Notices
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: perpetual motion

  1. #1 perpetual motion 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Queensland Australia
    Posts
    32
    Hmmml...I'm not sure what to think of this. What do you guys and girls think?
    [b]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...331264,00.html[/url]

    The Times August 28, 2006

    Inventor keeps his perpetual motion machine under a cloak of invisibility
    By David Sharrock and Tom Whipple
    IT IS the modern-day equivalent of turning base metal into gold, and Sean McCarthy believes that he has it cracked.

    A free, infinite supply of pure energy could be sitting in a secure area of an unprepossessing unit in the Docklands of Dublin. Mr McCarthy claims to have created a perpetual motion machine, a device that can produce at least as much energy as it consumes, so that once it has been set running it can continue indefinitely.

    Even Sir Isaac Newton, who spent years trying to turn base metals into gold, reputedly said: “The seekers after perpetual motion are trying to get something from nothing.”

    The problem is that after allowing The Times and its physics expert, John White, into the office, Mr McCarthy decided not to let us see the machine. It is some form of an all-magnet motor and the only clue that he will give is that it looks like “a grandfather clock, without its pendulum”.

    Having made its existence known through a full-page advertisement in The Economist, Mr McCarthy, 40, has been overwhelmed by interest from around the world — some of which has veered towards “death threat” territory. “We had one physicist who finished his rant by saying, ‘You had better watch your back’,” he said.

    “We are getting bloggers putting out stories that this is a stunt to market Xboxes, that we are a call centre and that we have just closed down.”

    The search for perpetual motion is considered heretical in the scientific community because it violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. Historically, those who set out to prove otherwise fell into one of three categories: sincere but wrong; a few cogs short of a self-blowing windmill; and money-grabbing fraudsters.

    After the first British patent for a perpetual motion machine nearly four centuries ago, hundreds have followed.

    Mr McCarthy is the head of an IT company that advises police forces across Europe on fighting fraud. “If I am proved wrong, this company is out of business and I will never work in this town again,” he said.

    By the end of this month Mr McCarthy hopes to have assembled a panel of “the most qualified and the most cynical” scientists to test his machine.

    Dr White, an atomic physicist at University College Dublin, had a straightforward question: “Why not publish your results in a peer review journal and go and collect your Nobel prize when you are vindicated?” He added: “If he is right, he will have solved the riddle of the Universe and brought peace to the Middle East.”

    Mr McCarthy said that he had stumbled by accident across “a kinetic anomaly of magnetic fields” while developing a small wind turbine to power closed-circuit television cameras.

    Some “very well-respected” scientists had tested the machine and achieved the same results, he said. But they refused to publish their findings because “this area is surrounded by fraudsters and the misguided. So we decided that either we should just drop this or find a different way to get science interested.”

    The machine that could solve one of the world’s ills is shrouded in mystery. The Times got as far as a door marked “strictly no admittance” through which an animated-looking Frenchman disappeared.

    Dr White’s verdict? “I haven’t seen a working device and he has created publicity in a way that is non-traditional to scientific verification


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    63
    To be able to talk about a machine, similar in each and every way to a living system, that is a physical entity, open towards its surrounding environment and thus able to power itself and secondarily able to reproduce, it is necessary that the same is able to constantly extract energy from its surrounding environment ... without ever having to be serviced by man! It is on the basis of these principles, that we will be able to elaborate, in a future which is surely not too far away, some kind of machine… of a perpetual motion. To enable machines to self replicate themselves it will be anyhow necessary to wait a long time…a very long time.
    The creation of such kind of machine, able to reflect some proper and real living systems, is not however impossible. A solution could be to ensure that they can be powered by the energy of the sun; unfortunately with the technology that is nowadays available, they would not be able to constantly store a sufficiently high quantity of such energy to be able to reproduce themselves. We will therefore have to wait a few hundred years, before such machines can be produced. Until mankind will not be able to design and produce in series, engines of total annihilation, the film Terminator will never have any prophesy in it. Believe me.

    Even supposing that one day science could create such monsters, that is machines able to reproduce themselves, w can only hope that they would always operate and in any case for the wellbeing of mankind.

