Re: cheap clean electricity (again)
From: Bok (bok_at_noreply.invalid)
Date: 03/14/05
- Next message: Scooby Doo: "Re: Who is talking about Electrolysis???"
- Previous message: SHECLabs: "Re: Who is talking about Electrolysis???"
- In reply to: Peter Lowrie: "Re: cheap clean electricity (again)"
- Next in thread: Nick Rouse: "Re: cheap clean electricity (again)"
- Reply: Nick Rouse: "Re: cheap clean electricity (again)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:03:11 +1300
Peter Lowrie wrote:
> That is a novel idea and obviously a lot of thinking time has gone into it.
> Notwithstanding those who eschew the idea as being a perpetual motion
> machine, those ppl have not really thought about the idea as much as you
> have and so are conceptually wanting, have nonetheless provided arguments
> that require answering within the scope of your invention.
>
> Please be aware that Newtons First Law describes 'perpetual motion'.
Please be aware of the difference between the notions of 'perpetual
motion' and a 'perpetual motion machine'.
The "hypothetical" case (of Newton's 1st law) you alluding, were no net
force acts on an object is useless in the context of a machine since an
object moving at constant velocity does no work. As soon as you attempt
to do something useful and hence remove energy from the system, the laws
of thermodynamics apply.
- Next message: Scooby Doo: "Re: Who is talking about Electrolysis???"
- Previous message: SHECLabs: "Re: Who is talking about Electrolysis???"
- In reply to: Peter Lowrie: "Re: cheap clean electricity (again)"
- Next in thread: Nick Rouse: "Re: cheap clean electricity (again)"
- Reply: Nick Rouse: "Re: cheap clean electricity (again)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
