| Name: |
Lakeman
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
Perpetual Motion;
|
|
Date:
|
5/6/2008 1:53:12 PM
|
the hypothetical continuous operation of an isolated mechanical device or other closed system without a sustaining energy source.
Now it could be said that most anything put into motion and not acted upon by an outside force might achieve something close to perpetual motion.
But to be " pure " perpetual motion it has to be without a " sustaining energy source ".
Waves only exist when created by a sustaining energy source and therefore cannot be perpetual motion even when left to themselves in this gravity atmosphere. They would eventually deminish.
|
Show me the studies. I CAN show mine. In the words of your BRFF feb, I will accept sworn statements......LMAO.
|
| Name: |
LifeTime Laker
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Try googling waves...
|
|
Date:
|
5/6/2008 3:19:54 PM
|
....instead of perpetual motion. Since I know your IQ BARELY exceeds room tempurature I am typing r e a l s l o w.
First off, I never said waves are perpetual motion. I said they are the closest thing to it you will find on Earth. Waves are pure energy. They do not survive on 'mechanical force'. Centrifugal force and kinetec energy are more closely related, but NOT mechanical force.
Now a boat does depend on mechanical force. That would be the motor. But it only makes a wave once, after that the wave sustains itself without ANY interaction from the boat or motor. In fact, as stated previously, the boat can diminish the energy in the wave. It can even create another wave that may join with the original to create an even larger more powerful (full of energy) wave. Or the two can interact just right and cancel each other out. But it CAN NOT sustain the wave. The wave needs no help in sustaining itself, it does just fine by itself.
Now go back to Goggle University, which I am sure you barely qualify for admission to and try again. All you have done is show that you are an idiot that can't comprehend what you read. You see everything through your lense of hatred. It must be sad to be you.
|
| Name: |
dmp
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Perpetual Motion;
|
|
Date:
|
5/6/2008 4:57:47 PM
|
Actually a wave can only last for a certain time before the energy is dissapated by forces at the molecular level of the media and losses of energy in transmission. Sound waves are an excellent example of this -- sound energy (like waves in water) is dissapated at an exponential rate as you get farther from the source.
|
| Name: |
rude evin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Perpetual Motion;
|
|
Date:
|
5/6/2008 6:58:20 PM
|
dmp, that's great news.............guess I don't need to tear down my sea wall after........................
|
| Name: |
Lakeman
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Rude
|
|
Date:
|
5/6/2008 7:03:56 PM
|
You can leave it be.
|
| Name: |
LifeTime Laker
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Perpetual Motion;
|
|
Date:
|
5/6/2008 10:12:46 PM
|
I will stick with my sources that tell a little different tale. But you can believe whatever you want. Sound waves and waves in water are quite different, but BOTH bounce off walls.
|
| Name: |
Summer Lover
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Perpetual Motion;
|
|
Date:
|
5/6/2008 11:12:15 PM
|
This makes sense; although I am not an expert, informal observations from the pier seem to indicate a decrease in amplitude and frequency as the wake moves from its source – until the water depth becomes very shallow.
|
| Name: |
Lakeman
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Prove it.
|
|
Date:
|
5/6/2008 11:48:12 PM
|
Prove me wrong.
|
| Name: |
LifeTime Laker
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Perpetual Motion;
|
|
Date:
|
5/7/2008 8:17:17 AM
|
And your informal observations would be wrong!!
|
| Name: |
dmp
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Perpetual Motion;
|
|
Date:
|
5/7/2008 9:06:08 AM
|
The only difference in sound waves (air) and water waves is the density of the media and therefore the energy required to impart motion and the frequency used to impart that motion. The difference in density is what allows sound in water to travel much faster than in air.
I'm a professional mechanical engineer and have studied acoustics and sonic fatigue extensively.
It is true that a flat seawall will reflect more of the energy back to the source than a wave would upon impact with a randomly shaped seawall. However, there are far to many variables of wave motion (in a closed body -- i.e. lake) to extrapolate much meaningful info from that statement. Quite frequently, (wave motion in water) results in a reflected wave that is out of phase with the incoming wave and they tend to "cancel" each other out.
|
| Name: |
Feb
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Perpetual Motion;
|
|
Date:
|
5/7/2008 10:00:05 AM
|
This passes the common sense test for me. In addition, it appears to come from a source with some knowledge and expertise in the specific area of discussion.
|
| Name: |
LifeTime Laker
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Perpetual Motion;
|
|
Date:
|
5/7/2008 10:15:42 AM
|
I try to keep it in simple terms so synchopats like you can read and understand my posts. What he says here is true, but NOT ALL are cancelled out. Some join others and continue, just as I have said all along. Sound waves and water waves are NOT identical in nature and DO NOT behave indentically.
It's OK feb. Nobody ever said you should "tear down this wall". Not since the Late Great Ronaldus Reagonus.
I know you jsut thrive on proving me wrong, in YOUR midget mind anyway, but I stand behind EVERY sentence I have posted about waves. Now IF you provide me with SWORN STATEMENTS I may consider changing my mind. Until then, STFU, because you CERTAINLY have NO KNOWLEDGE OR EXPERTISE IN ANYTHING.
|
|
New Post
Search
Logan Martin Lake Topics Forum
Reply
»
Alabama Lakes
»
Logan Martin Lake
Login
|
Home
