Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

hal@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2008 23:12:00 -0400, "David L. Burkhead"
<dburkhead@xxxxxxx> wrote:

hal@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2008 22:40:43 -0400, "David L. Burkhead"
<dburkhead@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Rabid Weasel Lawson wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2008 17:36:07 -0700, Renli wrote:

On May 7, 1:35 am, h...@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
So it is indeed
_possible_ that the device might generate more power than it
would use up in require additional energy to the truck.

Actually it is impossible to generate more power than you use.
It's called the second law of thermodynamics - this isn't some
kind of newfangled energy source, Hal. It's just trucks running
over
plates. If such a mechanical device could exist to create free
energy (such as a waterwheel), it would have been invented long
ago.

Man. I mean, when even Fu is giving hal lessons in remedial
physics... I mean, daaaang. :P

Nitpick: Energy conservation is the first law of thermodynamics.
Second law is "entropy always increases in a closed system." Third
law is that a absolute zero all motion stops and entropy is at a
minimum.

So the three laws are
1) You can't win.
2) You can't break even.
3) You can't get out of the game.

gee, ya think these guys know something you assholes don't?


http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6936932-description.html

First point: Do you have _any_ idea how many patents have been
issued for things that don't work as described? You do have to
convince a patent examiner that it would work, but "patent
examiners" include the people who issued a patent for a method of
causing a swing to move from side to side (said examiner must never
have visited a playground or he would know that there is
considerable "prior art" which would invalidate the novelty
requirement).

awful damn lot of engineers working on this stuff considering it
doesn't work.

History is rife with examples of an awful lot of engineers working on an
awful lot of things that ended up not working. But that's beside the point
because nobody's really arguing that the device will, or can be made to,
work (in terms of generating power when trucks run over it). It's where
that energy is coming from where you show your ignorance and the Patent
_doesn't_ make the claim that it doesn't come from internal energy of the
truck (either from it's kinetic energy.

Second point: Nobody has disputed that the technique described in
the original article can generate power--the question has been in
where that power comes from. Thus, this patent, even if everything
works exactly as claims, only argues a point not in dispute.

clearly, the power comes from gravity.

That statement there shows that you are completely ignorant on the
subject. Are you even aware that energy is a _scalar_, not a _vector_.
Your arguments about direction are irrelevant. Direction doesn't even enter
into energy.

Power comes from a force acting over a distance within a given time.
You can get power by having the truck fall into a hole (which is, in effect,
what the plates moving down are doing) but you need to expend as much energy
to climb back out of the hole (which the truck has to do to get up on the
next plate--and principle of relativity is such that it's the same whether
you consider the truck stationary--vertically--and the plates moving up and
down, or the plates stationary and the truck moving up and down, either
frame of reference will produce the same answers).



And the systems ARE capable of
creating more energy than is lost in the momentum of the vehicles.

You are wrong. Take a physics class and you'll _know_ why you're wrong.
You'll need to learn a few things about torque to understand why plates
moving up and down under the weight of the truck is _exactly_ comparable to
climbing a hill. If your plates move vertically 1 inch, and the contact
patch of each tire is 6" long, that's a 6:1 hill, pretty steep as far as a
truck is concerned. So, yeah, these plates will probably produce energy
(although cost and reliability for long term use remains an open question)
but it's far from "free." The people buying the fuel for those trucks are
paying for it.

--
--
David L. Burkhead -- Cold Servings, a webcomic
mailto:dburkhead@xxxxxxx -- http://www.coldservings.com
http://www.cafepress.com/oshaforcriminal <- OSHA for Criminals

Belief is no substitute
For arithmetic


.

Loading