Printable View
Hey guys, just came across this, thought I would share. Could lead to some interesting developments eventually. Feel free to move if this thread should be somewhere else. Just figured it was liquid cooling related.
http://rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3566
Haha sorry. Disregard
uses no energy eh?
wtf is the laser then?
Actually the laser is just there to carve the shape.Quote:
Originally Posted by NaeKuh
the helps movement no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexandr0s
LOL..
so laser = energy...
I can say the same thing... moving water in a pot!~
You boil the water, the bubbles push the water up, along with convection!
BAM! u got water movement without a pump... oh yeah.. but u poured a ton of energy into it heating the water up.
Irrelevant. The laser sets the stage for the action to occur. It plays no actual role in the motion, nor does it add any actual energy to the process. Were humans precise enough with a knife they could duplicate the process.Quote:
Originally Posted by NaeKuh
No energy required in my definition is perpetual motion.
Its like space, you push something to the sun, it will reach the sun... given in a million years, yet it will still reach the sun.
You turn off the laser, the water will not move up.
That is what im trying to aim at.
Its not Zero Point Energy which the article makes it sound to be.
But without the laser, it would not move, and carving out silicon with a knife still uses up our energy :P There's no doubt that energy is used.
The energy in setting stage, is still part of the process whether or not it is pre-process, because without this, it would not work.
There is no force or source of energy on the water itself but to convince it to move, hence moving it, requires the energy of the laser.
How many other ways can i put it
Like firing a gun. you can say the bullet, relevant to water in the context it was described in this argument, requires no added energy to pass through a human, but what about the gunpowder?
dropping a tennis ball: Gravity did the work but Someone or something had to lift it to a designated height first from which it had been dropped.
etc.
IF the laser were to carve a path out once, and the water were to continuously move up that path, then that would be setting the stage, but seen as it would have to be done over and over again, it requires energy to move. Yes? Yes.
which is why i said its not zero point energy.
And i dont think its once, i think the laser needs to be on constantly.
And your gonna confuse the people with potential vs kinetic energy.
The article made it sound NOTHING was acting on the water to move it up.
Which is the definition of Zero Point Energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy
Actually, it has to do with the attraction that the silicon has on the water. However, this attraction disappears when all the silicon is covered in water I presume. Meaning it will not create a loop or something similar.
(This might seem like getting energy for free, but even though the water rises, thus gaining potential energy, the chemical bonds holding the water to the silicon require a lower energy than the ones holding the water molecules to other water molecules.)
Chemical bonds (WTF why is he going into chemistry now from physics... wait.. isnt silicon hydrophobic by nature to begin with... can u dissolve sand in water?) Does he mean the hydrostatic force?
So they got a silicon at the top as a collector? What happens when the collector gets full? and since its an aggressive first come first serve basis, the substrate will get full very quickly and will not want to let go unless they have a greater attractor somewhere else.
So wtf happens when it gets full?
I understand what they are saying, but the article is worded so horribly. Its like the author has never written a science paper b4 in his life, or taken a upper division science course.
LOL i know... so how is this useful?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexandr0s
At least carbon nanotubes moved the heat as the medium itself, and not a secondary medium.