perpetual motion

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Oh Mr. Tesla what if energy is both static and kinetic.  Dave love your work on magnetics.  I working on an idea a magnet attraction {static and negative]/ repel {kinetic x2 positive} forces or fields.  Rosemary I give you "d' orbital electron". The top tear drop sphere spins c.w. to dominate over the lower sphere spinning c.c.w.
More come later,      BobTEW                                                                                                                   

Hello Bob - welcome to the discussion.  Would love to know more about the tear drop sphere spins but have no idea what c.w or c.c.w stand for?  Be glad if you could explain.  Dave has started his own thread.  I'll post a link to it.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9603.msg252833#new

Regards,
Rosemary

[nievesoliveras]

@rosemary

I think that cw stands for clockwise and ccw counter clockwise.

Jesus

[david lambright]

jesus, i believe you are correct.....rose, thanks for posting that link to that new thread...i appologize if i got carried away on this thread with my stuff.. .here is a question, what has to be in motion, can it be visual motion?..like rising heat?...if so, these devices are at least persistent in their visual motion...david

[Rosemary Ainslie]

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9603.msg253069#new

Hi Guys,
That's the link to Dave's new thread.  Sorry I was a bit tardy here.  And abject apologies to Allcanadian in these extraneous discussions.

Dave - I think the prospect of perpetual motion - as discussed here - relates to the possibility or otherwise of producing work from that motion.  That it exists in a perpetual moving state is more or less acknowledged.  I may be wrong here but I think that's a fair summation.

[shruggedatlas]

Hi AC.  I've just seen this thread.  I thought Dave started it and then saw that I was looking at page 2.  Very interesting topic.

Just out of interest - say something knocked our planet out of its orbit that it moved closer to the sun.  Then it also described a tighter faster orbit around the sun due to it's greater proximity to the sun's mass.  Then what?  Is the increased orbital velocity a result of a gravitational pull from the sun?  Or is that velocity determined by the strength of the impact that first knocked it out of orbit?

As I'm arguing it here - the force of the impact is entirely dissipated in repositioning it nearer the sun.  Yet it develops a greater velocity.  And in a second example - the force of impact is NOT entirely dissipated in repositioning it.   And yet its velocity is determined by that gravitational proximity that overrides the energy that first repositioned it.

Which means that theoretically, the energy added to the object from the force of impact can be overridden by the force of gravity.  What's happened to all that energy that has not yet been dissipated or expressed in that velocity from that early impact?

It is the same in an electric current from an AC supply source.  If the electron 'gives up its energy' to, let us say 'heat' in a resistor - then that same electron still returns to its source with the same energy quotient that it had when it first left the source. 

Then - using fire as an example.  It takes the smallest effort to generate the smallest spark that can generate a conflagration that can entirely consume a whole forest.  Yet the energy input to generate that spark required almost no effort at all.

In my opinion there are many, many examples where energy seems to exceed the laws of conservation. I'm sure they can be argued either way.  But it may give some pause for thought?

Regards,
Rosemary

The answers to the questions you pose are trivial and I am surprised you are asking them.

I believe the orbit one has already been answered, but essentially, if the planet keeps orbiting the sun at the same speed as before, but is suddenly forced to shift to a closer orbit, the orbital period will decrease.  It's like a ball on a tether, winding around a pole, same concept.

With electricity, electrons that bump into obstacles generate heat.  So resistance would cause an electron not to make it all the way around, and this is how you lose power over time.

And with fire, are you serious about this?  Yes, the initial spark did not require much energy, but it was a catalyst for a large scale chemical reaction that converts mass into energy.  The energy of a forest fire comes from the consumption of wood on a mass scale.  This goes back to E=MC2, and the laws of conservation of energy are in full effect during a forest fire.  As soon as there is no more wood to burn, the fire ends.

I was going to go and read the documents about your invention from the beginning to see if I could grasp it, since you seemed to be a serious scientist, but now I think it would be a waste of time, if you seriously hold the positions you just described.