Clean Green Energy

[Tiberius]

I am familiar with the three types of perpetual motion machine, and this is not an example of either of them. All three types either violate a law of thermodynamics, or are impossible to make.

Also, you were the one who clearly said "which powers itself." in relation to this machine:

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

You were wrong. Just admit that fact and we can all go back to our lives.

[Phil]

I am familiar with the three types of perpetual motion machine, and this is not an example of either of them. All three types either violate a law of thermodynamics, or are impossible to make.

They are not impossible to make. It's a triviality to make anything. A working model is what is impossible to make.

[Tiberius]

Now you are just arguing semantics. Of course it's trivial to make a non-working perpetual motion machine...

This is not an example of type 1 since it does not produce work without input energy. The input energy is 20MW plus the thorium.
This is not an example of type 2 since it does not spontaneously convert thermal energy into work.
This it not an example of type 3 since it does not eliminate friction of other dissipative forces.

So how is this a perpetual motion machine?

[Phil]

Now you are just arguing semantics. Of course it's trivial to make a non-working perpetual motion machine...

et you said in your last post that perpetual motion machines (nothing about working) are impossible to make. That is not semantics.

This is not an example of type 1 since it does not produce work without input energy. The input energy is 20MW plus the thorium.
This is not an example of type 2 since it does not spontaneously convert thermal energy into work.
This it not an example of type 3 since it does not eliminate friction of other dissipative forces.

So how is this a perpetual motion machine?

Tell you what, provide a scientific reason it works. Provide a working model. Then I will give you my reasoning. Then again if #2 is actually done, then I wouldn't consider it a perpetual motion/free energy pseudoscientific claim.

[Tiberius]

Read up on the machine yourself. I'm not building it, so I don't know how everything works. What about this is so hard to understand? The machine has to use up thorium, much in the same way a coal power station uses up coal. It requires some initial energy to start, and to keep the machine running (again, same with coal).

Are you being willingly ignorant here?

[Phil]

Read up on the machine yourself. I'm not building it, so I don't know how everything works. What about this is so hard to understand? The machine has to use up thorium, much in the same way a coal power station uses up coal. It requires some initial energy to start, and to keep the machine running (again, same with coal).

Are you being willingly ignorant here?

And after it starts running, it provides it's own power. That is no different than the myriads of perpetual motion/free energy scams that bilk tons of money out of ignorant people.

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

[Tiberius]

It is different, because it cannot provide itself with power indefinitely. It still requires thorium. If you gave the machine some thorium, turned it on and left it, it would eventually run down, because it would run out of thorium. This is not perpetual motion!

Coal Power plants can power themselves in exactly the same way. So can Nuclear Power plants. The energy that comes out of every power plant is more than is put in (otherwise they would be pretty useless), so every power plant can power itself. The point is, every power plant needs something more than power...it needs a resource to convert to energy.

A perpetual motion machine by definition does not require the constant addition of a resource.

Also, I never decided you were being willingly ignorant; I asked you if you were. At the moment I can't decide if you actually don't know basic physics or are just trolling me.

Here is a much more in-depth article if anyone wants to do any extra reading on the physics behind this: http://www.thegwpf.org/energy-news/3199-...ancer.html

[Welsh cake]

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

It violates either the first law of thermodynamics, the second, or both, depending on the method or system.

This is fundamental physics Phil.

[Phil]

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

It violates either the first law of thermodynamics, the second, or both, depending on the method or system.

This is fundamental physics Phil.

I guess you didn't understand why I asked nor do you know what a rhetorical question is. 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.

[Tiberius]

Firstly, your question was why perpetual motion is impossible, not if it is. Secondly, rhetorical questions are hard to interpret on an internet forum, especially when all your other comments have been so ridiculous. Thirdly, are you going to comment on my points that refute everything you've said about this machine?