'Free energy' machine on display in Dublin - The Steorn is gathering

stringbox

4leto wrote: »

The big bang another example contravening the laws of the thermo.

ya i duno y dey made up dem laws i tink sum fela jus puled dem out of is hole

4leto

Malty_T wrote: »

What??
Whatttttttttt?
Whattttttttttttttttttttttttttt??

Firstly.
Magnetism >> Gravity. (Gravity is veryyyyyyyyyyyyyyy weak).
Iirc, Big Bang theory depends on the net energy of the universe being zero i.e conserved.

Yes but the magnet never looses energy to spite it doing work as in staying on the fridge door if the fridge door and magnet was infinite the magnet would stay there never getting weaker.

If you where to theoretically bore a hole from pole to pole and dropped a stone it would go up and down to spite friction for ever and never consuming any of the gravitational force from Earth again to spite the gravity doing work.

The net energy of the universe was zero till the big bang

4zn76tysfajdxp

stringbox wrote: »

ya i duno y dey made up dem laws i tink sum fela jus puled dem out of is hole

Hey, welcome to Boards.ie. Check this rad post out!:

dr.bollocko wrote: »

I get why people feel the urge to use text speak. I understand that with the character limitations in place in SMS form and the likes of twitter it is useful to use text speak to get a point across. However here we have no similar character restrictions and it is not a language that most posters speak or wish to speak. Many view it as annoying and difficult to understand. Please refrain from using it on this forum.

Do keep it in mind.

4leto

stringbox wrote: »

ya i duno y dey made up dem laws i tink sum fela jus puled dem out of is hole

They work for most energy but not every energy as in gravity and magnetism.

Turtwig

4leto wrote: »

The net energy of the universe was zero till the big bang

Ok, I'm not going to derail this thread futher after this post. You can believe what you like but you are utterly misinformed.

Net energy of the universe is still zero.
Always was and, most likely, always will be.

Yes but the magnet never looses energy to spite it doing work as in staying on the fridge door if the fridge door and magnet was infinite the magnet would stay there never getting weaker.

All magnets lose their magnetism eventually.

If you where to theoretically bore a hole from pole to pole and dropped a stone it would go up and down to spite friction for ever and never consuming any of the gravitational force from Earth again to spite the gravity doing work.

If you bored such a hole and dropped an object towards the centre of the earth it would stay at the centre under extreme pressure until either another force pushed it out or it got squished.

stringbox

Will Brave Yardstick wrote: »

Hey, welcome to Boards.ie. Check this rad post out!

Thank you for the warm welcome sir. I was actually being radically sarcastic but I think I maybe overcooked it and ended up looking radically stupid. Oh well. Live and learn.

projectmayhem

stringbox wrote: »

Thank you for the warm welcome sir. I was actually being radically sarcastic but I think I maybe overcooked it and ended up looking radically stupid. Oh well. Live and learn.

Sometimes quote marks and a smiley smirk work a charm

Nichololas

stringbox wrote: »

Thank you for the warm welcome sir. I was actually being radically sarcastic but I think I maybe overcooked it and ended up looking radically stupid. Oh well. Live and learn.

Welcome to AH. People won't know you're being sarcastic unless you append a :pac: to your post.

stringbox

Maybe people could just assume I'm being sarcastic all the time?

Wibbs

stringbox wrote: »

Maybe people could just assume I'm being sarcastic all the time?

Cool and in the spirit of the thread we'll call it Stringbox theory.

stringbox

Wibbs wrote: »

Cool and in the spirit of the thread we'll call it Stringbox theory.

Oh cool. You guys sure know how to welcome newbies!

m83

Wibbs wrote: »

Cool and in the spirit of the thread we'll call it Stringbox theory.

Win

starbelgrade

DanGerMus wrote: »

Ok last try.

Think of a fish bowl filled with water. Slowly push the fish bowl along the counter and the fish will stay in roughly the same place not squished against the back of it.
If you do it fast enough though the fish along with the water will hit the back of the bowl. Also you'll get very wet.

Well the fly is suspended in the air in the car just like the fish is suspended in the water in the bowl.
The air at normal acceleration for a car is enough to hold the fly in place.

