Skalabala
1 kW
The "Yildiz Magnet Motor" was a big scam that was run for years.
Forever running magnet motor?
- Thread starter Jan Christian
- Start date
Skalabala
1 kW
eTrike said:
The best scams of the century are not supposed to have information to unveil them :lol:
But you can google around bud
r3volved
100 kW
eTrike said:
Uri Geller demonstrated, and was accredited as having supernatural powers by physicists at MIT...it took a magician (James Randi) to discredit him as a the fraud he is.
...It iss exactly what a 'big scam' would do
r3volved
100 kW
That's a sweet link, thanks...
See: Bandwagon
Your appeal to the popularity of mainstream opinion has no bearing on the validity of the argument.
See: Appeal to emotion
Being optimistic and hopeful for an argument has no bearing on its validity.
See: Appeal to authority
The credibility of MIT has No intrinsic bearing on whether their claims are true or not.
I'll add in here that science is a cooperative contribution of peer review through repeatable experiments and testable claims.
See: Bandwagon
Your appeal to the popularity of mainstream opinion has no bearing on the validity of the argument.
See: Appeal to emotion
Being optimistic and hopeful for an argument has no bearing on its validity.
See: Appeal to authority
The credibility of MIT has No intrinsic bearing on whether their claims are true or not.
I'll add in here that science is a cooperative contribution of peer review through repeatable experiments and testable claims.
r3volved
100 kW
See: Ad hominem
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
This site is really useful, I do thank you
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
This site is really useful, I do thank you
liveforphysics said:
That is all so true. Edison was the money grubbing hack.
If Tesla had the proper social skills he would have dominated Edison financially too.
No, because it is converting matter into energy in the process of teh subatomic particle conversions that create teh explosion.whatever said:
r3volved
100 kW
The static/kinetic sum energy is equivalentwhatever said:
The nuclear reaction transmutes the static energy into kinetic energy. Only kinetic energy has the ability to do work, so yes - the 'power' output is greater even though the net energy + entropy is still equal.
I read the introduction to the .pdf you mention. I haven't the time or energy to analyse and verify a 17 page wall-of-text. The author didn't even include a conclusion.
A sceptical mind might as why this staggering effect, known for 26 years has yet to make any impact on science, technology, industry or the public. It is unknown, undeveloped, unexploited and unverified. One might also wonder why the author, in the very introduction, jumped from conjecture to confirmation that the subject of study was true and the answer to mankind's greatest problems.
A sceptical mind might as why this staggering effect, known for 26 years has yet to make any impact on science, technology, industry or the public. It is unknown, undeveloped, unexploited and unverified. One might also wonder why the author, in the very introduction, jumped from conjecture to confirmation that the subject of study was true and the answer to mankind's greatest problems.
Think of all the things that have been invented, developed and industrialised since 1986, yet this miracle languishes at the back of the shelf? Where are the Nobel prizes?
You have dug too deep and become mired in the details. This whole issue should not have passed a initial "sniff" test. The authors claim it's a duck, yet it has four legs and barks, but don't worry though, there's tons of documentation describing genetic testing which suggest it's not not a duck...
Regarding the TLDR comment, it's widely accepted that any worthwhile report must be comprehendible based on reading the introduction and conclusion only.
You have dug too deep and become mired in the details. This whole issue should not have passed a initial "sniff" test. The authors claim it's a duck, yet it has four legs and barks, but don't worry though, there's tons of documentation describing genetic testing which suggest it's not not a duck...
Regarding the TLDR comment, it's widely accepted that any worthwhile report must be comprehendible based on reading the introduction and conclusion only.
nutnspecial
10 MW
nutspecial said:
I see no need to argue, I'm highly doubtful any useful conclusion will come from it.
What's y'all's take on the nuclear reactor backup power question?
nutnspecial
10 MW
Yes, I'm afraid so. (thanks for humoring me- maybe you could go one step further and explain?)
It seems silly that the reason for that mess is lack of power to cool the reactors. Why are they relying on diesel generators, batteries, and mainline outside power?
It would seem like common sense to have the first of redundant cooling system power drawn directly from the reaction they are controlling/cooling.
OK, I'll help you out with that one because the information is in the short section of the Wikipedia article titled "Cooling systems" rather than right at the beginning under "Overview of the Incident" like the other information:
You're talking about a facility designed ~50 years ago, that was subsequently considered to not be particularly safe and wasn't well managed or properly regulated.
Are you familiar with the South Park character "Captain Hindsight"?
You're talking about a facility designed ~50 years ago, that was subsequently considered to not be particularly safe and wasn't well managed or properly regulated.
Are you familiar with the South Park character "Captain Hindsight"?
nutnspecial
10 MW
20/20 hindsight yep. Still, even 50 years ago if a team of nuclear engineers can't figure out something so simple 
. Based on common sense alone you would think that should have been one of if not the main cooling power source.
The devastation turns my stomach. Is there any question multiple reactors didn't fully meltdown? Those poor people in Japan. Weird how they also dealt with the worst nuclear devastation in wartime also.
I am a stones throw from three mile island. Weird to drive by and see the dead cooling towers and know there is a reactor encased in concrete.
But anyway, even though radioactivity has a long life: phht forever? I don't think we can even comprehend what forever really is.
. Based on common sense alone you would think that should have been one of if not the main cooling power source. The devastation turns my stomach. Is there any question multiple reactors didn't fully meltdown? Those poor people in Japan. Weird how they also dealt with the worst nuclear devastation in wartime also.
I am a stones throw from three mile island. Weird to drive by and see the dead cooling towers and know there is a reactor encased in concrete.
But anyway, even though radioactivity has a long life: phht forever? I don't think we can even comprehend what forever really is.
