Or can you? Well according to one irish based company Physics schmisics and laws splaws as they claim to of invented the perpetual motion device (1 thing that is supposedly impossible). Apparently while working with ways to power mini cctv cameras they were working with magnets and they did something (they would be pretty dumb to say what so i dont know what) and they found that they were getting more energy out than they had put in in effect theyd created something with an efficency of over 100% (also supposedly impossible). Well so what many people claim to of made a perpeutual motion some are con men others merely failed to spot the source of this extra energy, so what makes these guys different? simple they put out a massive add that cost them ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã70,000 (i think i lost the paper i read about this in :wall: ) offering 12 scientist the chance to examine the plans for thier design and come to thier own conclusion.

 

 

 

So what do you think elaborate scam or a machine that actually will break the laws of phyisics and help reduce global warming massively whilst making these guys a million times richer than bill gates could ever dream of? post your views here

This is news from the 18th of August. If they had indeed created such a machine and it wasn't a total flop, we would have heard something more of it by now. It's highly doubtful.

 

 

 

Companies don't rewrite the laws of physics. Physicists do.

i read about it in wednesdays paper and it said they were still narrowing down the list of scientists from thousands to 12

James Randi wrote about it in Swift a few weeks ago. Its all a big scam, same as all the other supernatural devices and homeopathic treatments.

Magnets are a typical part of a perpetual machines; it probably stems from people's fascinations with magnets, being able to exert forces on objects from a distance. In most static setups involving magnets you find out when doing a line integral around the geometry of the setup, there is no net force on the moveable magnet.

 

 

 

With headings in the patent like ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅLow energy magnetic actuatorÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Bollocks. It's obvious that a machina perpetua can never exist if you know that:

 

all gravity (so all negative energy) is equal to all positive energy, which is everything else, like heat, movement etc.

 

If you keep this in mind, a machine that creates energy, creates gravity, and gravity can ONLY be the result of mass.

 

You can also prove it is impossible by simply filling in the same stuff in Einstein's E=MCÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâò formula: you need to create more mass in order to create more energy. Which we cannot. All atoms here on Earth form the total matter we can use, and it can not be increased, except from outer space.

Magnets are a typical part of a perpetual machines

 

 

 

Actually they're not. They'll only last as long as they are magnetic, so as long as the Earth exists. The true definition of a machina perpetua is that it cancreate energy, without the use of anything else, so not even the Earth.

 

Actually they're not. They'll only last as long as they are magnetic, so as long as the Earth exists. The true definition of a machina perpetua is that it cancreate energy, without the use of anything else, so not even the Earth.

 

 

 

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q ... on+magnets

 

 

 

307,000 results... yeah not typical. Remember these are people who believe in perpetual motion.

magnets use themselves up after a while. you cant have them in a perpetual motion machine.

magnets use themselves up after a while. you cant have them in a perpetual motion machine.

 

 

 

Yeps, I was about to say that.

due to their movements through eachothers magnetic fields the magnets get - eventually - opposite charges of which they had untill they are no longer magnetic.

Uhh.. this was debunked about a week ago. Dunno the article off-hand, but it was pretty much obviously a scam from the get-go.

 

 

 

The website was too pretty. Engineering firms don't have pretty websites, it's another law of physics.

A law of physics is declared a law for a reason. Some douche bags working on a camera couldn't simply change them with some "discovery".

Laws aren't as definite as you think, Tigra. The earth-is-the-center-of-the-solar-system theory was a scientific law until it was proven wrong.

 

 

 

True, based on all our information at the moment, it appears that we cannot create machines that produce 100%, over, or anywhere near 100% efficiency, but it could be possible.

 

 

 

Just like it may be possible to create matter, or travel beyond the speed of light, or discover something we don't even know about now because our sense-organs aren't equipped to pick-up on it.

Doubt it.

Laws aren't as definite as you think, Tigra. The earth-is-the-center-of-the-solar-system theory was a scientific law until it was proven wrong.

 

 

 

True, based on all our information at the moment, it appears that we cannot create machines that produce 100%, over, or anywhere near 100% efficiency, but it could be possible.

 

 

 

Just like it may be possible to create matter, or travel beyond the speed of light, or discover something we don't even know about now because our sense-organs aren't equipped to pick-up on it.

 

Actually, the geocentric model of the solar system wasn't a scientifical law. It was religion/egotism/ignorance.

 

 

 

And you can't create matter. Or energy. You're just a conspiracy-ist.

 

Law of Conservation of Matter -> Matter can neither be created nor destroy. (But it can be converted such as in when anti-matter and matter collide and make big boom and pretty light).

 

Law of Conservation of Energy -> Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. (But such as in the previous parathesis.)

 

The conversion equation is M=E/(C^2) where m is mass, e is energy and c^2 is the speed of light squared.

 

So there.

 

 

 

Maybe in science fiction shows or in dreams, but not in the real world.

 

 

 

I would go into a whole big thing about this but, it's been about 3 months since my Physics class ended so I've forgotten lotsa. Gotta keep my mind sharp, I'm going to research this stuff 'morrow.