It is possible for the fly to be squished against the back window but the car would have to accelerate extremely quickly in order to overcome the friction between the air and the fly. You don't want to be in a car that can do that.

Especially not if your name is Richard Hammond!

I get it now!! Can't beleive it - the answer to that question has bugged me for years.. Cheers dude!

deadinterest

Another question, could someone explain in layman terms how GPS has to take into account the theory of relativity?

sink

deadinterest wrote: »

Another question, could someone explain in layman terms how GPS has to take into account the theory of relativity?

Since I am a layman I will give you my understanding of it.

Large bodies such as planets create large gravitational forces which distort spacetime, so much so that time literally slows down. So time on the surface of the earth where gravity is relatively strong flows at a slower pace than time in high orbit where gravity is a lot weaker. GPS relies in some manner on highly accurate timekeeping and so the clocks on the satellites have to be adjusted to compensate for the different rate at which time flows in high orbit.

Pretty mind blowing stuff!

deadinterest

sink wrote: »

Since I am a layman I will give you my understanding of it.

Large bodies such as planets create large gravitational forces which distort spacetime, so much so that time literally slows down. So time on the surface of the earth where gravity is relatively strong flows at a slower pace than time in high orbit where gravity is a lot weaker. GPS relies in some manner on highly accurate timekeeping and so the clocks on the satellites have to be adjusted to compensate for the different rate at which time flows.

Pretty mind blowing stuff!

Thank you, I have another question but my head hurts trying to figure out what I'm trying to ask
ok where does the speed of light come into it?

Turtwig

deadinterest wrote: »

Another question, could someone explain in layman terms how GPS has to take into account the theory of relativity?

For GPS proper timekeeping is everything.

General Relativity predicts that a clock in strong gravitational field will run slower relative to a clock in a weaker one. (Think of the event horizon in a black hole versus outside it). The satellites experience a weaker gravitational field than the receivers on the ground and thus the satellite's time runs faster and needs to be compensated for.

Edit : Sink beat me.

sink

deadinterest wrote: »

Thank you, I have another question but my head hurts trying to figure out what I'm trying to ask
ok where does the speed of light come into it?

It's a different but related theory. Einsteins gravitational theory is called 'General Relativity' and his theory of inertial frames of reference which deals with the speed of light is called 'Special Relativity'. I'm going to have to pass the torch on to a someone more knowledgeable to explain how the two interelate as I don't quiet understand it myself.

Turtwig

deadinterest wrote: »

Thank you, I have another question but my head hurts trying to figure out what I'm trying to ask
ok where does the speed of light come into it?

The speed of light does come into it in that the satellites clock should run slower. Basically the speed at which the satellites orbits the earth is far greater than the speed of the receiver and this difference in speed between the two bodies results in their clocks running at different paces. In this case the satellite should run slower with respect to the ground clock. This is negated though by the fact that the satellite is experiencing a weaker Gravitational Field and the satellite's clock actually runs faster than the ground clock.

deadinterest

Thanks both of you, I'll just say physics is hard and mind boggling and leave it at that.

Podge_irl

4leto wrote: »

If you where to theoretically bore a hole from pole to pole and dropped a stone it would go up and down to spite friction for ever and never consuming any of the gravitational force from Earth again to spite the gravity doing work.

If you bored a hole through the centre of the earth and dropped something it would start oscillating back and forth, but due to frictional effects it would slowly start to oscillate with a smaller and smaller amplitude until it eventually just stopped in the centre of the earth.

Turtwig

Podge_irl wrote: »

If you bored a hole through the centre of the earth and dropped something it would start oscillating back and forth, but due to frictional effects it would slowly start to oscillate with a smaller and smaller amplitude until it eventually just stopped in the centre of the earth.

Call me dumb, but what would cause the initial oscillations. Is there some sort of pendulum like effect?

Podge_irl

sink wrote: »

It's a different but related theory. Einsteins gravitational theory is called 'General Relativity' and his theory of inertial frames of reference which deals with the speed of light is called 'Special Relativity'. I'm going to have to pass the torch on to a someone more knowledgeable to explain how the two interelate as I don't quiet understand it myself.

Special Relativity, as the name suggests, is merely a special case of General Relativity - the case where no object is accelerating and no gravity is present. The equivalence principal says that these are in fact the same thing (if you were in a plummeting lift you would start "floating" as if you were in space. If you're in a lift accelerating upwards you feel slightly heavier). Special relativity only deals with constant velocities and is ultimately far, far simpler.

Podge_irl

Malty_T wrote: »

Call me dumb, but would cause the initial oscillations. Is there some sort of pendulum like effect?

Pretty much.

All gravitational attraction is towards the centre of mass of a body - i.e. the centre of the earth (more or less). However, when you start falling down you hole you've dug you start to feel less and less gravitational attraction. This is essentially because when you're inside the earth, the mass outside you is no longer trying to pull you to the centre. As you pass the centre there is no force on you at all, but you're already flying at a massive pace. You begin to slow down once you pass the centre as you're being attracted back towards it, but you'll only eventually stop when you reach the other side and then you'll start falling again.

Inside a massive body the gravitational attraction you feel falls off linearly as you burrow down. This linear force is the same as for a simple harmonic oscillator, so if there was no friction you'd simply oscillate back and forth forever (taking 42 minutes in case you're interested).

Podge_irl

Wibbs wrote: »

my problem with cosmology anyway is that it seems like too many of the numbers while looking bang on up front and experimentally somewhat ok, leave seriously big holes too. Never mind dark matter/energy, there's the issue of inflation of the early universe too, which is somewhat related as the universe is so "flat", so inflation comes along to fill that gap. Both of them seem like a fudge too far. We have the figures and it looks pretty good for most things and things it doesnt look good for, well we won't change the basics just come up with another way to make the numbers work. Kinda like the tail wagging the dog.

I understand your concern, but plugging things into a gap in our knowledge and trying to make them work with what we know is more or less all science has ever been doing. The problem now is that its gotten quite abstract and that theory is starting to run ahead of experiment. Inflation is used to explain how bits of our universe that are so far apart that light could never have gone from one to the other end up looking, on a large scale, exactly the same.

We don't want to change the basics because they work so unbelievably well. Our theory of electromagnetic interactions is 99.99999% accurate. Things such as dark matter are the only logical conclusions that can be arrived at with our current thinking. Its not ideal, but I consider the possibility that dark matter exists far more likely than the idea that our entire concept of gravitation is wrong.

I don't really find things like dark matter or inflationary expansion to be all that much weirder then QM was when it was first proposed. Hell, an awful lot of scientists vehemently opposed QM, but ultimately we wouldn't be on these computers at the moment if it wasn't true.

Nice idea. Never heard of quantum foam. Cool, Quantum Soap, now with added foam:D Could it not also lend weight to the notion that another universe close by exists where particles can exist and pop from one to the next? Could explain the "weak" gravity force too. We're only getting an echo here. Plus it might also explain the mechanism of an inflationary period. Where the close universe either leaked energy in or our universe in it's initial bang leaked energy out and that's what skewed the figures? Maybe even dark matter and energy are part of this connection too. The figures are so off because while the particles/energies are "here" and and have an effect, they're also mostly "there" so can't be directly observed except in a small way. Could be why gravity while clearly observable in it's action iwe haven't found the energy wave, or is it thought to be a particle?

Kinda like we're locked in one room and in the room adjoining a roaring fire has been lit. We can feel some of the heat from the wall, but we cant observe the fire. We can see its effect, but what is generating it is beyond us(unless we unlock the door. Unlikely).

Now if it did exist and we could link into that other universe, I suppose you could harness it for energy. That way the conservation of energy wouldnt be an issue. It's not being created or destroyed just being moved. Dunno how you could prove a close universe though. I know its also a fudge

Em...I'll get back to you in a few years on that one!

sink

Podge_irl wrote: »

Pretty much.

All gravitational attraction is towards the centre of mass of a body - i.e. the centre of the earth (more or less). However, when you start falling down you hole you've dug you start to feel less and less gravitational attraction. This is essentially because when you're inside the earth, the mass outside you is no longer trying to pull you to the centre. As you pass the centre there is no force on you at all, but you're already flying at a massive pace. You begin to slow down once you pass the centre as you're being attracted back towards it, but you'll only eventually stop when you reach the other side and then you'll start falling again.

Inside a massive body the gravitational attraction you feel falls off linearly as you burrow down. This linear force is the same as for a simple harmonic oscillator, so if there was no friction you'd simply oscillate back and forth forever (taking 42 minutes in case you're interested).

I'm trying to understand why that is not considered perpetual motion. I'm guessing it has something to do with the practical impossibility of zero friction.

Podge_irl

sink wrote: »

I'm trying to understand why that is not considered perpetual motion. I'm guessing it has something to do with the practical impossibility of zero friction.

More or less. In any realistic scenario you will eventually stop. Its no different to calling a spaceship flying forever through sky perpetual motion. It's not what people really mean by the phrase. You need to realise though that you have no ability to do any work with your oscillations. If you tried to use them to drive a motor or something you'd very quickly find yourself stopped at the centre of the earth. You only have as much energy as you started with when you jumped in the hole. You're just converting it back and forth between potential and kinetic energy.

BrokenArrows

Agent Smith wrote: »

"Sorry, but in this Forum, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"

we train the laws of thermodynamics here in the eve online forum http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=873

stringbox

Malty_T wrote: »

Call me dumb, but what would cause the initial oscillations. Is there some sort of pendulum like effect?

Well keep in mind that this is a thought experiment and boring a hole like this is about as practical as clicking your fingers to eliminate friction. But suppose you did (click your fingers and eliminate friction). Then you would oscillate forever. The energy that makes you go is a function (have I lost you?) of your mass times gravity times your distance from the centre of the earth (f = mgh).

Let's use some real figures because I have nothing better to do. Let's suppose you are on the chunky side and you weigh 100kg. The distance to the centre of the earth is a bit over 6,000km. Gravity is a refreshing 9.81 metres per second.

So the potential energy you have is (100)(6,000,000)(9.8) = 5,880megajoules.

We're supposing there's no friction to slow you down (ie. you are falling in a vacuum) so you keep accelerating until you reach the centre. So when you reach the centre of the earth you'll be going at top speed. Once you go through you'll start to slow down, until you reach the surface at the other side of the earth. Your potential energy at this point is, again, 5,880mj. I'm going to assume you live in Athlone based on nothing at all and using this website I can see that the surface at that point is open sea. If you want to you could get on a boat there. If, however, you wanted there to be less hassle involved in the experiment you could start at the northernmost tip of Spain which would toss you out in Christchurch, NZ, which I am sure you would find most convenient. Of course if you didn't want to get out you could instead choose to stay in the hole and oscillate forever.

Let's throw friction into the mix. In this instance suppose you're falling through air with a uniform density. You'll hit terminal velocity at around 200kph per hour and at this point you stop accelerating and the air resistance will start to eat up your potential energy.* When you get to the centre, you'll shoot through and go some bit towards the other side. But not that far. You'll oscillate then within a few hundred kilometres of the centre for a few hundred years, depending on weather conditions.

* Note to people who know their physics. This is the point where I realised that g would not be constant.

Capt'n Midnight

deadinterest wrote: »

Another question, could someone explain in layman terms how GPS has to take into account the theory of relativity?

GPS works by having very accurate clocks, if your reciever gets a time difference between the signal sent by y satellites then you know how far apart they are. If you have 4 or more satellites then you can generate a 3D map and include your own position too. But the timings are very critical and you must have accurate clocks on the satellites. (you can also work out where a satellite is by comparing the time seen by multiple ground stations, this then tells you it's orbital parameters, which the satellite then broadcasts so the GPS knows where the satellite should be when it's trying to figure out where you are.)


GPS recievers work at 10.23 MHz

But the satellites have to be set to 10.229999995453 Mhz to make it work.

If they were set to 10.23 MHz they would loose time 7.2 ms per day.

http://www.kowoma.de/en/gps/errors.htm

CrazyRabbit

It's amazing how much you learn about physics by browsing a forum that was created for people to have a laugh in.

