alt.energy.renewable

"Mauried" wrote in message
news:47ddd2dc.13745484@news.tpg.com.au...
> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 20:37:38 -0500, david.williams@bayman.org (David
> Williams) wrote:
>
>>-> And you still haven't shared with us your opinion about the the machine
>>-> mentioned in the subject line other than, "Such machiensa re real and
>>-> occastionally useful...."
>>
>>-> Do you consider this particular machine "...real and occasionally
>>useful..."
>>
>>-> daestrom
>>
>>If you quote me, please get the spelling right.
>>
>>I haven't been able to understand exactly how this machine is supposed
>>to work. Apparently, there are patent descriptions, in Polish. I don't
>>read Polish. Do you? I do have Polish-speaking friends, but I doubt
>>that they would be interested in translating for me.
>>
>>I think it is extremely unlikely that the machine works at all. It
>>certainly is not a practical, workable perpetual motion machine. It
>>might, just conceivably, work by taking energy from the earth's
>>rotation or some other source, but I doubt it.
>>
>>What more do you want?
>>
>> dow
>
>
> Its not particulary difficult to make machines that extract energy
> from their surroundings.
> A couple of good examples are Atmos clocks and crookes radiometers.
> No particular reason why a gyroscopic machine that extracts energy
> from the Earths rotation wouldnt work either.
> Unfortunately, all these types of machines share a common problem
> which is they are astronomically inefficient at extracting the
> energy,and they dont scale up very well.
> The cost of building the machine is always orders of magnitude greater
> that the value of the energy it makes,so they may work in theory,

You have said they work in practice, but don't scale up and expensive to
make.

> but are totally impractical in reality.
> An Atmos clock costs a minimum of $2000 and makes around 200
> microwatts of energy from its surroundings.

But it works, so theory proven.