Perpetual motion?

[Gwandau]

Forget upthrust, friction, everything you are trying to consider.  This is impossible for the same reason all imbalanced wheels are impossible.  The device always seeks a balance, and gets it.  However you arrange the device, there is a midpoint, where all the levers are in balance, and there is nothing you can do to keep the device from reaching this point except to infuse energy.


Just think of a most basic unbalanced wheel.  One weight on the left, two weights on the right.  The two weights will fall and there will be two weights on the bottom, one on top.


Everything else is just a more complicated version of the above.  You can fiddle by adding more weight, suspending some weights in water, adding levers that make weights fall, but there is nothing you can add which will stop the heavier side from settling into equilibrium.

Eatenbyagrue,

That is a very static outlook on things, my friend.

Where are your wild side, the daring one, the childish one, unafraid of questioning the most obvious?
We need a lot more radical thinking if we ever will manage to find the sweet spot of our dreams.

It is all about creating unbalance, the very portal to COP>1 systems is opened by creating unbalance in a system.
(COP>1 is just a term indicating that we have unknown parameters working for us)

Do not get caught in the prison of preconceptions, any balanced system may be altered into a state of unbalance, given the correct parameters.

The moment we hack the code behind the electromagnetic field dynamics we will have the means of altering the visible vectors of the electromagnetic field geometry in favour for same unbalance as in a simple electric motor, which as you know is nothing else but a magnetic motor set to a state of imbalance.


Today science stubbornly believes that it actually is the rotational force put into the axis of the generator that is directly proportional to the electricity generated by the generator. That is again one of those preconsceptions made by the limitations of the human sensory input.

Where are all the free minds, those daring to defy what we are told since young?

Or are we all a bunch of dessillusioned old farts that finally have coagulated into a grey spot on the front mat?

Will this forum turn into a place mainly filled with naysayers that almost fight each others in their eagerness to stomp out any ideas opposing rigid science.


Welcome brave new world.

Cheers,

Gwandau

[eatenbyagrue]

Eatenbyagrue,

That is a very static outlook on things, my friend.

Where are your wild side, the daring one, the childish one, unafraid of questioning the most obvious?
We need a lot more radical thinking if we ever will manage to find the sweet spot of our dreams.

It is all about creating unbalance, the very portal to COP>1 systems is opened by creating unbalance in a system.
(COP>1 is just a term indicating that we have unknown parameters working for us)

Do not get caught in the prison of preconceptions, any balanced system may be altered into a state of unbalance, given the correct parameters.

The moment we hack the code behind the electromagnetic field dynamics we will have the means of altering the visible vectors of the electromagnetic field geometry in favour for same unbalance as in a simple electric motor, which as you know is nothing else but a magnetic motor set to a state of imbalance.


Today science stubbornly believes that it actually is the rotational force put into the axis of the generator that is directly proportional to the electricity generated by the generator. That is again one of those preconsceptions made by the limitations of the human sensory input.

Where are all the free minds, those daring to defy what we are told since young?

Or are we all a bunch of dessillusioned old farts that finally have coagulated into a grey spot on the front mat?

Will this forum turn into a place mainly filled with naysayers that almost fight each others in their eagerness to stomp out any ideas opposing rigid science.


Welcome brave new world.

Cheers,

Gwandau

The problem with your logic is that while it sounds inspiring, it is actually a crippling piece of advice.  As a society, we benefit from lessons learned in the past.  We do not need to revisit things that are established.  Imagine having to recheck basic multiplication tables every time we want to create anything complex.  2x2 is 4 already, quit trying to make it 5.

[Liberty]

Eatenbyagrue,

That is a very static outlook on things, my friend.

Where are your wild side, the daring one, the childish one, unafraid of questioning the most obvious?
We need a lot more radical thinking if we ever will manage to find the sweet spot of our dreams.

It is all about creating unbalance, the very portal to COP>1 systems is opened by creating unbalance in a system.
(COP>1 is just a term indicating that we have unknown parameters working for us)

Do not get caught in the prison of preconceptions, any balanced system may be altered into a state of unbalance, given the correct parameters.

