This chap from Cornwall reckons he has solved the issue of perpetual motion.....and made a pretty nifty vehicle too 8)
http://cars.uk.msn.com/news/in-pictures-msv-explorer-amphibious-vehicle-promises-perpetual-motion (http://cars.uk.msn.com/news/in-pictures-msv-explorer-amphibious-vehicle-promises-perpetual-motion)
I thought perpetual motion was a pipe dream, at least that's what we are told, you can't get something for nothing.
Reading through the 14 pages it seems that modern technology is about to turn that theory on its head, I wonder can it be true, we all want it to be but really can it?
It seems it could be:
Quotethe gyro gen produces 1,600 amps, far more than the 400 amps required to drive a pair of motors.
There isn't much information on the actual technology behind it.
I will hold fire on reserving judgment just yet and wish them the best of luck.
Excellent find DD :thumbsup:
Brilliant find DD. Shame there isn't more detail available about the Technology involved, would make for a very interesting read.
You know, the statement that he spent "thirty-five thousand hours of science" sounds impressive, till you do the math. That's just shy of 4 years, so not really all that long, considering all of the other "perpetual motion", "free energy" (which amounts to nearly the same thing), or other (I want to say "crackpot" here) projects of this nature that have been researched and worked on for far longer periods.
And what's with the fashion disaster? Does it HAVE to look like someone played "mad doctor" with a lemon and a UFO? I mean, yellow is a nice enough colour, but it looks like E.T. is trying to mate with a Smart Car! :rofl:
One of my favourite quotes of Leonardo is this :
"Oh, ye seekers after perpetual motion, how many vain chimeras have you pursued? Go and take your place with the alchemists."
Alchemists who of course wanted to turn lead into gold. Maybe he will be proved wrong though.
I have for a while now thought this could equally be applied to AI...
Well, with regard to AI, we'll never see it until we can get at least 2 people to agree on what "intelligence" actually is. :P
I think we all know what intelligence is, it's just a difficult thing to sum up in words. Semantics and all that.
Itelligence ?, Hmmm. Is that when someone does something in good faith and another person takes offence. :scratch-head:
No, that's just "conversation", these days, diesel. :)
To me, "intelligence" is being able to open a can of soup without a can opener. AND without destroying the can, or making a mess. :P Well, without TOO much of a mess, at least.
Wow, this one stirred up a nice bit of debate didn't it :thumbsup:
I thought the vehicle looks pretty nifty myself....although I agree the colour could be improved ???
I look forard to seeing where this could lead, has he really solved the issue or is this nothing more than an elaborate marketing ploy to bring his company to the attention of those with enough money to buy his vehicles..........
Quote from: DD1975 on December 17, 2012, 16:40:52 PM
or is this nothing more than an elaborate marketing ploy to bring his company to the attention of those with enough money to buy his vehicles..........
Now you mention it, it does put more doubt in my mind.
Snowy will put us straight :)
I suspect we won't find out until the "boffins" get their hands on his invention
Surely a submarine should be yellow.
And as for perpetual motion. 2lot, it's the law. (2nd law of thrmodynamics, the reason perpetual motion can't work)
Yeah, the "conservation of energy" bit, where it says that neither matter, nor energy, can be either created or destroyed. They just "swap places", as it were. :)
No, wait. That's the first law, isn't it? The second is all about "everything is doomed to die", or some such. Ok, well "Entropy tends to advance, and in a closed system, can never decrease" would be a more "academic" (I say stuffy) way to put it. :)
You know what gets me about the people on the telly who try to describe the 2nd law? They always use the example of "bridges rust", when that's patently untrue, for several reasons:
1.) the law postulates the advance of entropy in a closed system, and a bridge over a river (or even sitting in the middle of the desert, or even in space, for that matter) cannot be in a "closed system", because, by definition, a closed system has no outside forces acting upon it,
2.) even if said bridge was floating in space, where it can't be acted upon by the atmosphere, causing it to "rust" over time (what if it's an aluminum bridge? can't rust!), there are still outside forces acting upon iit. Plus, it's not going to corrode while in space, will it? :P
"bridges rust", my aunt Fannie!
Aluminium (aluminum) corrodes in salt air. Technically only iron rusts.
The universe is a closed system. Entropy always increases. The only blip is systems far from equilibrium, most notibly; life.
Life can maintain order only by the constant flow of energy (food). Entropy always wins in the end.
Oh, I'm not refuting the second law at all, Snowy. I'm just pointing out that they're using a flawed example, based on faulty nomenclature. And of course the Universe is a closed system, since there's nothing "outside" to influence things. Unless, of course, you take string theory into account along with multiple universes co-existing side by side, where the membranes between the two can be potentially disturbed, allowing things to "leak" from one to another and back. But that's highly theoretical stuff, and not widely accepted. :)
Space corrosion is generally called ablation. It is degradation by high energy particles from the solar wind and cosmic rays.
Most unity gain devices get their extra energy from somewhere else not specified in the device.
There is no such thing as a free lunch but the universe gets pretty close. (S.Hawking)
Quote from: Snowcrash on December 17, 2012, 22:28:07 PM
And as for perpetual motion. 2lot, it's the law. (2nd law of thrmodynamics, the reason perpetual motion can't work)
Laws are there to be bent, broken or re-written :thumbsup: