ballzac Posted May 26, 2011 I'm not a big fan of Don Bradman, though I'm not gonna try to do better at cricket than him. Hopefully that makes you feel a little better, lol. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n00dle Posted May 26, 2011 ahem. flying spaghetti monster. and dont any of you lie, we can all agree on that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderIdeal Posted June 5, 2011 i think it's very cool, but while that does make me appreciate the theory itself and the people who developed it, my reaction is mainly to be fascinated by the universe which inspired the theory. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ballzac Posted June 5, 2011 For me it's probably about 50/50. I am fascinated by the fact that the universe behaves in unexpected ways. I'm fascinated by both the seeming complexity and the underlying symmetries of the universe. But I think I'm equally in awe of the human minds that have managed to solve some of what is a cosmic puzzle. How's this for a perpetual motion machine: Design a huge belt that travels between the Earth and the sun in a big "O" shape. Picture the Earth at the top and the Sun at the bottom of this "O". The atoms on the left are in an excited state, and on the right are in the ground state. Energy=mass, therefore the left hand side is drawn towards the Sun more than the right hand side and the belt rotates anticlockwise. At the bottom of the "O" is a device that causes the atoms to emit a photon. The photons are focussed towards the Earth, and are absorbed by the atoms closest to the Earth. This means that as the belt rotates, the right hand side will always be in the ground state, and on the left will always be in an excited state, so gravity continues to pull the left side towards the Sun and the belt always rotates. Curious if anyone can spot what's wrong with this idea. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
monkey Posted July 18, 2011 I really don't want to sound all closed-off with this statement, but really if you are thinking of perpetual motion machines you really need also become familiar with the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Basically not only you need to conserve energy, but it is very difficult to harvest low-quality, highly random energy such as heat in ambient air. The good news is our Earth has an abundance of sustainable energy that can be used (that still isn't technically "free" or "infinite"), such as solar energy. It is only a matter of time until people figure out how to make it cheaper than coal to practically use. IMO, its cheap enough already. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mac Posted July 18, 2011 (edited) The good news is our Earth has an abundance of sustainable energy that can be used (that still isn't technically "free" or "infinite"), such as solar energy. It is only a matter of time until people figure out how to make it cheaper than coal to practically use. IMO, its cheap enough already. Slightly off topic but monkey's comment made me think about the technology involved in wave energy, you could say the sea is a form of perpetual motion & "free" or "infinite", with Australia's vast coastline im sure its the way to go A type of linear electrical generator or "shake flashlight" setup using the waves makes sense Edited July 18, 2011 by mac Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slybacon Posted July 18, 2011 Have a look of the coast of wollongong on google maps or nearmap. I'll provide a link from work. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ballzac Posted July 18, 2011 Slightly off topic but monkey's comment made me think about the technology involved in wave energy, you could say the sea is a form of perpetual motion & "free" or "infinite", with Australia's vast coastline im sure its the way to go For the purposes of humans, these forms of energy are practically an infinite reservoir, but not in any strict sense. The energy comes from the heat of the Earth from its creation and radioactive decay (which will cool), the light from the sun (which will run out) and the movement of the tides (the Earth will eventually become tidally locked). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sheather Posted July 19, 2011 I was of the opinion that the tides came as a result primarily of the moons slight gravitational pull on our oceans as it orbits, and if this is the case, how then, with the moon continuing to orbit, could the tides ever cease? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ballzac Posted July 19, 2011 It's a combination of the effect of the moon and the effect of the sun, but lets just focus on the moon. The principles are the same for both. The moon pulls the tides around the Earth as the earth rotates, but the tides lag behind a little due to friction with the Earth. In fact, any device that extracted usable energy from the tides would form part of this friction. This effect is easy to see for yourself if you are at the beach when the moon is directly overhead, as the tides will continue to rise for a couple of hours. Not only is the moon exerting a force on the water, but the water is also exerting a force on the moon, pulling it faster with the rotation of the Earth. At the same time, the friction of the water on the Earth causes the Earth to slow down. Eventually the rotation of the Earth and the orbit of the moon will match up and there will be no change in the tides. As an aside, the speeding up of the moon bumps it up to a larger radius orbit, and I think we'll lose it entirely before it becomes tidally locked anyway. