In some ways, gravity may be thought of as being similar to an elastic band. When you supply energy to an elastic band by stretching it (chemical energy supplied to your muscles is converted to mechanical energy to stretch the elastic band), the elastic band will snap back to approximately its original state. Specifically, if you hold one end of the elastic band to the floor and stretch the other end upwards, it will snap back down to the floor when you release the upper end of it. Bearing this in mind, think again about gravity. Gravity is a force not wholly dissimilar with the analogy of the elastic band. Like an elastic band, it does not contain energy unless you first supply it with energy. The energy used to move objects upwards (like stretching an elastic band) causes acceleration of things such as apples (objects which have mass) when they are allowed to fall back to the ground (acceleration).
But gravity cannot apply its 'force field' to "falling" objects like apples unless energy has first been supplied to raise them from the ground. In the case of apples, chemical energy has been supplied to cause the apple tree to grow and form apples. So too, when you lift an object from the ground and release it, it will fall because you supplied chemical energy to lift it in the first place.
We may think objects fall to the ground 'because of' the effect of gravity, and in a narrow sense this is right. But when you think about it more carefully, you will realise that the object has only fallen to the ground because energy was supplied to it beforehand (work was performed) in the process of lifting it upwards in the first place.
For this reason, even in the best possible scenario of component efficiency, you can never get more energy out of a gravity based device than you put into it in the first place to lift things above ground level. Output can never exceed input.
Energy always has to be expended lifting objects up from the floor and the 'force' of gravity cannot possibly ever add 'extra' energy to the object. When you lifted it, you added energy, but it does not gain energy on the way down.
The same general principle applies to magnets. Just because magnets have lines of force (similar to gravity), does not mean that magnets contain 'energy'. They do not. If static or stationary magnets really did contain 'energy', we would be able to connect devices and wires to them and use them as batteries or power supplies, but we cannot do this because they do not contain any energy.
In point of fact, neither gravity nor magnetic field lines in magnets possess energy. Energy must always be supplied from outside for the inherent 'field lines or forces' to seem to perform work. Consider how Faraday's law applies to solenoids. You always have to move a magnet inside a copper coil, or vice versa, you have to move a copper coil near a magnet to produce electrical energy. If magnets in stasis contained any energy whatsoever, you would not need to do this. You would be able to generate electricity without having to move the magnet at all; without having to move it relative to the coil or vice versa. But this is not so because magnets do not contain any energy. Energy must always be supplied from an external source (for example by your hand) to move the magnet or to move the solenoid.
The upshot of this is that working 'magnetic motors' made from arrays of magnets are impossible; have always been impossible and will always be impossible (unless you go to a different Universe where different laws of physics apply).
External energy must always be added to magnet based devices to enable them to rotate. External energy must always be added to gravity based systems to enable them to perform work.
Our predisposition to confuse force (in the sense of field lines) with energy or power has led countless inventors to waste time and resources trying to build PM magnetic motors, PM pendulums, and other gravity based machines, but none of these devices can ever possibly work because the laws of physics render them impossible. Just because you do not understand why it cannot work will not change the facts. These devices cannot ever possibly work. PM is impossible.
There are plenty of brilliant innovative inventors on this forum but some of them are oblivious to the central fact that field lines do not equate with energy or power. They are different things, and work must always be performed on objects (mass) if they are to be provided with with acceleration (F= m*a).
Looking at this issue from an another perspective, suppose, by some ingenious hitherto undiscovered method, an intellectual colossus manages to get a 'PM Magnet-motor' to rotate continuously, without any external power supply being fed into it. Let us suppose the electrical output of this mystery machine is then connected back to the machine itself. We know from Einstein that E=MC2. Accordingly, the machine would gain mass as it generated and stored power, until the point when it would have infinite mass...which is impossible.
My respectful suggestion? Stop wasting time and resources trying to build PM machines based on magnets and gravity. They cannot possibly ever work. Ever. People have been trying to build them for centuries. If it were possible for them to work, they would have been built by now.
Instead, build something useful. Something that has utility or which can convert externally derived energy into other forms, and thus has a chance of performing useful work. You cannot convert the 'force' of gravity or the 'force' of magnetism into energy without performing externally derived work on the systems.
Peace.
This interesting article by John Collins gives a clue about ability of harnessing energy from gravity...
http://www.gravitywheel.com/html/bessler_s_wheel_explained.html (http://www.gravitywheel.com/html/bessler_s_wheel_explained.html)
Quote from: Rafael Ti on March 10, 2012, 04:13:54 PM
This interesting article by John Collins gives a clue about ability of harnessing energy from gravity...
http://www.gravitywheel.com/html/bessler_s_wheel_explained.html (http://www.gravitywheel.com/html/bessler_s_wheel_explained.html)
It is certainly an interesting article, but I disagree with key conclusions in it. For example, gravity wheels are said, in the article, to harness gravity "as an external source of energy". I disagree. Gravity is not a source of energy, either internally or externally. Quite the contrary. The only thing gravity is capable of doing is "de-energising by conversion (from potential to kinetic energy) that which has previously been energised by other means".
If gravity is viewed (by way of analogy) as a giant elastic band that pulls everything back to ground level and causes all potential energy to be converted to kinetic energy on the way down, the question arises; how may gravity be said to add energy? The answer is that if gravity neither contains energy nor confers energy on bodies with mass, it cannot be used as a source of power. This is the crux of the matter...and some elaboration may be called for because I am heading towards an exotic argument concerning kinetic energy. I shall therefore use an example apparently unhelpful to my argument. That of falling water. Incidentally, there is considerably more "free energy" in falling water than you will find in any sort of ridiculous pendulum or "magnet motor", so it makes sense to debunk the most complex and difficult example in the article you referenced. If falling water can be debunked as a source of "free energy", then a host of other harebrained ideas should fall like dominoes as a result.
Hydroelectric plants work because falling water strikes impulse turbine blades. Two principle equations are used to calculate the mechanical or electrical power output of such facilities, though as both results are in Watts, there is no real distinction between mechanical and electrical power output in this context. I have used seawater in the second equation (density 1020 kg/m3) to make the density figure stand out more (and in fact I also used seawater as the working fluid for the example in the first equation as well though I have not included all the calculations here or this could become seriously prolix).
The first equation:
Applying by way of example 297 RPM and Fjet = 14280 Newtons to the Pmech equation as an illustration for a turbine of diameter 0.87m, water flow of 1 m3/s and a head of 25m:
Pmech = Fjet x Njet x pi x flowrate x RPM x 0.9 x 0.87m / 60
= 14280N x 1(jet) x pi x 1m3/s x 297RPM x 0.9(eff) x 0.87m / 60
= 173Kw
Power (watts) = Fjet (force of water jet in Newtons) x Njet (the number of water jets) x pi x RPM (revolutions per minute) x PCD (pitch circle diameter of the impulse turbine in meters, namely the diameter of the turbine less a few centimetres comprising the smaller diameter circle just inside the outer rim of the turbine to which force is actually applied to the centre of the turbine cups or buckets) / 60 (we divide by 60 because we used RPM rather than radians per second for angular velocity) and the 0.9 eff figure is a unit-less fraction representing a highly efficient Pelton Impulse turbine (the larger they are the more efficient they get, and 0.94 efficiency would be about as good as it gets).
Second equation:
Cross referencing the output figure with the second (more commonly used) equation for electrical power output in watts using the same data:
Power (mechanical) in watts = height(m) x density of water (Kg/m3) x gravity (m/s/s) x flow of water (m3/s) x system efficiency (n = unit-less fraction)
Pwatts = h(25m) x g(9.81 m/s/s) x rho (1020kg/m3) x 0.9 (eff) x 1m3/s (flow)
= 225kW
I invite attention to the margin of error because unlike free energy cultists or cult scientists who refer to the laws of thermodynamics without knowing what they really mean, it is my responsibility to invite attention to problems with my hypothesis. I must debunk it as best I can before inviting anyone else to do so. I suspect the margin of error arises from the inevitable and quite correct application of delta mom/Benz's law in the first equation, where the force figure in newtons has to be divided in two in order accurately to define change in momentum.
Note that the first equation does not overtly include acceleration due to gravity (though in fact it covers it for reasons I shall come to).
Both equations provide (within the admitted margin of error) the same result if applied to the figures for any given hydroelectric installation provided that the flow rate (in equation 2) and the Fjet figure (in equation 1) are accurately calculated. Figuring out the figures for the other terms is normally trivial.
We do not need to include a term for gravity in the first equation because the term Fjet (the force in Newtons of the water exiting the nozzle before striking the turbine cups) already takes all relevant factors into account. Who cares about 'gravity' in this equation when all we need to know is force per unit area (pressure in Pascals or N.m2) on the turbine cups from which the force Fjet figure (Newtons) may then be calculated.
