http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IsaMc9mpLI&feature=related

At 02:51 05 December 2008, wrote:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IsaMc9mpLI&feature=related
>

hard to tell whats funnier, the video or the comments


-Tony Condon
Cherokee II N373Y

While watching this (stupid) video, I ran across one much more interesting.
Take a look at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcWSI03NKo0

It is an interview with the builder/designer of Sunseeker.

Brian Bange

At 03:30 05 December 2008, Tony Condon wrote:
>At 02:51 05 December 2008, wrote:
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IsaMc9mpLI&feature=related
>>
>
>hard to tell whats funnier, the video or the comments
>
>
>-Tony Condon
>Cherokee II N373Y
>

On Dec 4, 6:51*pm, wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IsaMc9mpLI&feature=related

Wow, that is spectacularly stupid.

Hmmm....

"No problem, however seemingly insurmountable, can survive the onslaught
of sustained and focused thought."

Voltaire


"When you're curious, you find lots of interesting things to do."

Walt Disney


No prizes for guessing where these guys are coming from..

;o)


At 04:45 05 December 2008, Brian Bange wrote:
>While watching this (stupid) video, I ran across one much more
interesting.
>Take a look at:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcWSI03NKo0
>
>It is an interview with the builder/designer of Sunseeker.
>
>Brian Bange
>
>At 03:30 05 December 2008, Tony Condon wrote:
>>At 02:51 05 December 2008, wrote:
>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IsaMc9mpLI&feature=related
>>>
>>
>>hard to tell whats funnier, the video or the comments
>>
>>
>>-Tony Condon
>>Cherokee II N373Y
>>
>

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 18:51:18 -0800, wby0nder wrote:

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IsaMc9mpLI&feature=related

How about that: perpetual motion resurrected yet again.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 23:05:27 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

>On Dec 4, 6:51*pm, wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IsaMc9mpLI&feature=related
>
>Wow, that is spectacularly stupid.
>
Stupid like a fox. People INVEST in these things.

rj

On 5 Dec 2008 03:30:02 GMT, Tony Condon > wrote:

>At 02:51 05 December 2008, wrote:
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IsaMc9mpLI&feature=related
>>
>
>hard to tell whats funnier, the video or the comments
>
I especially like the adolescent "Mine's bigger'n yours" catfights
about the composition of flatulence, none of which are anywhere near
right. For those interested, the largest single component is usually
nitrogen. You swallow air when you eat; most of the oxygen gets
involved in various biochemical processes, but the nitrogen just
trucks on through.

Then come free oxygen, CO2, methane, and sometimes a little free
hydrogen, in widely varying proportions. All the above are odorless,
so it falls to a richly varied array of esters, ketones and sulfides
to furnish the inimitable social character.

rj

On Dec 5, 7:32*am, Martin Gregorie
> wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 18:51:18 -0800, wby0nder wrote:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IsaMc9mpLI&feature=related
>
> How about that: perpetual motion resurrected yet again.
>
> --
> martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org * * * |

Yup, they're using compressed air to compress air......


On a more practical bent, oceanographers are using buoyancy gliders
for autonomous recording missions. Not perpetual motion but very
efficient and damn clever.
http://www.apl.washington.edu/projects/seaglider/summary.html
http://www.i-cool.org/?p=197

Craig Funston

At 02:51 05 December 2008, wrote:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IsaMc9mpLI&feature=related
>
Paul Moeller would be so proud!

Steve

On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 04:45:02 +0000, Brian Bange wrote:

> While watching this (stupid) video, I ran across one much more
> interesting. Take a look at:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcWSI03NKo0
>
> It is an interview with the builder/designer of Sunseeker.
>
Does anybody know if this is the same Eric Raymond who wrote "The
Cathedral and the Bazaar" or a different Eric Raymond?


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Dec 6, 8:10�am, Martin Gregorie
> wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 04:45:02 +0000, Brian Bange wrote:
> > While watching this (stupid) video, I ran across one much more
> > interesting. Take a look at:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcWSI03NKo0
>
> > It is an interview with the builder/designer of Sunseeker.
>
> Does anybody know if this is the same Eric Raymond who wrote "The
> Cathedral and the Bazaar" or a different Eric Raymond?
>
> --
> martin@ � | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org � � � |

That would be a diffrent Eric Raymond. I've known Eric for 25 years
and helped him build the wings for the Sunseeker II. He's definitely
a builder, not a writer.

Mike Ziaskas
San Diego, CA

Martin Gregorie > wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 18:51:18 -0800, wby0nder wrote:
>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IsaMc9mpLI&feature=related
>
> How about that: perpetual motion resurrected yet again.

Doesn't appear to be. One notable non-perpetual motion aspect appears to be
taking advantage of the temperature differential between the lower
atmosphere and the upper atmosphere. That point _is_ rather clever, though
whether it can be taken advantage of with sufficient efficiency is another
story. This appears to be the original web site:

http://fuellessflight.com/

I think the core idea - taking advantage of that temperature difference -
appears lost by inclusion of too many extraneous details in the video. It
was also a mistake for the inventor to claim on his web site that the
"power cycle can be repeated indefinitely to allow the craft to stay aloft
virtually forever." Words like "indefinitely" and "virtually forever" are
self-defeating from a sales pitch angle. If the inventor had said the
following instead, I think he'd have less problems with claims of perpetual
motion:

"The power cycle can be repeated for as long as a temperature difference
exists between the upper and lower layers of the atmosphere - wherein the
airship utilizes them as a vast heat sink and a vast heat source. Enough
flights could, in theory, eventually "exhaust" the available energy
potential. <Inventer would insert facts and math here, showing how that is
not a serious concern.>"

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 18:37:30 -0600, Jim Logajan wrote:

> Martin Gregorie > wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 18:51:18 -0800, wby0nder wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IsaMc9mpLI&feature=related
>>
>> How about that: perpetual motion resurrected yet again.
>
> Doesn't appear to be. One notable non-perpetual motion aspect appears to
> be taking advantage of the temperature differential between the lower
> atmosphere and the upper atmosphere. That point _is_ rather clever,
> though whether it can be taken advantage of with sufficient efficiency
> is another story.
>
If a powered compressor, driven by batteries, an IC engine or even
photocells on the top surfaces, was being used to compress the gas for
descent it might work, but using energy from forward motion to run the
compressor sounds like perpetual motion to me.

The same scheme is being used successfully in undersea gliders for
oceanic research, but these all use battery powered pumps to control
buoyancy.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Martin Gregorie > wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 18:37:30 -0600, Jim Logajan wrote:
>
>> Martin Gregorie > wrote:
>>> On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 18:51:18 -0800, wby0nder wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IsaMc9mpLI&feature=related
>>>
>>> How about that: perpetual motion resurrected yet again.
>>
>> Doesn't appear to be. One notable non-perpetual motion aspect appears to
>> be taking advantage of the temperature differential between the lower
>> atmosphere and the upper atmosphere. That point _is_ rather clever,
>> though whether it can be taken advantage of with sufficient efficiency
>> is another story.
>>
> If a powered compressor, driven by batteries, an IC engine or even
> photocells on the top surfaces, was being used to compress the gas for
> descent it might work, but using energy from forward motion to run the
> compressor sounds like perpetual motion to me.

I looked again at the video and it seems that it and the fuellessflight web
site have very different emphasis. The video just isn't appropriate or
convincing - seems to miss the whole point of the novel aspect of the
invention as described on the web site.

> The same scheme is being used successfully in undersea gliders for
> oceanic research, but these all use battery powered pumps to control
> buoyancy.

I wasn't familiar with that until you and someone else on the thread
pointed that out. It does seem to make the main point of the invention less
novel.

On Dec 8, 10:55*am, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Martin Gregorie > wrote:
> > On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 18:37:30 -0600, Jim Logajan wrote:
>
> >> Martin Gregorie > wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 18:51:18 -0800, wby0nder wrote:
>
> >>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IsaMc9mpLI&feature=related
>
> >>> How about that: perpetual motion resurrected yet again.
>
> >> Doesn't appear to be. One notable non-perpetual motion aspect appears to
> >> be taking advantage of the temperature differential between the lower
> >> atmosphere and the upper atmosphere. That point _is_ rather clever,
> >> though whether it can be taken advantage of with sufficient efficiency
> >> is another story.
>
> > If a powered compressor, driven by batteries, an IC engine or even
> > photocells on the top surfaces, was being used to compress the gas for
> > descent it might work, but using energy from forward motion to run the
> > compressor sounds like perpetual motion to me.
>
> I looked again at the video and it seems that it and the fuellessflight web
> site have very different emphasis. The video just isn't appropriate or
> convincing - seems to miss the whole point of the novel aspect of the
> invention as described on the web site.
>
> > The same scheme is being used successfully in undersea gliders for
> > oceanic research, but these all use battery powered pumps to control
> > buoyancy.
>
> I wasn't familiar with that until you and someone else on the thread
> pointed that out. It does seem to make the main point of the invention less
> novel.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I love novel engineering ideas, but there is a reason why the USPTO
office turns down hundreds (thousands?) of patents every year. Every
technology they use is plausible and does exist, but when you put them
together that way, it becomes a perpetual motion machine. The USPTO
is very well aware of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and everyone that
has money needs to learn it REALLY well to avoid scams like this. If
only we could get everyone to accept that PM machines can't work,
maybe we could get those creative energies applied to solving some of
the world's problems.

Jeff