(August 1, 2019 at 11:50 am)Mathilda Wrote: The full sentence still doesn't make any sense.
What exactly do you mean by
"The sun is the fuel for a solar plant. this too is a closed loop power production system that could be consider perpetual motion as well, if not for the fact the sun did not count as fuel or the energy source that powers the plant."
?
Sorry let me break it down..
The sun is the fuel for a solar power plant. Solar power plants use solar arrays or solar panels to capture sun light and convert that energy to electricity which can be stored and combined with other stored sources to create higher voltages and higher amerages to then be converted to the power type that is used to power your homes. (very basically)
The Sun being the fuel or energy source that supplies the energy needed to make electricity because the plant is not able to make it on it's own.
Now this is a closed loop system because it does not use any other outside sources of fuel or commodity. everything is self contained.
Which on the surface looks like a perpetual motion machine because nothing goes in to the plant and power comes out.
IF NOT FOR THE FACT that sun light here is considered the energy source or fuel that powers the plant... IE sun light goes in electricity usable for our homes comes out...
like wise on the surface for my machine because it too is a closed loop system (meaning nothing is added to the machine to make it work) IE no gass coal water nuclear fuel rods or anything else that any other plant in the world would use to generate power would be used here.. Because everything is self contained and reused this too is why my idea seemed to be a perpetual motion machine. However like the solar plant uses the sun... mine used fuel in the way of the earth's heat.
Again going by the definition of Perpetual motion.. the machine does not have to literally work forever. it only has to work till it is stopped or it fails due to part wear.
Because the machine would not last longer than the heat being generated by the fission in the earth core this machine would again only appear to fit the definition. If not for the use of fuel.
Which is why from the beginning I harped on fuel use as the achilles heel of my conversation and that anyone with any idea of what they where talking about would not be stuck on the 1st or 2nd law to try and refute what I said or was selling. If a person understood what I was describing all the needed to say is your machine works like a solar panel and used fuel in the way of thermal energy and my whole argument would be at an end.
I came to this conclusion after a 30 second search and 2 mins of reading a wiki page. That is how the subject should have been properly addressed and closed IF IN FACT FACTS AND REASON where the goal. Rather to this day 2+ weeks after the first post you all are still trying to make the 2nd law fit an argument that the second law should never have been a topic of consideration. 2 weeks in and I am being told that fuel is the reason my machine will not be considered PMM. like you guys knew this all a long...
Then one of you will say how can you always be right and all of us wrong???
Group think.
just like when one of you said or assumed my description of the use of solar fuel was why a solar plant was not a pmm. was an attempt of me denying that my plant used fuel... Then all of you fell in with that 'reasoning' despite what was clearly written even if it forced you to think about what was or has been said..
We had what 8 of you accuse me of denying fuel and i never did once? in fact if you go back to post 197 in the so what happened thread I said fuel was the reason my plant is not a pmm. I've held this position from the beginning and you guys are just now getting here... so what do you do? you assume I am wrong then presume to teach me what you just figured out with me screaming the answer to you this whole time!
This happens on nearly EVERY subject you guys can not argue the science in.
but I am the dumb one??