My point is that it does not matter where the force for the Fjet term comes from. If water applies a certain force (pressure per unit area to the interior of the curved spoons or cups of the turbine), then X kW of electricity will be generated.
I argue that gravity does not 'energise' the water. This may seem controversial, but indulge me for a moment. The water possesses potential energy as a function of its altitude above the exit nozzle of the turbine. The altitude of the water itself arose because enormous quantities of solar energy were expended, causing evaporation and later on, precipitation. This solar process is hugely inefficient in terms of energy expenditure versus energy output from falling water.
All that gravity managed to achieve was to draw the water downwards through a gravity well arising from the curvature of space/time due to the mass of planet earth. Gravity did not therefore add potential energy to the water. Whether it added kinetic energy may seem controversial per F = m*a. Newton might have said it did, but I think it is fairly uncomplicated.
Gravity did not supply potential energy to the water. Potential energy is the only energy the water ever originally possessed (leaving aside bond energy). The force of gravity is a converter, not a supplier. It converted that potential energy into kinetic energy. But the process of conversion did not add any 'extra' energy. On the contrary, half it if was lost. See Delta mom (change in momentum equations) for water striking turbines.
Does gravity 'de-energise' water by removing its potential energy before the water strikes the cups of the turbine? Certainly, the turbine removes kinetic energy from the water, because the water leaves the turbine with zero or close to zero tangential velocity.
I am not arguing here that gravity is a sort of 'anti-energy', in the sense that it takes out or removes from the (mass of) falling water all energy invested in it by other means...in this case by the sun (solar energy). But I do argue that gravity is on any reasonable view merely a converter of potential energy to kinetic energy.
This may seem to be an incomplete picture where acceleration due to gravity is what gives rise to the force figure (F=m*a). After all, for falling water, Force (Newtons) = Mass (1000 Kg/m3) x 9.81 m/s/s (acceleration due to gravity).
But I argue that the 'energy' of the water was not 'caused' by gravity. Large amounts of solar energy resulted in evaporation and eventually rainfall onto mountainous areas. The resulting streams of water followed the path of a gravity well, moving downwards as a result. The water possessed the relevant potential energy the moment it landed on high ground. I argue that gravity (see the term in the first equation)
accurately predicts the rate of conversion of potential energy, but that gravity does not ever actually
add potential energy nor does it add kinetic energy in an authentic sense. It merely converts potential energy (which was already there) to kinetic energy (a process that adds zero net energy). Half of that energy is also lost because of Benz's law. That is the sole effect of the force of gravity in this context.
This is an almost inconceivably inefficient process. From the moment the sun heats and evaporates water to the moment falling water strikes the cups of a turbine, vast amounts of 'energy' are lost due to inefficiency.
Only one thing is certain. You should never let anyone else do your thinking for you. Cult scientists, who hide behind the laws of thermodynamics to avoid the Cimmerian penumbra of having to think are just as culpable as free energy cultists in this regard. If Einstein had let Newton do his thinking for him, where would we be?
Very interesting article. The definitions concerning conservative and dissipative forces were very well written and I find myself questioning whether Newton's equation accurately measures that which arises for other reasons. So very thought provoking.
*Footnote citation for Delta Mom
Bernoulli's equation gives us jet velocity. Assuming by way of example a water jet with 16,000,000 Pascals of pressure (160 bar) and water density of 1000 kg/m3
P = ½ r . V2
P = Pressure (Pa)
rho = density (kg/m3)
V = velocity (m/s)
P = 160 bar = 16,000,000 Pa = 16,000,000 N/m2
rho fresh water = 1000 kg/m3
The mystery value is velocity (m/s)
16,000,000 = ½ 1000 . V2
V = 178.8854382 m/s
Newton gives us Force (per mass x acceleration)
F = m.a
F = 0.16kg/s x 179 m/s
F = 28.64 Newtons
Note that the Turbine will be at its most efficient when the runner is travelling at half the jet speed ie 89.5 m/s **
The Change in momentum of the jet (assuming the water jet leaves the cups with zero absolute tangential velocity) will balance the force applied to the cup.
Accordingly:
Delta Mom = mass flow rate x Delta V
Delta Mom = mass flow rate x (Vjet â€" Vrunner)
Delta Mom = 0.16 x (179 â€" 89.5)
Delta Mom = 14.3 N
**
x = vb / vj
x = ratio
vb = Cup velocity at pitch circle diameter of turbine
vj = Jet velocity
F = mb. vj . (1-x) (1+ z.cos g)
h = mb . (vj . vj) . x . (1-x) . (1+z.cosg) / ½ . mb (vj . vj)
P = F . vb = mb . vj . (1-x) . (1+z.cos g) . vb = mb . vj . x . (1-x) . (1+z.cos g)
dh / dx = 2(1-2x). (1+z.cos g) = 0
x = 0.5
h = system efficiency as a unit-less fraction between zero and one
F = force of water on cups (N)
mb = mass flow rate into cup (kg/s)
vj = Jet velocity (m/s)
vb = runner tangential velocity at pitch circle diameter (m/s)
z = efficiency factor for flow in buckets (unit-less fraction between zero and 1)
g = angle of sides of cups
x = speed ratio of vj to vb
Conclusion:
If ignorance were a criminal offence, I would be serving a life sentence
The problem here is everyone that says nay about gravity motors or PM motors is stuck in the conventional ways. If we followed conventional science and based all truths on conventional science, then there would be no point in trying anything new because we have already discovered the truths. Our universe actually would not exist based on our so called factual science. People need to stop saying things are not possible and why it's not possible, because they are closed minded and can't accept what they don't understand. I would invite anyone who is so smart to explain how our universe continues to rotate on magnatism/gravity but is not perpetual? If our universe is running, how can we not down size and duplicate? Guess we are just imagining phenominons and everything has an exact science and is explainable? I could rant on and on, but I just wish people would atleast try and prove a theory right 100% before defending it. our conventional science was setup by some great men, and is a great starting point for learning, but our conventional science is still flawed, not exact so we shouldn't be trying to stop progression based on conventional science. There is so much we don't know or understand, yet we have an awful lot of big mouths telling everyone how dumb it is to even try. Unbelievable!
Quote from: McGiver30 on March 10, 2012, 11:44:56 PM
The problem here is everyone that says nay about gravity motors or PM motors is stuck in the conventional ways. If we followed conventional science and based all truths on conventional science, then there would be no point in trying anything new because we have already discovered the truths. Our universe actually would not exist based on our so called factual science. People need to stop saying things are not possible and why it's not possible, because they are closed minded and can't accept what they don't understand. I would invite anyone who is so smart to explain how our universe continues to rotate on magnatism/gravity but is not perpetual? If our universe is running, how can we not down size and duplicate? Guess we are just imagining phenominons and everything has an exact science and is explainable? I could rant on and on, but I just wish people would atleast try and prove a theory right 100% before defending it. our conventional science was setup by some great men, and is a great starting point for learning, but our conventional science is still flawed, not exact so we shouldn't be trying to stop progression based on conventional science. There is so much we don't know or understand, yet we have an awful lot of big mouths telling everyone how dumb it is to even try. Unbelievable!
@Mcgiver30
You seem to forget that the burden of proof always falls on the shoulders of those who make assertions. There are cult scientists out there too ignorant to understand or explain why they think something is impossible. They are the sort of people who mention the laws of thermodynamics without being able to explain or understand them intuitively, and I agree such people are morons. But there are also free energy cultists, and they can be equally ignorant and are more often than not quite stunningly stupid. They refuse to explain, mathematically or otherwise, why their assertions are correct, and in the background you will hear their mantra, 'we need to try new things or we will never progress' (a confusion between trying new things which just might possibly work, and trying dumb things that cannot possibly work).
I agree we need to try new things. I agree we know relatively little about electricity and magnetism in terms of possible applications and circuits. We may see wonderful applications for new components in both discrete and lump matter terms, and yes I strongly support experimentation both with circuit simulators like LFSpice and on breadboards.
But what I object to is people wasting time and resources (that could properly be directed more constructively) trying to build impossible PM magnet motor generators. There are two sorts of people who build magnet motors. Fraudsmen who sell plans for machines that dont work (and can never work) or want investors for same, and misguided people who think magnets are some sort of battery or power source when they are not.
Once again, (perhaps repetition will drive the point home),
magnets do not contain energy. Sheesh
If you make an assertion, the burden of proof is on
your shoulders to justify it. And by the way, what does the expression '
conventional science' mean? Is it a reference to machines that
actually work (such as, for example, the computer you used to post your message? wtf
Quote from: quantumtangles on March 10, 2012, 07:09:06 PM
I argue that gravity does not 'energise' the water. This may seem controversial, but indulge me for a moment. The water possesses potential energy as a function of its altitude above the exit nozzle of the turbine. The altitude of the water itself arose because enormous quantities of solar energy were expended, causing evaporation and later on, precipitation. This solar process is hugely inefficient in terms of energy expenditure versus energy output from falling water.
All that gravity managed to achieve was to draw the water downwards through a gravity well arising from the curvature of space/time due to the mass of planet earth. Gravity did not therefore add potential energy to the water. Whether it added kinetic energy may seem controversial per F = m*a. Newton might have said it did, but I think it is fairly uncomplicated.
Comparing gravity to falling water we don't need to consider the whole process of evaporation and precipitation and the solar energy involved in I think. Solar energy acts against the force of gravity up to some level (altitude) and then 'lives' the water with some potential energy. But what I've got before me comparing these two is; falling energized water on one side and falling weights of gravity wheel on other side. Both the 'bodies' can fall o n l y thanks to gravity. Both forces we can consider as homogeneous. Energy from both we can, I believe, harness using turbines (wheels) -> generally the leverage systems, because wind or water turbine is also kind of leverage system. We know and use turbines we can immerse completely in energy bearing medium (as it is always in case of gravity) and still can harness energy from it.
Greetings...
@ quantumtangles
I think you have a good point. However, what cause the countless times of exploding stars, the making of new stars? It has definitely something to do with gravity. Without gravity, we would not be here. Stars would not exist, not the universe (as we know it). What came first? gravity or mass?
Vidar
I very much disagree with the original poster on both counts.
Quote from: Just George on March 12, 2012, 11:34:18 AM
I very much disagree with the original poster on both counts.
In "small scale" such as we humans are able to build, I think it makes sense what the original poster says. In universe scale, there are definitely something "perpetual" going on. The good thing is that we can harvest the energy we need from this "going on" out there - energy from the sun for example. It's free, and we do not need it when the sun is gone.
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on March 12, 2012, 12:08:24 PM
In "small scale" such as we humans are able to build, I think it makes sense what the original poster says. In universe scale, there are definitely something "perpetual" going on. The good thing is that we can harvest the energy we need from this "going on" out there - energy from the sun for example. It's free, and we do not need it when the sun is gone.
Vidar
No, I mean that I disagree with the original poster as per his statements that PM gravity and magnet motors cannot ever work.
I also think that the ideas describing both gravity and magnetic fields within this thread are incorrect.
My view on how magnets work is that they are lenses, or antennae if you will, that focus energy that already exists. The manifestation of that energy where we can interact with it is what we call a magnetic field.
Quote from: Just George on March 12, 2012, 12:22:45 PM
No, I mean that I disagree with the original poster as per his statements that PM gravity and magnet motors cannot ever work.
I also think that the ideas describing both gravity and magnetic fields within this thread are incorrect.
My view on how magnets work is that they are lenses, or antennae if you will, that focus energy that already exists. The manifestation of that energy where we can interact with it is what we call a magnetic field.
Just George,
You are the first one I met here that uses the analogy "lenses".
Therefore I take the liberty to deviate from the actual subject of this thread and give you an idea
about the origin of my own view about magnets being a sort of lenses.
This is exactly what is described in the unparallelled unified field theory, Unity, by David Barclay,
which is the only existing relativity theory literally worth its name, since the very fundament of this theory
is that everything, from the smallest particle to the biggest galaxy cluster has a unique center oriented field value relative
to everything else. Thus even the speed of light depends upon from which field system the measurement is performed.
In a relative universe there is only one energy - the underlying unified field. Everything else is but a response to the condition
of this field, be it light, elctromagnetism, gravity, matter, you name it. David Barclay stresses that our concept of energy is a
total misconception, being just a form of "resistance" between two field levels. The only energy existing is the underlying energy
that projects this universe into being, an Aether described in his theory as an non linear accellerating time field frequency far beyond
our normal concepts of an Aether.
According to the Unity-theory, magnets are not themselves the very origin of their attractive and repulsive qualities,
but merely acting as a sort of lens
refracting the underlying field, where the appearance of attraction and repulsion
is caused by a decrease or increase of space created between the poles of the
magnets.
If you are interested in David Barclay's insights, welcome to the gravity control forum at http://www.gravitycontrol.org/forum (http://www.gravitycontrol.org/forum) The link below goes to my own so called Casing Theory based upon the Unity theory.Here you will get a quite easily digested introduction about what the Unity theory is all about. http://www.gravitycontrol.org/forum/index.php?topic=328.msg2183#msg2183 (http://www.gravitycontrol.org/forum/index.php?topic=328.msg2183#msg2183) Gwandau
I don't know who Mr Barclay is, but what you described is sort of how I view the universe. It's difficult to explain in laymans terms, but in short, I think that everything is a field, with what we describe as "matter" or "energy" or whatever it is merely being some kind of compression or differential within that larger field.
I also believe that some fields overlap one another, and may not interact with one another, or if they do, only interact on a limited basis.
For example, what we perceive as being our physical reality is some sort of compression of a larger field, and we may only interact with other elements of the field that are compressed in a similar way. A little bit like radio frequencies, whereby similar radio frequencies may overlap and interfere with one another, while a radio frequency and a frequency is, say, the visible light spectrum do not interact with, and hence not may not perceive, each other.
In that vein, it means that different "dimensions" may exist in the same spot in time and space without interacting with one another because their fields are out of sync, in one way or another, be it frequency or density (or both, since they're related).
So anyway that is why I disagree with you in regards to PM devices being impossible. Everybody thinks that free energy is about creating energy. I personally think that it is about either diversion of energy from somewhere, or it is about knowing how to access existing energy within some sort of device that makes that energy oppose itself within our field, so that we can create a differential that we can take advantage of.
In other words, the trick to free energy isn't to make it - the trick is to figure out how to turn it on and off within our field, and then to take advantage of the differential that you have created in a way that benefits you (by making your device move).
Hope that makes sense.
There is one gravitational system difficult to build but that will work, where Archimede force through water help to rebuild the potential energy of a mass.
A mass fall in air from elevation H to elevation h aquiring kinetic energy that can be used, the problem is that same amount of energy is needed to bring back the mass to elevation H but if the mass is introduced in water at elevation h then water will help to bring back the mass to elevation H without consuming energy (the mass idealy should have a density of 1 or lower)
I have somewhere the drawing and the name of the system and I have seen a video few years ago from Tseung (one member of this forum)
So yes I beleive there are ways to bring back potential energy without consuming energy and that gravitational systems may work, I admit my explanation may not be clear without a drawing.
Dennis
Just George (http://www.overunity.com/profile/just-george.43053/),
I totally agree with you regarding the possibilities to create a vector differential in magnetic polarity.
Sorry for being unclear regarding my standpoint in PM motors, which I never actually touched in my post.
What makes the Unity theory extraordinary, is the strange experiences by David Barclay in the late 50s and early 60s,
as being subjected to a quite rare form of alien abduction, were their sole mission seemed to present to him the very engine that makes
the UFO:s fly, inside a field system like our planet, as well as performing jumps between different field systems, like between stars.
It consisted of a four tier ring system of huge magnets positioned as an upside down cone, each magnet positioned
in unison angle with the rest of the magnets.
He was informed that this magnet engine was able to modulate the underlying field, thus enabling the craft to change its field
identity to any field identity of destination, thus going there instantly. They also told him that time is created by each field system,
and that time propagation is different for each field system.
Therefore it is impossible to leave the solar system very far by conventional linear means,
since the farther away you go from the center of the time field, the slower will be the propagation of time.
This explains the anomalous slowdown of all the NASA long distance vessels, like the Pioneer vessels:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2002/feb/28/physicalsciences.research (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2002/feb/28/physicalsciences.research)
David Barclay, who is a dear friend of mine, has devoted most of his life to put down on paper in an understanable context,
what was conveyed to him during the three encounters.
As far as I am concerned, there is a lot more to magnets than meets the eye.
And still today there is not one person who can explain what makes a magnet attract a piece of iron from distance.
Gwandau
One poster "strongly disagrees" with my original post (by the way, this is not a customer satisfaction survey from a hamburger chain). Another poster refers to UFOs. I realise we are dealing with a broad spectrum of educational and intellectual backgrounds here but...seriously...wtf?
If you have a serious non-delirious argument to make about PM magnet motors and PM gravity machines, by all means make it. It would assist all concerned if you could make reference to:
1. A working device, or
2. Mathematical calculations showing that such a device is possible
Saying that you "strongly disagree' with the original post is not very helpful. Nothing prevents you from saying it, but it is essentially meaningless. Tell us what you can demonstrate or dazzle us with an argument. Once again (bearing in mind the broad spectrum of intellects and educational backgrounds here), show us just one example of a PM magnet motor (that works), or one example of a PM gravity based device that works. If you cannot (which of course you wont be able to because they are IMPOSSIBLE), then at least provide detailed mathematical calculations (as I did).
