🚀 go-pugleaf

Mark Doldon wrote:

> Dennis Nolan wrote:
>
> > Actually it is no more perpetual motion than our current internal combustion engines are,
> > it does use water for fuel ond the water used has to be resupplied as it is used, just
> > like petrol in my car.
> > I do agree that it is highly unlikely, but I also remember scoffing about claims of video
> > tapes in the late 1950's. I could never see how they could record the required bandwidth.
>
> No, there is a big difference between doubting the pracicality of a
> product, such as the ability of video tapes to hold the required
> bandwidth or the ability to make computers small and cheap enough to be
> practical, for example, and arguing against the violation of laws of
> thermodynamics, unless there is to be a complete re-writing or current
> knowledge on the subject.
>
> You're right, it's not technically perpetual motion, but it is
> impossible given the current scientific knowledge.

What is physically possible should not be confused with what is technically possible.  Back in
Galileo's time, for example, it was impossible to verify, empirically, that the earth was not
the centre of the universe, though the ability to do so was a physical possibility--(in
Galileo's time it was a priori the case that the this thesis is true).  Technological
advancement only served to verify this via empirical means.

Unfortunately, physical limits do exist.  No amount of technical or scientific 'advancement'
can alter such limits, eh?

ps. as an aside, do you know what is really cute?  The sendmail primitive for sending mail is
"HELO", but to those systems administrators out there, it seems the servers in Canada deliver a
cute variation to this (though correct me if I'm wrong): "EHLO".

regards,
Laurence