 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"St." <dot### [at] dot com> wrote:
> The factory produces a clockwork 'engine' with two pre-wound springs in
> the car. You go buy it, and drive it off the forecourt. As you drive it,
> only one spring drives the car, and when that spring winds down enough not
> to work effectively, the other one kicks in to continue the journey. Here's
> the good bit: As the second spring is driving you forward, it re-winds the
> first spring, so this would work in such a way that they would forever be
> swapping over and eliminating any hands on winding up.
oh, a perpetual winding machine! ;)
Take your tea, St. Even if the world comes to a halt, we still get a fully
working and well routed internet and this newsgroups for entertainment and tips
on where to get food. Just be sure no one kills you for your PC. :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:47e3ee74@news.povray.org...
> Gail Shaw wrote:
> > It's no more possible than travelling faster than light or creating
matter
> > out of thin air. In fact, it's less possible than both of those (which
> > theoretically do occur under strange circumstances)
>
> Actually, they both occur all the time everywhere. :-)
Has someone seen tacheons? I admit, I'm a bit behind on some of the lit.
Matter out of thin space happens, but since they're virtual particles that
disintegrate (and turn back into the photons that created them) in a
fraction of a nanosecond, it's not really a factor. Unless you have a black
hole nearby, that is. Or are you talking about zero-point energy?
I was trying to leave quantum out of this. Thermodynamics alone are bad
enough. :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:47e3ee39@news.povray.org...
> Gail Shaw wrote:
> > What you have there is a perpetual motion machine. Physically impossible
>
> Not necessarily. But highly improbable at the macroscopic level.
>
> Apparently there are some quantum effects ("zero energy point") that
> could actually maybe be used for this sort of thing. I didn't believe it
> until a theoretical physicist told me yeah, maybe you could, because
> thermodynamics doesn't apply to virtual particles.
I've read some of the discussions. Thing with the virtual particles - how do
you make them real. Only way I know of is a black hole, and they don't make
good pets.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think nuclear batteries have a big potential,
electricity directly from nuclear decay. Sheets of
glowy plastic sandwiched with solar cells. They
already sell plastic strips that will glow for 12 years.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> news:47e3ee74@news.povray.org...
>> Gail Shaw wrote:
>>> It's no more possible than travelling faster than light or creating
> matter
>>> out of thin air. In fact, it's less possible than both of those (which
>>> theoretically do occur under strange circumstances)
>> Actually, they both occur all the time everywhere. :-)
>
> Has someone seen tacheons? I admit, I'm a bit behind on some of the lit.
I don't recall. I remember there was evidence they thought were tachyons.
> Matter out of thin space happens, but since they're virtual particles that
> disintegrate (and turn back into the photons that created them) in a
> fraction of a nanosecond, it's not really a factor.
I was just being pendantic. :-) Light goes all different speeds,
including faster and slower. It's only when you get past a couple
wavelengths that you have enough alternatives that they start canceling
out speeds other than "c". And of course it's exactly "matter out of
thin air" that are the exchange particles keeping you from blowing up
into a haze of undifferentiated fundamental particles.
> Or are you talking about zero-point energy?
I'm not sure how it relates to zero point energy. I suspect there's some
relationship between virtual particles and ZPE, but I'm not sure what it
is. ZPE is caused by there having to be enough energy in a system to
keep your fermions(?) from occupying the same space. I.e., you have to
have enough energy in the system to satisfy the uncertainty principles.
It's also what keeps liquid hydrogen from freezing. :-)
> I was trying to leave quantum out of this. Thermodynamics alone are bad
> enough. :-)
I was just being a wise-ass. ;-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> I've read some of the discussions. Thing with the virtual particles - how do
> you make them real. Only way I know of is a black hole, and they don't make
> good pets.
You take away all the virtual particles that would cancel out the ones
you want.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
I never knew until recently that it wasn't a microscopic effect, but
hundreds of atoms in size and an atmosphere worth of pressure. Pretty cool.
And, apparently, there's no real reason to think thermodynamics applies
to this energy.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:47e45774$1@news.povray.org...
>
> I was just being a wise-ass. ;-)
As usual. ;-)
Got some references for the light travelling faster and slower than c? It's
not something I've run into.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gail Shaw" <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote in message
news:47e3d1e5@news.povray.org...
>
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:47e3be80$2@news.povray.org...
>>
>
>> > Oh well, it could be worse.
>>
>> :oO 60%! I didn't know that. That's bad news. :o/
>
> Well, currently SA has about the cheapest electricity in the world, so
> isn't
> as bad as it sounds. The regular blackouts are far more of a problem.
> From what I hear, if they do hike the price that much, our electricity
> will
> be around the same price as in Canada.
>
It's a pity solar panels are still so expensive... :-(
And I don't think I'll be able to get my car to run on water soon enough
:-P
--
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> Got some references for the light travelling faster and slower than c? It's
> not something I've run into.
Sure.
http://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170/
It's apparently pretty normal stuff. It's what makes hard doing the
actual math for quantum physics. But over the course of a couple of
wavelengths, the likelihood of light traveling at a different speed
falls off to near zero. It's mostly something you see with exchange
particles.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw escribió:
> Energy can never be created or destroyed. It can only be converted from one
> form to another - 1st law of thermodynamics
I discovered it applies to whining too, not only energy. Or is whining a
form of energy?
http://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome/forum_thread.php?id=2540#19240
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