If you are not prepared (or are unable) to do any of the above, you STILL have a remaining option. You can explain, using detailed calculations, why MY calculations (concerning the impossibility of gravity based PM devices) are wrong. So there are plenty of options here for intelligent debate.
If, on the other hand, you are a primitive, with 'faith based' ideas about perpetual motion, please do not contaminate this thread. There are plenty of other threads where unsubstantiated garbage about PM magnet motors and UFO abductions will be welcome.
This thread represents a genuine attempt to educate people who meet the minimum requirements for de-perpetualmotionising. The minimum requirements are (1) Some sort of vestigial brain stem and (2) (in the case of those already infected by PM algorithms; reprogrammability.
References to UFOs and hamburger satisfaction questionnaires do not help anyone. I realise it is not your fault...(that you do not understand)..and that you have no choice in the matter...(because you do not understand), but if you do not meet the minimum requirements, don't bother posting.
You do know what patronising means.............................don't you?
May be there is a formula to calculate how much potential arrogance may be converted to kinetic smugness. :o
Quote from: quantumtangles on March 10, 2012, 06:33:04 AM
Peace.
May be I am very much stupid, explain me again in details with physical proves of any statement - why I am not able to use stored energy in magnets that can be calculated in joules to run Magnet-Magnet Motor?Have you done all calculations with magnet rotor vortex and its phenomena? Are you genius?
Are you going to do what with so long not proved statement with all our works? :)
cancel it with only one hit ?Ha ha ha ha :) ))
Peace. and truly Rob
Armenia Math team.
Quote from: microcontroller on March 19, 2012, 05:48:31 PM
Why don't you first prove that there is energy stored in magnets?
What makes you think there is?
Prove it's there before thinking about using it.
1. do you believe Russina factory measurements that produsing Neo magnets and giving passport of produced magnets?
2. Can you read Russian document?
If not , then sorry, you win:)
I am not going to provesuch kind of simple things, there are many other professionals who can prove it if you will interested to know - find them and ask same question - you will get professional answer, not mine and we will continue this discussion Sir, but first, if you can answer positive to my questions above then I will provide document and site where you can download the same doc. I need your Russian language reading and understanding, so, Do I have it?
You are talking with old style Russian educated math guys, be informed!
Truly
Rob
Quote from: microcontroller on March 19, 2012, 06:14:25 PM
Sorry i see no prove in your post.
Too bad.
Especially since you say it's simple.
I don't care who i'm talking to if they can't prove it they are a waste of my time.
OK then read and study good http://www.poz-progress.ru/index.php?page=contacts (http://www.poz-progress.ru/index.php?page=contacts)
table of measurmets of joule - last column
http://www.poz-progress.ru/index.php?page=products&pid=18 (http://www.poz-progress.ru/index.php?page=products&pid=18)
You are wasting my time Sir, all other discussions with you will be stopped, you are not with good manners in your communications sorry!
I am waiting only from topic starter the physical proves of his statements after my shown proves above.
Truly
Rob
Armenia Team
Quote from: microcontroller on March 19, 2012, 06:29:08 PM
No i asked you to prove it and you cannot.
The end for you Sir.
:) lol who asking?come and end me ROFL
guess this the end for you Sir, ask anybody else to help you understand magnets and theory well.
Quote from: microcontroller on March 19, 2012, 06:38:43 PM
Yeah that's what you usually do you start laughing..
What are you doing here if you cannot prove your claims?
And i obviously ment the end of my time for you ROLF
\
why ? dose your microcontroller failed to understand russian? :)
ha ha ha :) ))
пора признаÑ,ÑŒ чÑ,о Ñ,Ñ‹ руÑÑкий , мужик, а Ñ,о не прилично как Ñ,о:)))
Почерк одинаковый признаю, очень Ñкучно, развеÑелишь?
Quote from: microcontroller on March 19, 2012, 06:49:38 PM
My microcontroller can prove you wrong.
It has done so before and this is why i knew you could not prove that there is energy stored in magnets.
You russians are nothing but talkers.
blah blah blah
Dear, go and learn Russian, then read factory docs, I don't need to prove idiotic things if it is already proved by Russians, OK?
have a nice night smarty!
Prove that you have instead of human brain microconroller:)) lol Can you do that? Yes you have already proved it with your own words, robot... lol
Quote from: microcontroller on March 19, 2012, 06:49:38 PM
My microcontroller can prove you wrong.
Quote from: Arrow on March 19, 2012, 06:52:10 PM
Dear, go and learn Russian, then read factory docs, I don't need to prove idiotic things if it is already proved by Russians, OK?
have a nice night smarty!
Prove that you have instead of human brain microconroller:)) lol
You guys are funny :P pravda :D :D
Quote from: johnny874 on March 19, 2012, 06:56:43 PM
You guys are funny :P pravda :D :D
This is my own "PRAVDA" all other words for me is blah blah blah, this is my test results Sir, and al this topic is blah blah blah!!!
Go and work tuff , make your own research Mr. Microcontroller to the end of your days, because you are Robot but not human with its natural powerfull brain!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pY-QZFm3sZc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pY-QZFm3sZc)
and this is my good US friend results
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTLvqCiKadI
Truly
Rob
quantumtangles,
This thread is actually totally meaningless, since there is no way to prove that Gravity machines or PM motors cannot work.
You cannot disprove the possibility of a technology that if possible is based upon a scientific understanding that surpass our present.
(As you know perfectly well, today no one on earth knows why a magnet attracts a piece of iron from distance. Magnetism is still a total mystery)
And on the other side, the only way to prove that they work, is succeeding in building one, which also makes this thread a total waste of time.
As long there is an unexplained parameter involved, such as magnetism or gravity in this case, there is no theoretical way to either prove or disprove it.
Theoretical proving or disproving is only possible when you know what you are dealing with. And you don't.
Gwandau
Quote from: ALVARO_CS on March 19, 2012, 04:35:14 PM
May be there is a formula to calculate how much potential arrogance may be converted to kinetic smugness. :o
Most amusing. I realise it was directed towards me. Excellent comment.
@ Gwandau
I can only explain it to you. I cant understand it for you.
You said in your post "(As you know perfectly well, today no one on earth knows why a magnet attracts a piece of iron from distance (sic). Magnetism is still a total mystery)".
Applying Occam's razor, magnets attract iron because when one is moved towards the other (using mechanical energy from your arm for example), the distance between the two objects decreases until a point I shall refer to as the 'critical moment'. At the critical moment (energy having been supplied from outside the iron/magnet combination (externally supplied.. to move them closer together), they then attract one another, seemingly without the need for further external energy.
However, all that is really happening here is energy conversion. Magnets can convert mechanical energy into kinetic energy, just as gravity can convert potential energy (from high altitude water) into kinetic energy. Note the word 'convert'. Note also that magnets neither contain energy nor add any energy. If you prefer, you can think of magnets as miniature gravity wells. If you externally supply enough mechanical energy (by moving a piece of iron or a magnet closer to one another) they will convert that mechanical energy into kinetic energy at the critical moment. But this conversion process is extremely inefficient. You must always supply much more mechanical energy to a magnet or to a piece of iron than you can ever hope to convert into kinetic energy at the critical moment. This is because the change in momentum of an object is always half (the force applied by an object X will always cause a change in momentum in an object Y equivalent to 50% of the original force supplied by Object X). Check out my Delta Mom calculations earlier in this thread. A full mathematical proof has already been provided. Yawn. Don't be surprised, if you import a Neodymium magnet from China, when it manages to 'move' a small piece of iron a couple of centimetres in Milton Keynes
Construction Tip:
Remove all the magnets and your 'PM magnet motor' will spin much more efficiently.
If you claim otherwise, please provide even a solitary example of a 'magnet motor' that can do more than merely convert mechanical energy. Hint. Harebrained magnet motors will not, even for an instant, move, unless you push them, pull them or motorise them. Conclusion: Mechanical energy must always be supplied. Accordingly, magnets act as a brake on spinning wheels because more mechanical energy is needed to spin a wheel with magnets attached to it than a wheel without magnets attached to it. Good day.
Quote from: quantumtangles on March 20, 2012, 06:03:01 AM
Applying Occam's razor, magnets attract iron because when one is moved towards the other (using mechanical energy from your arm for example), the distance between the two objects decreases until a point I shall refer to as the 'critical moment'. At the critical moment (energy having been supplied from outside the iron/magnet combination (externally supplied.. to move them closer together), they then attract one another, seemingly without the need for further external energy.
