Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, protect, rollback, Administrators
27,336
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 125:
Line 125: − :::::Did you even read what I said? I said Brownian motion was the '''result''' of collisions of particles such as atoms and produces the motion at an observable level. I was confusing Brownian motion with the electron cloud and electron shells initially, which you will have to pardon as it's been years since I took physics. [[User:JanSmuts|JanSmuts]] 18:10, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
Talk:Perpetual motion machine (view source)
Revision as of 22:12, April 13, 2012
, 22:12, April 13, 2012Reverted edits by JanSmuts (talk) to last revision by DavidEdwards
::No, Brownian motion is associated with sub-atomic particles, but has to do with collisions at an observable level, rather than their placement in shells. It would appear we are both incorrect, my mistake. [[User:JanSmuts|JanSmuts]] 17:02, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::No, Brownian motion is associated with sub-atomic particles, but has to do with collisions at an observable level, rather than their placement in shells. It would appear we are both incorrect, my mistake. [[User:JanSmuts|JanSmuts]] 17:02, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::::I'm sorry, but you remain totally confused about Brownian motion even after acknowledging your earlier error. Brownian motion was first described by the biologist Robert Brown around 1827. He was describing a microscopic phenomenon and not a molecular one and certainly not a sub-atomic one. If your understanding of basic terms is so faulty I am not surprised that your conclusions are bad.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 10:11, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
::::I'm sorry, but you remain totally confused about Brownian motion even after acknowledging your earlier error. Brownian motion was first described by the biologist Robert Brown around 1827. He was describing a microscopic phenomenon and not a molecular one and certainly not a sub-atomic one. If your understanding of basic terms is so faulty I am not surprised that your conclusions are bad.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 10:11, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Well, then, do you think a [[perpetual motion machine]] can exist and, if not, then why not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:36, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Well, then, do you think a [[perpetual motion machine]] can exist and, if not, then why not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:36, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Isn't friction usually the answer? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 18:19, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Isn't friction usually the answer? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 18:19, 12 April 2012 (EDT)