The moment we hack the code behind the electromagnetic field dynamics we will have the means of altering the visible vectors of the electromagnetic field geometry in favour for same unbalance as in a simple electric motor, which as you know is nothing else but a magnetic motor set to a state of imbalance.


Today science stubbornly believes that it actually is the rotational force put into the axis of the generator that is directly proportional to the electricity generated by the generator. That is again one of those preconsceptions made by the limitations of the human sensory input.

Where are all the free minds, those daring to defy what we are told since young?

Or are we all a bunch of dessillusioned old farts that finally have coagulated into a grey spot on the front mat?

Will this forum turn into a place mainly filled with naysayers that almost fight each others in their eagerness to stomp out any ideas opposing rigid science.


Welcome brave new world.

Cheers,

Gwandau

"Today science stubbornly believes that it actually is the rotational force put into the axis of the generator that is directly proportional to the electricity generated by the generator."

Since science hasn't successfully separated the counter magnetic force during power generation, it ends up being directly proportional, power out to power in, with the difference depending on the efficiency of the device.  However, a generator is not actually a power conversion device in reality; converting power input in to power output.  It has that appearance because of it's design, but it actually is not a power conversion device. 

[Gwandau]

We do not need to revisit things that are established. Imagine having to recheck basic multiplication tables every time we want to create anything complex.  2x2 is 4 already, quit trying to make it 5.

What on earth does 2 x 2 has to do with science lacking any knowledge whatsoever of the source dynamics behind gravity and electromagnetism?

You just cannot be that stupid. Of course you must know I am referring to the interpretation of observations made, not the actual values observed.

Your unability to grasp the situation is not only utterly boring, it is alarming.

Gwandau

[Gwandau]

Sure, but doing so costs energy to do so. Exactly the same amount or more than can be recovered back to useful work.
It is proven mathematically to be so (Noether's theorem) and no experimental evidence has ever shown this to be untrue.

You're just wasting your time with such ideas.

Gianna,

Noether's theorem naturally will apply for all hitherto undiscovered physical parameters, in which case the new parameters
will conform to this theorem. But newly discovered parameters initially always tend to create a seemingly violation of the physical laws
until mainstream science have managed to revise and become updated, like what is happening right now in the LENR labs.

But your comment indicates that you believe there are no more unknown parameters in physics to be discovered, am I right?


Physical reality conceals a never ceasing abundance of unexplored and unknown parameters awaiting to be discovered .

There just is no end to what lies beyond the human domain of knowledge.

My advice for you is to conentrate on the weak spots of the orthodox scientific paradigm, since it's there the most obvious portals into novel areas lie.

As I said before, I am not questioning the values attained by observations, I am questioning the unfounded conclusions based upon those observations.

I am questioning our basic scientific fundamental conclusions as being anthropocentrically derived from the illusions created by the human sensory input,
which in other words means that the structure of our scientific foundation is based upon mere assumptions derived from our way of perceiving the world through our limited senses.
We are still relating to phenomena as the primitive humans we are. If you shoot an arrow, it goes from A to B. Therefore we draw the conclusion that the phenomenon of light likewise must do so.


Is light really something that moves from A to B ?  What makes you so sure?  Because it looks like it does?

What makes you think gravity is a force?  Is gravity really something that is executing attraction?  What makes you so sure? Because it looks like it does?

What makes you think magnetism is executing attraction?  Is that the only alternative to explain the behaviour of magnets? What makes you so sure?


Personally I think science has painted itself into a corner and need a total revision of the basic outlook on physical matter, gravity, light and so forth.
The hopeless entanglement of contradictions and uncertainty states permeating quantum theory indicates this.

Science need a total revision, and it won't come from the established scientific community. They are dead locked into their own limited frames of reference.
The revision will come from novel innovations by radical researchers in small homelabs, people with radical mindsets like Tesla.

People able to think outside the box.


Gwandau