As far as a person's lifetime, or a family's lifetime...even a culture's lifetime...it's essentially forever. Not so for teh universe itself, or even on geological timescales...but on human ones, it is.
Sometimes I wonder if the engineers designing them ever go thru a complete list of things that could go wrong, much less design non-interdependent redundant safety systems to allow things to fail safe with or without operator intervention.... I know that it's not possible to plan for every eventuality, but there are obvious things that could easily be planned for but don't seem to be for whatever reason. (hydrogen buildup, multiple-source power failure, coolant leak or source loss, etc).
(edit: I understand that the stuff that went wrong in the cases of the major disasters we've had so far aroudn the world may not happen in newer ones, and engineers do plan for a lot of stuff...but there really are so many things that are known to be problems with various systems of all sorts (not just powerplants), that could be planned for that aren't. Some of that isn't the engineer's fault, as they've come up with systems to do it, but the bean-counters saying it would cost too much for the miniscule eventuality....)
If they can't draw power from the grid itself for any reason, they rely on diesel generators, and failing that, very-short-term backup batteries.
In Fukushima's case, those batteries were all stored off-site quite a distance away, which is pretty strange, but that's what was done. There were also generators and other necessary backup items stored in that off-site location, but there was no transport stored there to move it to the site, and none was available after the quake and tsunami (except SDF air transport who could've done it if anyone had asked, but they were only asked to bring the wrong kind of batteries by people who didn't know what was actually needed).
The on-site air-breathing generators were in areas that were drowned by the tsunami, cuz the wall wasnt' high enough. I don't recall if there were any on-site batteries at all, but probably not, as workers ended up using batteries from their own vehicles to do what little they coudl with them.
A lot of things could have been done differently before the incident to prevent it, but after it started it was too late for most of them.
You'd think so, but the generators they are powering are designed to run the grid, not local power. I'd expect them to have something else there, too, but AFAIK there are no nuclear plants that can self-power like that. There are a lot of "obvious" safety systems that don't exist for whatever reason.nutspecial said:
Sometimes I wonder if the engineers designing them ever go thru a complete list of things that could go wrong, much less design non-interdependent redundant safety systems to allow things to fail safe with or without operator intervention.... I know that it's not possible to plan for every eventuality, but there are obvious things that could easily be planned for but don't seem to be for whatever reason. (hydrogen buildup, multiple-source power failure, coolant leak or source loss, etc).
(edit: I understand that the stuff that went wrong in the cases of the major disasters we've had so far aroudn the world may not happen in newer ones, and engineers do plan for a lot of stuff...but there really are so many things that are known to be problems with various systems of all sorts (not just powerplants), that could be planned for that aren't. Some of that isn't the engineer's fault, as they've come up with systems to do it, but the bean-counters saying it would cost too much for the miniscule eventuality....)
If they can't draw power from the grid itself for any reason, they rely on diesel generators, and failing that, very-short-term backup batteries.
In Fukushima's case, those batteries were all stored off-site quite a distance away, which is pretty strange, but that's what was done. There were also generators and other necessary backup items stored in that off-site location, but there was no transport stored there to move it to the site, and none was available after the quake and tsunami (except SDF air transport who could've done it if anyone had asked, but they were only asked to bring the wrong kind of batteries by people who didn't know what was actually needed).
The on-site air-breathing generators were in areas that were drowned by the tsunami, cuz the wall wasnt' high enough. I don't recall if there were any on-site batteries at all, but probably not, as workers ended up using batteries from their own vehicles to do what little they coudl with them.
A lot of things could have been done differently before the incident to prevent it, but after it started it was too late for most of them.
nutspecial said:20/20 hindsight yep. Still, even 50 years ago if a team of nuclear engineers can't figure out something so simple
Perhaps you are right, they were all retards who could barely tie their shoelaces.
Do you have any idea whether the system you propose is practical on technical grounds? More reliable and inherently safe than alternative systems that are in use? I have absolutely no specialist knowledge at all, but straight away I suspect there would be knock-on safety problems having the turbine generators continue to run when the plant is supposed to be in a safe shutdown condition. I also suspect that the decay heat might be insufficient to run the main generator - necessitating a smaller, dedicated turbine/generator, but then you need a control system to switch between the two upon reactor shutdown, a system with it's own inevitable reliability issues. This all presupposes that, after all inefficiencies are taken into account, the steam produced by the decay heat, under all possible conditions, is capable of producing enough electrical power for all necessary systems related to it's own cooling.
Can you conceive the technical complexity of designing a nuclear power plant? The myriad inter-related systems, compromises that must be achieved? Progress is made incrementally.
The Fukishima plant, flawed as it was, did have multiple, independent backup systems. Grid connection, backed up by multiple, redundant diesel generators, backed up by 8 hour's worth of batteries. Those systems were never designed to work under water.
"The torpedo penetrated 12 inches of armour plating, resulting in the sinking of the ship", "The fools! If only they had made the armour 13 inches thick!"
nutnspecial
10 MW
Question everything. Science always needs tweaked or changed to jump forward, so taking everything as unfallable leads nowhere. Sometimes the best way to improve or understand more about something is for it to be seen/comprehended by a fresh set of eyes.
Thanks for humoring me. May be a discussion topic for next time you meet a nuclear physicist.
Thanks for humoring me. May be a discussion topic for next time you meet a nuclear physicist.
What you're describing, to me, is the importance of a healthy scepticism. To question absolutely everything would completely debilitating - how could you get out of bed in the morning if you must first consider every aspect of the structure of your house and the forces exerted upon you by the universe?
BikeSoupUSA
10 mW
Motor just generated 10 lbs. Applied 12VDC. Pictures on the way. Planning to roll at Portland Sunday Parkways eBike Challenge, 21 JUN, 1100.