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slybacon Posted July 19, 2011 (edited) Before $5m Port Kembla wave generator wrecked After BY NICOLE HASHAM 15 May, 2010 04:00 AM A $5 million wave energy project off Port Kembla is facing ruin after it broke free from its moorings and crashed into rocks in rough seas. The barge-like prototype, one of the first of its type in the world, snapped free of pylons 150m offshore about 1.30pm and was swept into the eastern breakwall, where it was grounded last night. Salvage crews rushed to the scene late yesterday to assess the damage, and Port Kembla pilot boats were expected to monitor the wreck closely overnight to ensure it did not pose a risk to shipping activity. A tugboat crew tried to tow the stricken barge to safety, but their efforts were reportedly hampered by 3m waves and a mass of cables trailing through the water. Fears were held for the safety of the barge overnight, with a heavy swell and 4m waves expected. The rough seas are expected to ease from midday today. Ports and Waterways Minister Paul McLeay said power to the barge was isolated and at no stage posed an electrocution risk. Port Kembla Ports Corporation chief executive Dom Figliomeni said the barge was lodged tight, and "wasn't going anywhere". Salvage crews are expected to try to tow the barge to a berth today. A spokesman for the project's Sydney-based developer, Oceanlinx, said there were more than double the required mooring lines in place to ensure its safe operation. "The unit was safely disconnected from the power grid and efforts are now underway to retrieve the unit from the breakwater." It will be a blow to Oceanlinx, which had been keen to prove the project was commercially viable. The wave-to-energy barge, known as the Mk3, was at the forefront of marine renewable technology and has operated for four years. Launched at a ceremony on March 29 by Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett, it is feeding power into the Integral Energy grid. The mishap caused a 45-minute power outage to nearby areas. I was going to link to this wave generator near wollongong when I found this...... ekkk Edited July 19, 2011 by Slybacon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sheather Posted July 19, 2011 Thanks for that explanation ballzac. Clear and helpful Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bretloth Posted July 19, 2011 Had the idea once that if you could run a hydroelectric turbine on a closed system syphon loop, it would be effectively free energy. Having a water reservoir gravity feeding into the turbine and the flow that's gone through the turbine syphoned back upto the reservior. Might work. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ballzac Posted July 19, 2011 you can't siphon upwards Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slybacon Posted July 19, 2011 (edited) ^^^^ What about capillary action, like that decribed back further? I personally think magnets have been under rated in this thread. Edited July 19, 2011 by Slybacon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sheather Posted July 19, 2011 You would need a high enough volume in the base to push the water through a pipe that reached the top reservoir wouldn't you? Pressure being equal in all locations and all that, a huge volume of water pressing on a small volume could send it up, no? Then it comes back down into the base through the turbine. Tell me where I'm wrong because that's what I remember from physics but it shouldn't be possible methinks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bretloth Posted July 19, 2011 If you had a large enough body of water gravity feeding down, would it create enough pressure to push a funnelled pipe back up? Maybe syphon was the wrong word. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slybacon Posted July 19, 2011 If you had a large enough body of water gravity feeding down, would it create enough pressure to push a funnelled pipe back up? Maybe syphon was the wrong word. You would be reducing that pressure when you run it through a turbine Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bretloth Posted July 19, 2011 You would be reducing that pressure when you run it through a turbine True. Maybe use a spiral to generate more speed/pressure. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ballzac Posted July 19, 2011 You would need a high enough volume in the base to push the water through a pipe that reached the top reservoir wouldn't you? Pressure being equal in all locations and all that, a huge volume of water pressing on a small volume could send it up, no? Then it comes back down into the base through the turbine. Tell me where I'm wrong because that's what I remember from physics but it shouldn't be possible methinks. Water pressure is a function of depth only, not volume. The water depth in the siphon tube (and under it) would be more than the depth outside of the tube. If the pressure is higher underneath the siphon than around it, then the flow has to be downwards, not upwards. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bretloth Posted July 19, 2011 This may be interesting. http://www.hasslberger.com/tecno/tecno_2.htm Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PsillyBean Posted July 20, 2011 Hey ballzac would this have any effect also? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_wobble Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ballzac Posted July 20, 2011 It would have to contribute, but I would expect that contribution to be very small. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Roopey Posted August 22, 2011 (edited) Anyone interested in this topic should look into the book A Practical Guide to "Free Energy" Devices by Patrick J. Kelly. It helps to understand that the Law of Energy is true, but not always obvious. He helps in understanding that we can actually get energy from the surrounding environment by use of magnets. In fact that is exactly how batteries work, but since they are in a closed circuit, they eventually wear out due to a constant destruction and recreation of the dipole. If a battery were to be put into an open electrical circuit, it would never run out of energy. This is all due to a concept called broken symmetry. Generators using these concepts exist, but the patents all get bought up immediately and hidden from the public. To all those interested, the book mention earlier is a 900 page manual on how to build and understand quite a number of "Free Energy" devices. Edited August 22, 2011 by Roopey Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