Podge_irl

stringbox wrote: »

You'll oscillate then within a few hundred kilometres of the centre for a few hundred years, depending on weather conditions.

?

fergalr

sink wrote: »

I'm trying to understand why that is not considered perpetual motion. I'm guessing it has something to do with the practical impossibility of zero friction.

Its conceptually very similar stuff to how the earth orbits the sun, and will probably continue to do so for quite a while, while not being 'perpetual motion' as such. Certainly not in the sense that a 'free energy' machine is.

sink

fergalr wrote: »

Its conceptually very similar stuff to how the earth orbits the sun, and will probably continue to do so for quite a while, while not being 'perpetual motion' as such. Generally not in the sense that a 'free energy' machine is.

I get it now, no energy is being expended as it no transfer of energy is taking place, the energy the object has at the start it maintains ad infinitum.

What's confusing me now is I know the gravitational force of a planetary body can be transferred into kinetic energy e.g. the moons gravitational pull creating the tide. I'm guessing that is because the moons orbit is not perfectly stable.

fergalr

sink wrote: »

I get it now, no energy is being expended as it no transfer of energy is taking place, the energy the object has at the start it maintains ad infinitum.

What's confusing me now is I know the gravitational force of a planetary body can be transferred into kinetic energy e.g. the moons gravitational pull creating the tide. I'm guessing that is because the moons orbit is not perfectly stable.

Not sure what exactly is confusing here, so forgive me if I state some obvious things.

The moon is a large mass, and as such, exerts a force on other mass due to gravity. Its pulling on the earth, and the things that make up the earth.

One of the 'masses' its pulling on is the water on the surface of the earth (the oceans and seas). The moon is moving about, fairly rhythmically, and so it moves the free moving water around, causing tides.

Its important to remember, that as it pulls them, they also pull the moon - but the moon is much bigger than they are, so their effect on the moon is (presumably - haven't looked into this) not noticeable. Certainly not noticeable on any large scale.

(Gravity is always there, and always goes both ways, even if its effects are too small to be noticed. For example, the earths gravity affects me - but my gravity also affects the earth, and all the other masses - even the masses of the other people walking around. However, I don't have enough mass for the gravity to have any noticeable effect on me.)

Now lets say you have a planet moving around the sun, and that planets gravity is used to make a change to the kinetic energy of something (eg, deflects a passing rock, or space probe, or whatever) that change to the passing objects kinetic energy did not come 'for free' - the gravity of the mass of the planet effected the passing objects trajectory - but the gravity of the passing object also effected the trajectory of the planet (its just that unless the passing object was very heavy, the change to the planets trajectory was negligible).

But there was no free lunch!

(I should disclaim here, I'm not a physicist, and I'm speaking from a newtonian world view, not qualified to talk about more sophisticated stuff!)

sink

fergalr wrote: »

...
But there was no free lunch!

That's precisely what I was thinking. Now turn this back to the hypothetical situation of falling through the centre of the earth.

It's a safe assumption that the object falling has a mass, after all if it didn't it wouldn't be falling. And this mass is having an gravitational effect, negligible as it may be upon the planet through which it is falling. Therefore it must be transferring a tiny proportion of it's kinetic energy to the planet through the force of gravity and therefore can not maintain it's oscillation ad infinitum for it will eventually run down.

fergalr

sink wrote: »

That's precisely what I was thinking. Now turn this back to the hypothetical situation of falling through the centre of the earth.

It's a safe assumption that the object falling has a mass, after all if it didn't it wouldn't be falling. And this mass is having an gravitational effect, negligible as it may be upon the planet through which it is falling. Therefore it must be transferring a tiny proportion of it's kinetic energy to the planet through the force of gravity and therefore can not maintain it's oscillation ad infinitum for it will eventually run down.

I may be wrong here - its easy to make errors when reasoning about this sort of thing. Any engineers or physicists feel free to correct me

In any sort of a real world system, where there is friction involved, then yes, it will eventually run down and won't oscillate infinitely.

