My car is also a perpetual motion machine, once I turn the key it keeps running forever.... Oh, wait

Phil Wrote:Anybody read enough of this "article" to see this paragraph?

Quote:Yes, the accelerator will require power input – around 20MW – but that power can be taken from the ADSR's own output, leaving an excess 580MW of electric power.

Can anybody tell me why perpetual motion is a physical impossibility?

The reactor they are proposing needs a proton accelerator to mainatin the reaction, and all they are saying is that there is 'profit' of energy,the reactor will be able to power the accelerator, and come up with a surplus of energy, but they still need fuel, like they say many times in the article, Thorium, and plutonium leftover from conventional reactors. Nowhere in the article they speak of perpetual motion, its ok to be skeptic, but at least try to make a valid point and if refuted, be gracious enough to admit you were wrong.

Frankly, your demeanor in this thread its just incredible. Its cool, you've showed us you know about thermodynamics, cool dude, but at least learn how to use it correctly. I'm not sure where you are going with this conversations, all you've done are subliminar implications about people that refute you, whine like a little girl and be overall agressive, hence begging the question: Do you truly want a reasonable convo?

(February 12, 2012 at 7:32 am)LastPoet Wrote: all you've done are subliminar implications about people that refute you, whine like a little girl and be overall agressive

Huh? Did you take your medication today?

Phil Wrote:Which powers itself. I think some people here need to read about pseudoscience scams such as Joseph Newman's machine.

You imply here that people are dumb for not knowing Newman's machine, called pseudoscience to the article, paying no attention to the complete and utter refutation Cthulu did.

Quote:I can't say I'm surprised at this.

Clearly a condescending demeanor, does it makes you feel good to look down n others?

Quote:No implication, your seem to have a guilty conscience. I said I'm not surprised you missed the point and I said nor implied nothing more.

The quotes above clearly show that you made implications.

Quote:I bolded the words you either missed or intentionally ignored. Either way, my question to you was what word in the phrase "I'm not surprised" is causing you confusion.

The fact that your phrase demonstrates you being condescending. Chtulu simply tried to clarify if you were being a douche or not. I'm sure he has the answer now.

Quote:Guess it was foolish of me to think that otherwise rational people would understand there are three types of perpetual motion/free energy machines and to understand that my use of the words SUCH AS were not making this a comparison to Newman's machine but to pseudoscientific claims of the same sort.

Again, you fail to provide a reason on how this article even comes close to being a scam, or pseudoscience. You know, evidence, where do they say the machine is a perpetual motion machine?

Quote:But since you decided I'm being willfully ignorant, don't bother replying since I am too ignorant too respond to you anymore.

This one is a whiney girl in a nutshell, yeah, don't read the replies, just cry me a river on how people pointed out the fact that you have put the foot on the mouth and are too childish to accept the refutations and too proud to admit you are wrong.

QE fucking D

Quote:Huh? Did you take your medication today?

OMG I feel so insulted! You have to do better than that if you want to me to be even remtely aggravated. By this you only showed your stupidity and utter lack of respect for people that really need to take meds to lead a normal life. Yeah ol'chap, you insulted yourself, Funny.

Like I asked in my last thread, I will re-iterate: Are you here to hve a reasonable discussion, or just being a plain idiot? Either way, I'm done. Take my 2 cents as you will, but mabe, just mabe, you need to re-evaluate your behaviour.

I really don't understand what the problem is here.

The machine seems all right to me. It's not running on pseudoscientific principles.

(February 12, 2012 at 9:24 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: I really don't understand what the problem is here.

The machine seems all right to me. It's not running on pseudoscientific principles.

Then why are some people so reluctant to post actual science instead of op-ed pieces yet quick to insult?

Phil.......

http://www.hud.ac.uk/research/staff/prof...taffid=461

open the "research output" header, and you'll find what you're looking for. It was linked within the linked article. At the very beginning of the article. You could have easily found this information yourself if you had even attempted to look.

(February 12, 2012 at 2:46 am)Phil Wrote: I guess you didn't understand why I asked nor do you know what a rhetorical question is.

Ah, Phil. You're too fucking easy. I was deliberately *baiting you* to see whether or not you were behaving like a douchebag, thereby eliminating the chance that we had somehow "misinterpreted" your earlier posts.

You see, I had considered this possibility of you throwing out a spiteful rhetorical question, given the somewhat snarky response given to Cthulhu Dreaming and playing semantics with Tiberius.

I decided to set up a trap to prove you're a dick. All I had to do was rip a sentence from Wikipedia (you should be ashamed of yourself for not spotting that quote) and let you do the rest.

Quote:I am well aware perpetual motion is an impossibility as you would have known and not made such a stupid post if you had read the thread.

Perfect. You proved my point about your 'behaviour' wonderfully.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lt4329_W_s0

(February 12, 2012 at 9:31 am)Rhythm Wrote: Phil.......

http://www.hud.ac.uk/research/staff/prof...taffid=461

open the "research output" header, and you'll find what you're looking for. It was linked within the linked article. At the very beginning of the article. You could have easily found this information yourself if you had even attempted to look.

And which of those is applicable to the op-ed piece that was posted?

I post blog pieces that link back to original papers and studies all the time. The op-eds are frequently written in a more entertaining manner than the actual science writers, which is a pity. What exactly are you irritated about?

(February 12, 2012 at 10:23 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: I post blog pieces that link back to original papers and studies all the time. The op-eds are frequently written in a more entertaining manner than the actual science writers, which is a pity. What exactly are you irritated about?

Who's irritated? I'm just looking for science and I get op-ed bullshit instead. Op-ed is not a substitute for science but some here seem to think it is.