However, all that is really happening here is energy conversion. Magnets can convert mechanical energy into kinetic energy, just as gravity can convert potential energy (from high altitude water) into kinetic energy. Note the word 'convert'. Note also that magnets neither contain energy nor add any energy. If you prefer, you can think of magnets as miniature gravity wells. If you externally supply enough mechanical energy (by moving a piece of iron or a magnet closer to one another) they will convert that mechanical energy into kinetic energy at the critical moment. But this conversion process is extremely inefficient. You must always supply much more mechanical energy to a magnet or to a piece of iron than you can ever hope to convert into kinetic energy at the critical moment. This is because the change in momentum of an object is always half (the force applied by an object X will always cause a change in momentum in an object Y equivalent to 50% of the original force supplied by Object X). Check out my Delta Mom calculations earlier in this thread. A full mathematical proof has already been provided. Yawn. Don't be surprised, if you import a Neodymium magnet from China, when it manages to 'move' a small piece of iron a couple of centimetres in Milton Keynes
quantumtangles,
This is merely an explanation of symptons observed from a point of view without a basic understanding of what causes magnetism or gravity.
Why is that so? It's because neither you or any other person on earth knows what is going on when it comes to magnetism or gravity.
You cannot apply contemporary scientific knowledge upon uncharted sources of phenomena like this. Don't you see? We are not in that position yet.
To be able to tell what does or does not work, you have to know the sources for each phenomenon and their direct interrelation.
We don't know that yet and there is a lot more than meets the eye, so please take a humble step back to the rest of us.
Staying in your present rigid situation isn't any better that the those who rigidly "knows" that PM-motors work,
it just make you frustrated and angry, and that's not why we are here, is it?
My advice is to try keep an open mind as long as there is no definite proof in any direction.
Gwandau
Quote from: microcontroller on March 20, 2012, 12:47:38 PM
It's true
Kinetic motion is converted into a potential difference.
It's one form of energy that get's converted into another form of energy.
The magnet itself does not add any energy in this process which is why i asked the russian member 'Arrow' to prove his claims, but as i was expecting he failed to do so.
But stop saying nobody knows because it's just that you haven't figured it out yet.
This does not mean there are no individuals or even groups who are way ahead of you so you cannot know who knows what and just because you don't know does not mean nobody knows.
Arrow not Russian member, Arrow is Armenia math team member, Team leader Then Arrow human name is Robert - I recommend to any microcontrollers - open map and start learning with microcontrollers optical recognition systems the geography of planet then Earth magnetic nature and planets, If Robert will start to speak and explane things with magnets in one of ancient languages of planet - Armenian - then all and micrcontrollers will burned out because of out of memory - this is first.
Second - you are really pist off now me because you don't like to read docs - it means you had stop to study and learning and it means you start your microcontroller degradation process
Third - magnet has the energy - proved, but to get that energy you need second magnet as planet need Sun or other planet in the space.
All proves shown above in factory documentation and video - Team end of its participation in this topic. We don't have too much time to teach and program microcontrollers, Our Android OS are waiting us, sorry.
Sorry for English new language for us.
Truly
Robert
Armenia Android development Team
Quote from: Arrow on March 19, 2012, 07:05:16 PM
This is my own "PRAVDA" all other words for me is blah blah blah, this is my test results Sir, and al this topic is blah blah blah!!!
Go and work tuff , make your own research Mr. Microcontroller to the end of your days, because you are Robot but not human with its natural powerfull brain!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pY-QZFm3sZc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pY-QZFm3sZc)
and this is my good US friend results
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTLvqCiKadI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTLvqCiKadI)
Truly
Rob
Rob,
I've seen your friends videos before. Still not sure what he is trying to accomplish. I like yours
better. The basic cause and effect is obvious. How it can be manipulated or improved upon is
open to discussion or what thoughts you might already have.
I don't think it's the stored energy that magnets have but how they effect the field around them.
Even a lead weight weighing one ton will rotate if suspended because of it's own gravity. With a
magnet, it's effect is much more noticeable with a much smaller amount of material.
One thing I have heard mentioned about magnets is that their atomic structure follows a path
which is the reason for it having the effect it does. And this is why steel can be magnetized when
an electric current is ran through it. It rearranges the elements (I think) in a way that will cause it
to keep it's dynamics the same when the electric current is stopped. And this would be what allows
it to be magnetized. Just sharing some thoughts :D
Jim
Quote from: johnny874 on March 21, 2012, 10:51:42 AM
Just sharing some thoughts :D
Jim
Hi dear Jim
I want to inform you and all community of forum that all or most of all important videos was taken down by YT team and I am leaving this forum with our team because here we have published our videos and no where else.
All what we have got as positive from here - we have got good , a few friends. All other our efforts were not evaluated in correct way by community and unfortunately it means this community has in its body not good sound interpersonal relationships.
Mean time I am busy from my height position in Armenia Telecom to resolve the issue with YT, already connected with Google Irish guys to find the man who have done these idiotic things against of us. First of all we will find the country of frustrated man then we will find by his IP his home and address, then that guys will be called to police. I am anger as team leader that I have to call war to stupid persons, but unfortunately it must be done sometime as far as they are taking already more than half planet place...
Because of these incidents we are stopping our participation in this forum
Sorry guys. Not secure from idiots place here!
Truly
Rob
Quantuntangle quote:
"Gravity is a force not wholly dissimilar with the analogy of the elastic band. Like an elastic band, it does not contain energy unless you first supply it with energy. The energy used to move objects upwards (like stretching an elastic band) causes acceleration of things such as apples (objects which have mass) when they are allowed to fall back to the ground (acceleration)."
Quantuntangle; I would like your opinion on the archimede principle, you said and this is correct that we need energy to move objects upwards, but there are liquid substances like air or water that reduce or cancel this energy, despite this when the mass has reach a certain elevation it will still fall with accelation due to gravity.
I was thinking of the Buoyancy motor but too unpracticle to build, so I just want to bring the following example: a "Mongolfiere ballon" or a ballon filled with hot air will raise a mass M to elevation H (sure it needs energy to heat the ballon, agreed) but the beauty of it is that to lift the same mass M twice higher i.e. to 2H the hot ballon does not need twice more energy, from the moment it is hot and as long it will remain hot enough it will raise the mass M to 2H, 3H, ... without additional energy, do we agree on that ? Do you see where I am trying to say not consuming additional energy to raise a mass... but the mass does acquire potential energy. I like the Archinede principle, it is like a shield to gravity.
Quote from: Arrow on March 21, 2012, 12:35:05 PM
Hi dear Jim
I want to inform you and all community of forum that all or most of all important videos was taken down by YT team and I am leaving this forum with our team because here we have published our videos and no where else.
All what we have got as positive from here - we have got good , a few friends. All other our efforts were not evaluated in correct way by community and unfortunately it means this community has in its body not good sound interpersonal relationships.
Mean time I am busy from my height position in Armenia Telecom to resolve the issue with YT, already connected with Google Irish guys to find the man who have done these idiotic things against of us. First of all we will find the country of frustrated man then we will find by his IP his home and address, then that guys will be called to police. I am anger as team leader that I have to call war to stupid persons, but unfortunately it must be done sometime as far as they are taking already more than half planet place...
Because of these incidents we are stopping our participation in this forum
Sorry guys. Not secure from idiots place here!
Truly
Rob
Rob,
Nothing personal but I have been viciously attacked for my work on Bessler. And this is by credible people who support Bessler and are well represented themselves.
With the video your team has posted, what is it specifically that is the goal ?
With Bessler, it is simple, sequential pumps. Everybody understands hydraulics and leverage because it has been around since before the Romans.
Yet in the link you provided, the individual was discussing auras. The boreallis' are believed to be caused my magnetic bands snapping which is caused by the sloar wind from the sun.
Yet to light a flourescent light, it might only be the local magnetic field lighting it. Nothing was shown to the contrary. So if he had a different point, I am sorry because I missed it.
Jim
edited to add;
@All, this video is worth watching in it's entirety.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oay0brKqaUk&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oay0brKqaUk&feature=related)
edited to add; Rob, go to besslerwheel dot com and look in the fraud section.
Both me and my work are considered fraudulent. path finder is alright, the rest of them I'm not sure about. none of them have built somethign that was openly discussed. Like Ralph, you have to take his word for it. That he has money only shows he worked in an office for the government. Not sure what actual build experience he got in an office. My dad is from norway and has much hands on experience but Ralph and Alan consider him ignorant. Alan has even offered to teach him engineering despite the fact he was an industrial repair manager and achieved 1st Officer in the Merchant Mariners Association. Alan doesn't recognize the Merchant Marines as having engineers. Neither does Ralph.
And this thread is from someone wanting attention. Why else would someone go into a forum called overunity and start a thread "you're all a bunch of idiots" ? An easy way to draw attention to themself.
