Similar Posts
Speed of light?
Why can't you move faster than the speed of light? If two trains are traveling towards each other at the speed of light, why don't they meet faster than if one were traveling at the speed of light and the other was stationary.
[Physics] Does the choice of unit matter here?
Good evening, My question relates to task 1 a). Do I have to use the gravitational force in meters per second squared or in newtons per kilogram in the formula for the calculation? In task 1 a), both units for the acceleration of gravity (g) are given. In my calculation, I used the acceleration of…
Irradiation of an aluminum foil?
Hello folks After irradiating an aluminum foil with alpha particles, Irène Curie and Frédéric Joliot observed that the foil continued to emit radiation with exponentially decreasing intensity even after the radiation source was removed. During a four-minute measurement, they recorded the pulses detected in 15 seconds on a Geiger-Müller counter: 52, 50, 46, 42, 42,…
Physics Linear motion and forces?
Does anyone know any assignments on this page? Our teacher hasn't been here for weeks, and the topic has never been properly explained to us. There are explanations on the previous pages, but I don't understand them, like many other students. too. That would be really nice, thanks! I need this by Friday, as I…
Very funny. The amount of water is not enough for four cans, even then a static water level would be set. There is a method of pumping little water over a large altitude difference by allowing a lot of water to drive a ram pump via a small height difference, but that looks completely different.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5ZEYMl9VIs
There is no Perpetuum Mobile. First and second main sets of thermodynamics prevent this.
Now, of course, every “inventor” asks why his construct remains and has thought everything logically in his eyes, but nature does not work for human mechanistic logic*.
Discussions are pointless, because the inventor does not escape from his logic and turns with “yes, but when”.
And then, of course, there are videos of running Perpetuum Mobiles, all of which are gratified (in some cases there is a fair Making-Of).
And then there are people who speak of free energy, but who first want a patent and investor money for the fantasy source from which to come. If then someone loses their money and shows them for fraud, they feel persecuted for their genitality because “the government wants to prevent it.”
*) The mechanical movement principle is based on the idea of a temporally causal sequence of events – A acts on B, then B acts on C, etc. However, physical interactions are called for good reason, because it not only affects A on B, but also B on A, and not causally one behind the other, but at the same time: in fact it is only an effect in which A and B are involved. Therefore, the “tracking” of a causal effect through the system is a mistake of thinking – there is no order at all.
Hi.
No. A self-maintaining machine without energy supply.
There is not yet.
Not quite. Mobile yes, perpetuum no.
Is that even? Isn’t the “Perpetuum mobile” a fantasy that is impossible according to the laws of nature?
No (so I don’t need to watch the video).
There is no Perpetuum Mobile.
And what is moving here is only water, not moving parts.
A Perpetuum Mobile is a machine by definition.
That should look like one. A small battery-operated pump is installed in a can.
without even looking at it: there can be no perpetuum mobile! where would the energy come from?
Without eye-catching – there is no Perpetuum Mobile.