really 105% energy, making back 1 twentieth of your fuel
it's: 1.20*1.15*1.25*1.20*1.25=2.5875 times your gas mileage
but we'll assume you already knew that. what i wanna know is how small the fuel cell is that you're running or how bad the gas mileage is that your tank should overflow every 60 miles. :thumbup:
Well if everyone just wanted an easy cheap method of transportation, the solution is simple.. create a device that makes the universe move around you, then you don't need anything at all. :thumbup:
But they are incredibly more expansive than that. For example, they prove the universe had a beginning and will have an end. It isn't infinite. They disprove spontaneous generation of life. They disprove evolution. And on, and on, and on.
Uhh... Don't know how far you'd want to go with them there proof things. Just 'cause I can't fly by pulling real hard on my socks doesn't make darwin wrong. Doesn't make him right either, just means I can't fly by pulling on my socks. Yet.
Clunker
Uhh... Don't know how far you'd want to go with them there proof things. Just 'cause I can't fly by pulling real hard on my socks doesn't make darwin wrong. Doesn't make him right either, just means I can't fly by pulling on my socks. Yet.
Clunker
Made me think of a physics puzzle in a book I have. Thought some of you might want to take a stab at it seeing as we're on that topic.
Can the man lift himself and the platform off the ground by pulling up on the rope or is this action futile (like pulling on his socks)? In other words, is the force he is exerting with his arms being canceled by the weight pushing down on the platform with his feet?
first of all, it's not futile, I've been repeatedly told that it's never too late...
But seriously, I've had a couple of beers but it looks to me like it's climbing a rope with a platform strapped to yer butt, that pulley just means you're pulling in a different direction. If you've had your wheaties, once you pull harder than your weight plus the platform weight, you'll go up.
-clunker
first of all, it's not futile, I've been repeatedly told that it's never too late...
But seriously, I've had a couple of beers but it looks to me like it's climbing a rope with a platform strapped to yer butt, that pulley just means you're pulling in a different direction. If you've had your wheaties, once you pull harder than your weight plus the platform weight, you'll go up.
-clunker
first of all, it's not futile, I've been repeatedly told that it's never too late...
But seriously, I've had a couple of beers but it looks to me like it's climbing a rope with a platform strapped to yer butt, that pulley just means you're pulling in a different direction. If you've had your wheaties, once you pull harder than your weight plus the platform weight, you'll go up.
-clunker
The actual weight to be lifted would be equal to the body weight+ platform weight+ pulley and structure weight + 1/2 the weight of the suspended rope. The amount of force required for lift would be half that total by means of the pulley. If the rope was pulled upward 2 feet the platform would raise 1 foot.
The actual weight to be lifted would be equal to the body weight+ platform weight+ pulley and structure weight + 1/2 the weight of the suspended rope. The amount of force required for lift would be half that total by means of the pulley. If the rope was pulled upward 2 feet the platform would raise 1 foot.
I rethought it and was still convinced I was right....to the point of a basement experiment using a sheave pulley with a pry bar through the hook as my platform. (I've used that pulley with a set of come-a-longs to hoist engines and so forth to make things easier) It was just about the same time I realized that I didn't have popeyes arms that I realized the difference in the two setups. :spank: The platform puzzle only uses one fixed point so it can't use the leverage of a pulley with two fixed points. Sorry for the brain fart but a good puzzle none the less.
....+ the weight of what I ate for breakfast + any body lice or tooth tartar...
-clunker
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Hot Rod Forum
2.2M posts
175.6K members
Since 2001
A forum community dedicated to hot rod owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about restoration, builds, performance, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!