I'm not sure if you are aware of Thane Heins but you might find his work interesting. It has been much replicated but little understood.
http://www.overunity.com/7530/thane-heins-perepiteia-replications/ (http://www.overunity.com/7530/thane-heins-perepiteia-replications/)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogLeKTlLy5E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogLeKTlLy5E)
Think I'll stay off line until I am finished with my own project(s). Sad to think of it but there was a time when the discussions in here were pretty good. It wasn't the skeptics forum it is now.
Quote from: parisd on March 21, 2012, 01:09:28 PM
Quantuntangle quote:
"Gravity is a force not wholly dissimilar with the analogy of the elastic band. Like an elastic band, it does not contain energy unless you first supply it with energy. The energy used to move objects upwards (like stretching an elastic band) causes acceleration of things such as apples (objects which have mass) when they are allowed to fall back to the ground (acceleration)."
Quantuntangle; I would like your opinion on the archimede principle, you said and this is correct that we need energy to move objects upwards, but there are liquid substances like air or water that reduce or cancel this energy, despite this when the mass has reach a certain elevation it will still fall with accelation due to gravity.
I was thinking of the Buoyancy motor but too unpracticle to build, so I just want to bring the following example: a "Mongolfiere ballon" or a ballon filled with hot air will raise a mass M to elevation H (sure it needs energy to heat the ballon, agreed) but the beauty of it is that to lift the same mass M twice higher i.e. to 2H the hot ballon does not need twice more energy, from the moment it is hot and as long it will remain hot enough it will raise the mass M to 2H, 3H, ... without additional energy, do we agree on that ? Do you see where I am trying to say not consuming additional energy to raise a mass... but the mass does acquire potential energy. I like the Archinede principle, it is like a shield to gravity.
This is an interesting example Parisd. If I understand you correctly, you are referring to a balloon in the context of the Archimedes principle, namely some sort of buoyant object moving up through a fluid and later falling back downwards due to gravity in the air whilst outside said fluid.
Note in passing that gases and liquids may each properly be characterised as working 'fluids' despite air being in a gaseous state.
Accordingly, we may as well take the example of water, as Archimedes himself originally did, and focus on any object or fluid with mass of less than approximately 1000kg/m3 because that is the density of water. Any object or fluid (such as oil which is less dense than water, or a balloon full of air) will rise up through our column of water.
We want the balloon to rise to the top of the column of water and then fall down due to gravity perhaps because it has a weight attached to it.
We know that when we release the balloon at the base of the water filled cylinder, that it will certainly rise to the top of our column of water because it is less dense than water and therefore has positive buoyancy.
So you are correct when you argue that less dense fluids or objects must always rise to the top of columns of water due to the greater density of water.
But this will be a one way trip for our balloon unless we can figure out a way of getting the balloon back to the bottom of the cylinder again, so it can perform useful work. So let us attach a small weight to the balloon, such that the balloon has positive buoyancy in the water filled cylinder (causing it to rise) but has enough weight to allow it to fall due to gravity through the air (heading back towards the base of the cylinder) when it reaches the top.
But it is here, at the base of the cylinder, (the balloon having travelled from bottom to top and back down again to the outside of the base of the cylinder) that we have to use the 'P' word. Pressure.
How do we get the balloon back into the base of the water filled cylinder?
The pressure at the base of a cylinder depends on the height of the cylinder, on the density of the fluid inside it and on acceleration due to gravity.
This is counter-intuitive because you might think that the diameter of a cylinder must be relevant to the pressure calculation, but it is not. Imagine a cylinder 500 metres in diameter, but only 10cm deep. By imagining such a cylinder, you will realise that the pressure at the base of it will be very low. But now try imagining a cylinder 500m tall and 10m in diameter. If you dived to the bottom of this cylinder, the pressure would be very high.
So in other words, the diameter of a cylinder is irrelevant to base pressure. The height of the cylinder is a key variable when calculating pressure, and I have provided below an example relating to a cylinder 25m high.
This pressure has been calculated solely with reference to the height of a column of seawater, and its density and gravity.
(height(25m) x density of seawater (1020kg/m3) x gravity (9.81 m/s/s)
= 250,155 Pa gauge pressure at the base of the cylinder
Adding atmospheric pressure of 101,350 Pa gives absolute pressure of 351505 Pa.
So base pressure in the cylinder = 352kPa (+/- 1kPa)
Pressure at other points in the cylinder will be lower as one moves up (as the height of the column of fluid decreases relative to the position of the balloon).
We know from Pascal's law that pressure applied to a confined fluid is transmitted undiminished with equal force on equal areas at 90 degrees to the container wall. In other words, the pressure at the side of the cylinder (by the base) will be the same pressure as we find at the bottom of the base so to speak. Depth or distance from the top of the cylinder is the only relevant consideration.
The point is that if we have a 25m high cylinder, and we want to introduce an air filled balloon into the base of it (or indeed introduce any object or fluid with lower density than seawater (1020kg/m3) or lower density than regular water (1000 kg/m3), we will need to expend energy.
But how much energy will we need to spend?
The answer to this question is much more difficult. To answer it, I would try to phrase a parametric equation to provide an accurate answer, but we can use less complicated mathematics to get an idea of the energy involved.
The first thing to realise is that the means by which we get the balloon back to the bottom of the cylinder and the means by which we get the balloon INTO the fluid at the bottom of the cylinder are path dependent.
In other words, we can use inefficient methods of getting the balloon to the base (hamster wheels) or more efficient methods (e.g. gravity), and obviously we are going to pick an efficient method of doing it because we want to generate electricity or mechanical power from our buoyancy machine.
Whatever system we devise, we will always need to use sufficient force (Pressure = Force per unit area) to cram the balloon back into the base of the cylinder once the pulley or weight attached to the balloon has allowed it to fall to the outside of the cylinder base through gravity.
But again, how much power must we spend in watts to cram the balloon back inside the cylinder base?
We know the pressure is 352,000 Pascals at the base of the water filled cylinder. As a general rule of thumb, you will need between twice as much and four times as much power to cram a balloon back into the base of a cylinder as may be generated by the balloon when attached to an alternator motor.
The shaft of our alternator motor is attached to the rising balloon on the way up and to the falling balloon on the way down (we have assumed it falls due to an attached weight due to gravity back to the base of the cylinder), so that it is generating electricity as it moves up and down. But it is the act of getting the balloon back inside the base of the water filled cylinder that represents the practical problem.
By way of example, imagine trying to force a balloon full of air to the bottom of a swimming pool. A lifeguard (or some such other powerful swimmer) would find it difficult to force the balloon to the bottom of the pool.
Even if we assume that a powerful swimmer is capable of generating 300 watts of power for short intervals (which is very unlikely...175 watts for a professional cyclist would only be possible for a few moments), there is still no way the rising and falling balloon can generate 300 watts by rising and falling when attached to an alternator motor. The balloon motor would most likely generate no more than 5 to 10 watts (and this is an upper limit). But why is this?
The reason for the low power output is precisely the same reason that led to positive buoyancy in the first place. If an object (such as a balloon) has low mass, then yes it will have positive buoyancy and rise to the top of a column of fluid. But for precisely the same reason, it will not generate very much force when used to power an alternator motor even with a weight attached to it. Why not?
This is because Force = mass x acceleration, and therefore a slowly rising and rapidly falling balloon with low mass will generate very little force (perhaps 3 or 4 Newtons of force if you are lucky).
3 or 4 Newtons of force will be enough to generate a fraction of a watt (if you can find an alternator motor with sufficiently low torque (N.m) to get it to work in the first place.
By way of conclusion, the device will 'work', but you will get considerably less electrical or mechanical power out of it (in Watts) than you have to spend to get the balloon to move up and down when attached to an alternator motor. Most of the losses will stem from trying to cram the balloon into the high pressure environment at the base of the cylinder.
A more interesting idea would be to use glycerol or castor oil as a working fluid via two connected cylinders, and have an air compressor force the working fluid through a denser substrate such as seawater. However, the maths I did on this were inconclusive and a PhD in electrical engineering from a top ten university (as well as the OU member Fletcher) told me it would not work and provided reasoned mathematical arguments demonstrating why it would not work. This was because the air compressor is tantamount (using Lump matter discipline) to a battery, and the one cannot get more energy out of a system than is put in. Gravity is not a source of energy. It merely converts potential energy (water at altitude) to kinetic energy as it falls, and no energy is added in this process. in fact, at least 50% of the force of the falling water is immediately lost due to delta mom (the change in momentum of the blades of a turbine) when the falling water hits the cups of the turbine.
I hope this has been helpful.
To all naysayers, get out of the backwaters, gravity machines works.