True, it wasn't a "law" as we consider "laws" today, but it had similar standing.

 

 

 

And you're not getting my point- as I said, the laws we hold to be true exist only as far as they're not proven wrong.

 

 

 

Know something cool? All of the lwas concerning momentum, conservation of momentum, forces, etc; basically all of newtonian physics - doesn't work at all on the quantum level.

 

 

 

However it's the best way we have at this point in time to describe things on a macro scale, so that's what we use.

 

 

 

 

 

Again- they're only laws becuase they seem to be right, but haven't been proven wrong. They're not infallable.

Who is anyone here to say what is impossible or not?

 

"Flying Machines" and etc were once considered an impossibility.

 

 

 

People today think of themselves as being at the peak of human intelligence. Now even the theory of a perpetual motion machine is flawed, I'll give you that, but that's only if you base it on the human laws of physics. But 1,000 years from now scientists will laugh at us for thinking of such things as impossible, just as we do to the "scientists" who preceded us.

 

 

 

Of course the law of conservation of energy says that energy can be neither created nor lost, so all a perpetual motion machine would be in actuality is a machine that maintains a stable amount of energy or draws energy off one of the other forces in work (friction gravity etc).

Laws aren't as definite as you think, Tigra. The earth-is-the-center-of-the-solar-system theory was a scientific law until it was proven wrong.

 

 

 

True, based on all our information at the moment, it appears that we cannot create machines that produce 100%, over, or anywhere near 100% efficiency, but it could be possible.

 

 

 

Just like it may be possible to create matter, or travel beyond the speed of light, or discover something we don't even know about now because our sense-organs aren't equipped to pick-up on it.

 

Actually, the geocentric model of the solar system wasn't a scientifical law. It was religion/egotism/ignorance.

 

 

 

And you can't create matter. Or energy. You're just a conspiracy-ist.

 

Law of Conservation of Matter -> Matter can neither be created nor destroy. (But it can be converted such as in when anti-matter and matter collide and make big boom and pretty light).

 

Law of Conservation of Energy -> Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. (But such as in the previous parathesis.)

 

The conversion equation is M=E/(C^2) where m is mass, e is energy and c^2 is the speed of light squared.

 

So there.

 

 

 

Maybe in science fiction shows or in dreams, but not in the real world.

 

 

 

I would go into a whole big thing about this but, it's been about 3 months since my Physics class ended so I've forgotten lotsa. Gotta keep my mind sharp, I'm going to research this stuff 'morrow.

 

 

 

That's like a copy of what I said in my first reply :

And you can't create matter. Or energy. You're just a conspiracy-ist.

 

Law of Conservation of Matter -> Matter can neither be created nor destroy. (But it can be converted such as in when anti-matter and matter collide and make big boom and pretty light).

 

Law of Conservation of Energy -> Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. (But such as in the previous parathesis.)

 

The conversion equation is M=E/(C^2) where m is mass, e is energy and c^2 is the speed of light squared.

 

So there.

 

 

 

His comment just went straight over your head didn't it?

 

 

 

He wasn't saying YOU CAN. He was saying that these are THEORIES based on what we know and the fact is we don't know everything so they may yet be proved false.

And you can't create matter. Or energy. You're just a conspiracy-ist.

 

Law of Conservation of Matter -> Matter can neither be created nor destroy. (But it can be converted such as in when anti-matter and matter collide and make big boom and pretty light).

 

Law of Conservation of Energy -> Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. (But such as in the previous parathesis.)

 

The conversion equation is M=E/(C^2) where m is mass, e is energy and c^2 is the speed of light squared.

 

So there.

 

 

 

His comment just went straight over your head didn't it?

 

 

 

He wasn't saying YOU CAN. He was saying that these are THEORIES based on what we know and the fact is we don't know everything so they may yet be proved false.

 

Went straight over my... hey! Are you making fun of me for being short? o.o How would you even know I'm short? I'm scared. o.O

 

 

 

But I guess your right about the whole ... thingy. People thought that it was impossible for photons to have momentum because p=mv and the m of a photon is 0 so anything multiplied by 0 equals 0, thus photons should have no mass.

 

 

 

But in reality photons do have momentum despite their mass-less-ness. It's related to their wavelength. (I liked this part of physics, I like drawing lambda, it was a fun letter ^.^ I played tic tac toe with someone and instead of x i used lambda). Einstein proved it. Maybe some 21st century will debunk the Conservation of Energy/Mass and every single thing about physics involving those two (i.e. work, friction, electrical resistance, etc.) will be thrown out the window.

 

 

 

Meh. I don't like thinking about this stuff. Freaks my mind out. But if stuff is true, then you have to accept it I guess.

Chuck Norris can.

I've seen water go upwards, of its own accord.

I've seen water go upwards, of its own accord.

I know the thing you are talking about but its certainly not of its own accord. It uses a specially "stepped" slope and is heated so that the steam would push the droplets upwards. It most certainly was not flowing up a hill as you make out in your post.