However, in the hypothetical friction free setup which we are considering here, where it falls straight through the center of the mass (not sure how this could work, but anyway) then as it falls, it loses 'potential energy' and gains kinetic, and as it goes back out 'the other side' it will lose that kinetic energy and gain potential energy (this is a helpful way to think about it). If theres no other frictional interactions between the falling body and the planet, and treating the planet as a point mass (which not oceans or seas or anything else like that on it, which would introduce friction), then I don't see any reason why it won't oscillate infinitely, in a newtonian universe.

In the real world 1) well, there are always some frictional forces of some kind, and 2) even if there weren't, they'd be gravitational radiation (non Newtonian) interactions of some sort causing the system to decay. But I don't know enough about that sort of physics to talk about it!

Podge_irl

sink wrote: »

That's precisely what I was thinking. Now turn this back to the hypothetical situation of falling through the centre of the earth.

It's a safe assumption that the object falling has a mass, after all if it didn't it wouldn't be falling. And this mass is having an gravitational effect, negligible as it may be upon the planet through which it is falling. Therefore it must be transferring a tiny proportion of it's kinetic energy to the planet through the force of gravity and therefore can not maintain it's oscillation ad infinitum for it will eventually run down.

No, in an ideal frictionless world it will never stop oscillating. Its true that a mass has an effect on the earth just as the earth has an effect on the mass but this will just result in the earth also oscillating very very very very minutely. You're not transferring any energy to the earth though, its just a reaction to what you're doing.

The centre of mass of the earth + the body never changes throughout this entire event.

MaybeLogic

Podge_irl wrote: »

Vacuua don't "borrow" anything from the future.

The claim that these particles come from the future is repeated about 20/21 minutes into this very interesting BBC doc (this is how I passed my outage).

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1406370011028154810#

El Siglo

I actually want to do a science degree now from reading the thread.

ScumLord

El Siglo wrote: »

I actually want to do a science degree now from reading the thread.

I think you might have a science degree after reading this thread.

El Siglo

ScumLord wrote: »

I think you might have a science degree after reading this thread.

Yeh it was actually one of the best threads I've read in a long time, like a game of tennis. Every time that zenno chap would make a statement about free energy, some one would come in and just say the first law of thermodynamics. Fecking brilliant!:D I am doing an MSc in Environmental Science, does that count?:pac:

MaybeLogic

El Siglo wrote: »

Yeh it was actually one of the best threads I've read in a long time, like a game of tennis. Every time that zenno chap would make a statement about free energy, some one would come in and just say the first law of thermodynamics. Fecking brilliant!:D I am doing an MSc in Environmental Science, does that count?:pac:

If you have an hour to spare that doc in post #190 is a good primer about some of the aspects of QP.
Mindblowing.

El Siglo

MaybeLogic wrote: »

If you have an hour to spare that doc in post #190 is a good primer about some of the aspects of QP.
Mindblowing.

I'm supposed to be doing a write up on an r-programme excercise... yeh that can wait. Cheers for the heads-up!:pac:

tech77

ScumLord wrote: »

I think you might have a science degree after reading this thread.

Radharc na Sleibhte

DanGerMus wrote: »

Well you know the way the chair keeps you from flying back, well the air pocket inside the car is enough keep the fly from flying back and hitting the back window.
Air is dense enough to create enough friction to hold the fly in position because he's so light.
Although i'll bet he does go back a bit depending on how fast you accelerate. Just like you'll feel your self be pushed against the chair the more quickly you accelerate.

So, if I was standing in a moving train and I keep jumping up and down, will I eventually be at the back?

Overheal

MikeySligo wrote: »

So, if I was standing in a moving train and I keep jumping up and down, will I eventually be at the back?

Eventually, but given that you already carry the same momentum as the train, and are only airborne for a fraction of a second at a time, your decelleration is very gradual.

The best way to experiment with this is one of those Pocket RC Helicopters, preferably the smarter ones that can hover in place without input. They'd begin drifting afaik. While the floor of the car is plenty friction to accelerate you at the same rate as the train, I doubt very much the same can be said of the pocket of air.