The engineer and inventor James Kwok has built a gravity machine based upon the differentials in bouyancy due to gas density in relation to differentials in the surrounding water pressure at different water levels in the system.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:_Hidro_--_Water_Pressures_Energy_Conversion_%28WAPEC%29 (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:_Hidro_--_Water_Pressures_Energy_Conversion_%28WAPEC%29)
James Kwok is a Member of the Australian College of Mechanical Engineers,
the Panel of the Australian National Registered Professional Engineers and on the panel of Charted Assessment with the Institution of Engineers Australia.
In 2008 Professor Ion Boldea of Politehnica University, Romania joined as a co-developer in Hidro+’s multi-module tower linear electric generator (MTLEG) technology, currently world patent pending the Hidro+ MTLEG is a joint patent between James Kwok and Professor Ion Boldea.
He is right now building a 1MW plant in Jakarta:
http://pesn.com/2012/03/12/9602055_Hidro_Reveals_1_MW_Plant_Design/ (http://pesn.com/2012/03/12/9602055_Hidro_Reveals_1_MW_Plant_Design/)
Just go on and discredit him as much as you want. Who cares.
He is still doing what he says, building a gravity machine.
Gwandau
>> By way of conclusion, the device will 'work', but you will get considerably less electrical or mechanical power out of it (in Watts) than you have to spend to get the balloon to move up and down when attached to an alternator motor. Most of the losses will stem from trying to cram the balloon into the high pressure environment at the base of the cylinder.
I hope this has been helpful. <<
I disagree, sorry. It does make me feel better about what I am working on. With a water type enviroment, the density of the water itself would slow anything moving through it requiring exponentially more work. Yet the same principles can be used in a gravity type device and air having a lesser density than water would have a greater yeild of energy to mass than a similar device in water. Basic engineering.
Show me the mathematical calculations that explain anything in detail and you will see the nature of the problem . Math is touted as some kind of foolproof logistical god of the universe when all it really does is help us keep track of our bank accounts . It cannot simulate, explain or otherwise exemplify reality , no matter what they taught on Star Trek . The best argument for perpetual motion is this: Bessler . He said it all . He was a career perpetual mobilist . ( How many of those in history ?) Only one . He said that the knowledge of these forces was known to children rather than adults . One need only look at the state of our planet and system to realize that our children are superior to us in many ways .
Matt 11:25 "At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children." Food for thought .
Quote from: Gwandau on March 21, 2012, 06:50:19 PM
To all naysayers, get out of the backwaters, gravity machines works.
The engineer and inventor James Kwok has built a gravity machine based upon the differentials in bouyancy due to gas density in relation to differentials in the surrounding water pressure at different water levels in the system.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:_Hidro_--_Water_Pressures_Energy_Conversion_%28WAPEC%29 (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:_Hidro_--_Water_Pressures_Energy_Conversion_%28WAPEC%29)
James Kwok is a Member of the Australian College of Mechanical Engineers,
the Panel of the Australian National Registered Professional Engineers and on the panel of Charted Assessment with the Institution of Engineers Australia.
In 2008 Professor Ion Boldea of Politehnica University, Romania joined as a co-developer in Hidro+’s multi-module tower linear electric generator (MTLEG) technology, currently world patent pending the Hidro+ MTLEG is a joint patent between James Kwok and Professor Ion Boldea.
He is right now building a 1MW plant in Jakarta:
http://pesn.com/2012/03/12/9602055_Hidro_Reveals_1_MW_Plant_Design/ (http://pesn.com/2012/03/12/9602055_Hidro_Reveals_1_MW_Plant_Design/)
Just go on and discredit him as much as you want. Who cares.
He is still doing what he says, building a gravity machine.
Gwandau
@ Gwandau
James Kwok is a very innovative capable engineer. His machine, using gas filled compartments (filled with gas at the bottom of a tank of water and evacuated of gas at the top) is ingenious (he calls it the Hidro).
However, Mr Kwok first publicised his invention in 2008, four years ago. Since that time, this technology, which would be worth trillions of dollars if it works, has not yet been replicated on an industrial scale worldwide, as one might expect. Secondly, without wishing to be unfair towards Mr Kwok, who seems to be a genuinely nice chap and who is undoubtedly a brilliant man, it would appear from publications on the web that he was nevertheless convicted in Australia of an offence relating to disclosure of information concerning securities (company stock). Which is to say it would appear he failed to make material disclosure relating to the sale of securities.
Australia was also the locus of a free energy device concerning an alleged overunity magnet motor (Lutec Limited). The inventors of this magnet motor sold stock to "Sophisticated Investors". This is a term of art in Australia describing investors who opt out of protection afforded to the public in corporate Prospectus stock offerings. Perfectly accurate disclosure must be made in a Prospectus when stock is offered to the public, but if the stock is offered only to Sophisticated Investors (people who claim expertise concerning the viability of the intellectual property) no such protections concerning uberrimae fidei disclosure (disclosure of the utmost good faith) are required. Needless to say, the magnet motor (not in any way connected with Mr Kwok) did not work. The Sophisticated Investors would appear to have lost their money.
Turning back to the entirely distinct subject of Mr Kwok's device; leaving aside delays in implementing it, and leaving aside what may well have been a technical statutory offence rather than deliberate dishonesty on his part, I have a more fundamental problem with his device.
Physics.
It is claimed, for expenditure of approximately 360 watts, that there is a 1kW output. So where is the extra 640 watts coming from?
The machine (which is sealed and thus cannot be internally examined when in operation) does not appear to have any hidden power source (it contains a battery but I do not take issue with this provided continuous operation can be demonstrated). Rather, it is the principle upon which it is based that gives me cause for concern, and I will come back to this. Furthermore, I have seen no reports of continuous operation for more than about 25 minutes (apparently because the "flywheel" burns out).
But more specifically, the chambers which rise and fall due to inflation and deflation of gas fall towards the base of the tank because of the effect of gravity when deflated. However, if the chambers are heavy enough (when deflated) to fall to the base of the water filled tank, how can the
addition of gas (inflation) make them lighter (give them positive buoyancy)? The same appears to apply even if the gas chambers free fall through air rather than through water (it makes more sense for the chambers to free fall through air outside the water tank).
Avocadro's law tells us that even gases have weight. Accordingly, adding gas to one of the chambers when it is at the bottom of the tank of water will make it HEAVIER, not lighter, regardless of how low the density (in kg/m3) of the selected gas happens to be. It is my responsibility, as someone making an assertion, to invite attention to phenomena tending to show I am wrong. The best example (of why I may be wrong) is a rubber balloon. A balloon is heavy enough to fall to the earth when deflated, but if filled with Helium, it will rise upwards. This is the best example I can think showing my argument to be flawed. Unlike most people here, I invite attention to ideas that tend to contradict my own assertions. Try it. People may take you more seriously.
I suspect the answer is that, unlike a rubber balloon, the gas compartments must be very heavy to enable them to fall through water of density 1000 kg/m3, with sufficient mass and velocity and therefore with sufficient force to generate electricity (F = m*a). Even if they free fall through air, they still need significant mass and velocity to generate meaningful force. Which means that the gas compartments have to be fairly heavy. In other words, the gas compartments, when deflated, must be like lead weights of one sort or another. And if you fill a hollow lead weight with Helium, it will not rise into the air like a rubber balloon because it will be too heavy. Lead balloons do not float upwards even when inflated with Helium. For the gas compartments to rise when inflated with gas, a delicate equilibrium would be required. A balancing act between the mass needed to generate adequate force on the way down, and a mass sufficiently lightweight (sufficiently balloon-like) to enable gas inflation to imbue positive buoyancy. That is a very thin line to tread, and if Mr Kwok has managed to achieve continuous operation of such a device, having overcome significant friction from the attached gas inflation and evacuation tubes, the onus is very much on his shoulders to demonstrate this.
For the above reasons, and although I greatly admire the ingenuity of the device (involving ideas I personally lacked the ability to envisage when attempting to build a similar machine) it seems to me nevertheless that the claim of over-unity should be treated with caution until a full explanation concerning the non-applicability of Avocadro's law has been provided. Specifically, he should explain why his gases would appear to have anti-gravitational qualities when applied to relatively heavy weights.
Having said this, Mr Kwok's machine, if it works continuously (as opposed to having functionality limited by the Ah of the connected battery), would be evidence that I am entirely wrong in everything that I have said in this thread. For this reason (since I am reprogrammable unlike many others here), I am grateful that you invited attention to this marvellous machine because it is, apart from anything else, a fascinating device. I think Mr Kwok is a genuinely talented engineer and inventor and I do not think he is dishonest, but I remain unconvinced about his invention.
Quote from: christo4_99 on March 21, 2012, 07:46:57 PM
Show me the mathematical calculations that explain anything in detail and you will see the nature of the problem . Math is touted as some kind of foolproof logistical god of the universe when all it really does is help us keep track of our bank accounts . It cannot simulate, explain or otherwise exemplify reality , no matter what they taught on Star Trek . The best argument for perpetual motion is this: Bessler . He said it all . He was a career perpetual mobilist . ( How many of those in history ?) Only one . He said that the knowledge of these forces was known to children rather than adults . One need only look at the state of our planet and system to realize that our children are superior to us in many ways .
