Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

The Future of Energy?

Posted Jul 25, '14 at 2:30am

crazyape

crazyape

1,800 posts

You haven't encountered my opinion yet. Opinion has no place here. Only the facts are relevant, and they refute your conclusion.


That's an opinion.

Indeed. You therefore have no justification for playing the hurt card.


Think about this: Is there anything I can say that will make you feel satisfied that your point has been made without someone else applauding your attacks on my attempts at being civil?
 

Posted Jul 25, '14 at 2:58am

samiel

samiel

422 posts

So just a thought, Most of the world is just fine using renewable sources of energy. Wind, solar, hydroelectric, as these technologies are improved they become more effective and more advanced. If you have something that works and you make it work better it works. TAH DAH energy crisis solved, not using overly complicated revalitionary science. It can be solved using common sense.

 

Posted Jul 25, '14 at 6:31am

09philj

09philj

2,070 posts

And what is impossible to science?


Above a quantum level, the first and second laws of thermodynamics can't be broken. Ever. We can extend the length of time a machine will work for (eg. with a flywheel), but not indefinitely.
 

Posted Jul 25, '14 at 10:41am

weirdlike

weirdlike

883 posts

Moderator

Umm... that is exactly what I stated HERE

It eventually breaks down, but the possibility of energy gained is there. To me that is perpetual motion (or maybe semi-perpetual motion). All you need to do is apply the energy required again, then you're up and running.

 

Posted Jul 25, '14 at 1:33pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,403 posts

Knight

It eventually breaks down, but the possibility of energy gained is there. To me that is perpetual motion (or maybe semi-perpetual motion). All you need to do is apply the energy required again, then you're up and running.

But the system does not generate energy, it consumes energy. And honestly I wonder how much power the generator sucked out of the power source, probably the same amount in that short time as it would have needed to power the grinding machine directly, for a long time.

All you need to do is apply the energy required again, then you're up and running.

Where is the difference between constant energy flow and burst-like energy inputs when the sum is the same?
 

Posted Jul 25, '14 at 3:52pm

FishPreferred

FishPreferred

1,688 posts

But THIS is actually pretty interesting to me, I wonder if it could be achieved using a smaller motor with gears.


A hoax like that can be achieved with just about anything.

That's an opinion.


Feel free to resume this discussion after looking up the meaning of that term.

Think about this: Is there anything I can say that will make you feel satisfied that your point has been made without someone else applauding your attacks on my attempts at being civil?


This is pure drivel. Who is looking for appause? Who is dissatisfied? Who is attacking? What is being attacked? Why would you need to say more?
 

Posted Jul 25, '14 at 7:52pm

samiel

samiel

422 posts

My points still valid. Modern science already fixed the issue, when you combine that with selfcontroll about the way you use energy life gets easier.

 

Posted Jul 26, '14 at 3:44am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,403 posts

Knight

My points still valid. Modern science already fixed the issue, when you combine that with selfcontroll about the way you use energy life gets easier.

If people would act responsible in all aspects of life, there would be no poor, no hunger, and no power issues. We technically have the means...
 

Posted Jul 29, '14 at 11:56am

crazyape

crazyape

1,800 posts

Feel free to resume this discussion after looking up the meaning of that term.


Are you trolling?
 

Posted Jul 29, '14 at 12:28pm

FishPreferred

FishPreferred

1,688 posts

Are you trolling?


No; are you?

It's perfectly simple. You have either misunderstood or, for some reason, intentionally misused the term. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt by supposing you are simply mistaken, however, so my previous statement stands.
 
Reply to The Future of Energy?

You must be logged in to post a reply!