    “Science, each inclined towards its own direction, has up to now not caused much harm; but one day, the merging of fragments of dissociated conscious will open up panoramas of reality so terrifying…that we will either go crazy for the revelation, or will run away from its mortal light, searching refuge in the peace and security of new dark centuries”.
    H.P. Lovecraft

    Even if it could seem incredible, it is not only the chemical factors of carbon, able to generate physical entities of this kind; that is open structures able to feed themselves and reproduce themselves.
    In 1950, Von Neumann, suggested that a car able to reproduce itself, of which the replication cycle resulted surprisingly similar to that of viruses. In The anthropic principle, Barrow and Tipler explain with the following words the functioning of a machine by Von Neumann:

    “In Von Neumann’s scheme, a machine which reproduces itself consists in two parts, a constructor and an information deposit which contains the instructions for the constructor. The latest is a machine which manipulates the matter enough to be able to make the necessary various parts of the selfreproducing machine and assemble them in the final structure. The complexity of the constructor greatly depends on that of the selfreplicant machine and by the material available in the environment. The most general type of constructor, called a universal constructor, is a machine, or if you prefer, a robot, able to do anything as long as it is given the appropriate instructions.(...)
    The deposit of information consists in the memory of a calculator which contains detailed instructions on how the constructor needs to manipulate the matter: first of all, it supplies the instructions to make a copy of a constructor without the deposit of information, or a constructor with an with an empty calculator memory. The deposit of information is therefore duplicated, that is it registers the information contained in the memory of the calculator. Finally, the deposit of information and the constructor are assembled, so that the create a copy of the original machine. The copy has all the original information, so it is therefore able to reproduce itself in the same environment”.

    Now, someone could object about the fact that Von Neumann’s machine should be intended to be like a physical entity open towards the environment which surrounds it (even though it is able reproduce itself); and in fact he would have all reasons to do so. Von Neumann`s machine, as described by Barrow and Tipler, is certainly able to self reproduce but it is absolutely not able to power itself, which is an essential condition if we want to describe it as a physical entity open towards the environment which surrounds it. Such machine, to be able to produce others similar to it, must accomplish a task, which means that it must consume energy. It will therefore only be able to produce a limited number of machines, a number that will obviously be in relation to its own autonomy (that is on the length of its own batteries!). The machines that are therefore produced, will themselves be bound to the quantity of energy which they initially have at their disposal, destined to lower the more they actually produce others.


    Fausto Intilla
    (Inventor-scientific divulgator)
    www.oloscience.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Guest
    quote="Hmmml...I'm not sure what to think of this. What do you guys and girls think? "/quote




    I'll file it along with 'Elvis alive and on the moon'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 hehe 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Queensland Australia
    Posts
    32
    Good point..both are unlikely to happen..I thought it was unlikely that this would be true as it breaks Newtons laws. Just thought I'd get a couple more opinions on the subject .

    Elvis still lives....his just arrh...devoid from flesh and living cells??? :P )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Fausto Intilla
    To be able to talk about a machine, similar in each and every way to a living system, that is a physical entity, open towards its surrounding environment and thus able to power itself and secondarily able to reproduce, it is necessary that the same is able to constantly extract energy from its surrounding environment ... without ever having to be serviced by man!
    If the machine is extracting energy from it's environment, it's not a perpetual motion machine. To be a perpetual motion machine the device would need to actually create energy, not just gather energy from somewhere else.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: hehe 
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Enchanting_lullabye
    Good point..both are unlikely to happen..I thought it was unlikely that this would be true as it breaks Newtons laws. Just thought I'd get a couple more opinions on the subject .

    Elvis still lives....his just arrh...devoid from flesh and living cells??? :P )
    Is that the same as Goerge Rub'ya[out] Bush?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    Well..part of me is hopeful...but I'll believe it when I see it. Although the odds of this being real are about the same odds as me being simultaneously struck by 2 separate bolts of lightning WHILE having group-sex with the Dallas Cowboy's cheerleaders DURING a terrorist attack.
    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968
    Well..part of me is hopeful...but I'll believe it when I see it. Although the odds of this being real are about the same odds as me being simultaneously struck by 2 separate bolts of lightning WHILE having group-sex with the Dallas Cowboy's cheerleaders DURING a terrorist attack.
    ....whilst simultaneously performing lewd acts by psychokinesis between a russian dwarf and some adult toys?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •