This is hilarious

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=1IsaM...eature=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=1IsaM...eature=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=1IsaM...eature=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=1IsaM...eature=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