Matt 11:25 "At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children." Food for thought .
Christ, now you're sounding like AB Hammer. He always said that if math could solve this problem, it would have done so a long time ago. When I was posting with dr. What @ besslerwheel dot com, what said that Bessler said he performed many calculations.
As for the math, I did post it, again, it is f= 8m/1ma.
The thing with kids is that some of them, not all are willi9ng to learn. But in these posts I read, people post only what they know to show they know something. No learning happening here.
I don't post what I know because if I did it would all be over and we'd all be building something of Bessler's design.
Permanent magnet rail gun works fine, now put them end to end, and you have a motor...
12th grade science project video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo2-Qb3fUYs&feature=related
Quote from: christo4_99 on March 22, 2012, 10:09:39 AM
I don't post what I know because if I did it would all be over and we'd all be building something of Bessler's design.
Here's what I know. I'm not like you, Ralph and Alan. Sorry. I don't mind discussing actual engineering.
Of course, by not discussing specific idea's, then it is never necessary to build, is it ?
But I am building something else as you know and it is Bessler's wheel. No since in my taking the time to do so if I did not believe I properly understand his drawings. It has been there all the time for anyone who understands hydraulic theory and mechanical drawings. Something requiring schooling and experience of which Bessler wished to start a school. If he had, it would have been mechanical engineering.
Jim
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNuyUg7uOzs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNuyUg7uOzs)
edited to add; Christo, Chris, since you're not building anything, why does how you feel matter ? I mean really, read your post. You don't want to build because people would build them. Both counts are wrong. You don't know enough to build one and most likely never wheel (notice the pun ?). Neither will Ralph (who you claim to be pm'ing) or Alan. Because of the amount of work it takes, few people would build one. It's much easier to claim what you know. You know, I almost feel like I am being punished for finding Bessler's work interesting and being able to understand it.
Myself, I miss the time in here when things were discussed and it wasn't about individual egos. But those days are gone.
Quantumtangles,
Tks for your long answer that I have to print and re-read but you went far away for my initial point. My point was very simple with no intention of building a practical device.
My point was only that we can raise the potential energy of a mass using less energy that the mass will deliver as kinetic energy when falling from this new elevation, this is the beauty of the archimede principle. (This in response to your post saying that gravity is like an elastic that we have to bend)
You wrote: "Gravity is not a source of energy. It merely converts potential energy (water at altitude) to kinetic energy as it falls" I dont get the "merely" it does totaly or it does not, nothing between. Kinetic energy of a mass falling from elevation H1 to H2 is known and playing with words you can say that gravity doesnt bring energy, on an other hand gravity does give acceleration to a mass and when a mass is accelarated i.e its speed increases then its kinetic energy increases and kinetic energy is energy, period.
The problem is to raise the potential energy of the mass, i.e to bring it to a higher elevation. A montgolfier balloon taking 2 passengers was my example, when the balloon is hot it does not need an additional energy to to reach let say 20m elevation than it needs to reach 5meters (so from 5m to 20m this is free addition of energy potential to the 2 passengers!, as I said I like Archimede!), but guess what the person who will jump from 20m will not survive when the one jumping from 5 meters will because its kinetic energy at impact is much lower.
Now the equations you brought and what people discuss in this forum remain basic Newtownian physics that is teached at end of high school (at least in my time) or in early years at university, I dont see the point of mentioning an electrical PhD from top 10 universities this is not relevant.
Again as said previously, I have not calculated how much energy is needed to heat the Montgolfier balloon, my point is not this one it is to explain that the archimede principle can raise potential energy of a mass without consuming same energy as the mass will deliver as kinetic energy when falling (same applies to a mass of density < 1 in water).
Ocean tides provide huge amounts of energy that is usable, the tides energy come from sun moon and earth gravity.
I still have to read your full post, sorry to have answer before that.
Quote from: quantumtangles on March 21, 2012, 06:16:34 PM
This is an interesting example Parisd. If I understand you correctly, you are referring to a balloon in the context of the Archimedes principle, namely some sort of buoyant object moving up through a fluid and later falling back downwards due to gravity in the air whilst outside said fluid.
Note in passing that gases and liquids may each properly be characterised as working 'fluids' despite air being in a gaseous state.
Accordingly, we may as well take the example of water, as Archimedes himself originally did, and focus on any object or fluid with mass of less than approximately 1000kg/m3 because that is the density of water. Any object or fluid (such as oil which is less dense than water, or a balloon full of air) will rise up through our column of water.
I declined to talk about a Buoyancy motor too unpracticle to build, I was just talking of a montgolfier balloon that can transport persons in the air, the ballon does not require more energy to bring those persons to 20m elevation that it need to bring them to 10 meters elevation and guess what if one person jump at 10m his kinetic energy when reaching the floor will be much less than the one jumping out of the balloon at 20meters elevation.
We want the balloon to rise to the top of the column of water and then fall down due to gravity perhaps because it has a weight attached to it.
We know that when we release the balloon at the base of the water filled cylinder, that it will certainly rise to the top of our column of water because it is less dense than water and therefore has positive buoyancy.
So you are correct when you argue that less dense fluids or objects must always rise to the top of columns of water due to the greater density of water.
But this will be a one way trip for our balloon unless we can figure out a way of getting the balloon back to the bottom of the cylinder again, so it can perform useful work. So let us attach a small weight to the balloon, such that the balloon has positive buoyancy in the water filled cylinder (causing it to rise) but has enough weight to allow it to fall due to gravity through the air (heading back towards the base of the cylinder) when it reaches the top.
But it is here, at the base of the cylinder, (the balloon having travelled from bottom to top and back down again to the outside of the base of the cylinder) that we have to use the 'P' word. Pressure.
How do we get the balloon back into the base of the water filled cylinder?
The pressure at the base of a cylinder depends on the height of the cylinder, on the density of the fluid inside it and on acceleration due to gravity.
This is counter-intuitive because you might think that the diameter of a cylinder must be relevant to the pressure calculation, but it is not. Imagine a cylinder 500 metres in diameter, but only 10cm deep. By imagining such a cylinder, you will realise that the pressure at the base of it will be very low. But now try imagining a cylinder 500m tall and 10m in diameter. If you dived to the bottom of this cylinder, the pressure would be very high.
So in other words, the diameter of a cylinder is irrelevant to base pressure. The height of the cylinder is a key variable when calculating pressure, and I have provided below an example relating to a cylinder 25m high.
This pressure has been calculated solely with reference to the height of a column of seawater, and its density and gravity.
(height(25m) x density of seawater (1020kg/m3) x gravity (9.81 m/s/s)
= 250,155 Pa gauge pressure at the base of the cylinder
Adding atmospheric pressure of 101,350 Pa gives absolute pressure of 351505 Pa.
So base pressure in the cylinder = 352kPa (+/- 1kPa)
Pressure at other points in the cylinder will be lower as one moves up (as the height of the column of fluid decreases relative to the position of the balloon).
We know from Pascal's law that pressure applied to a confined fluid is transmitted undiminished with equal force on equal areas at 90 degrees to the container wall. In other words, the pressure at the side of the cylinder (by the base) will be the same pressure as we find at the bottom of the base so to speak. Depth or distance from the top of the cylinder is the only relevant consideration.
The point is that if we have a 25m high cylinder, and we want to introduce an air filled balloon into the base of it (or indeed introduce any object or fluid with lower density than seawater (1020kg/m3) or lower density than regular water (1000 kg/m3), we will need to expend energy.
But how much energy will we need to spend?
The answer to this question is much more difficult. To answer it, I would try to phrase a parametric equation to provide an accurate answer, but we can use less complicated mathematics to get an idea of the energy involved.
The first thing to realise is that the means by which we get the balloon back to the bottom of the cylinder and the means by which we get the balloon INTO the fluid at the bottom of the cylinder are path dependent.
In other words, we can use inefficient methods of getting the balloon to the base (hamster wheels) or more efficient methods (e.g. gravity), and obviously we are going to pick an efficient method of doing it because we want to generate electricity or mechanical power from our buoyancy machine.
Whatever system we devise, we will always need to use sufficient force (Pressure = Force per unit area) to cram the balloon back into the base of the cylinder once the pulley or weight attached to the balloon has allowed it to fall to the outside of the cylinder base through gravity.
But again, how much power must we spend in watts to cram the balloon back inside the cylinder base?
We know the pressure is 352,000 Pascals at the base of the water filled cylinder. As a general rule of thumb, you will need between twice as much and four times as much power to cram a balloon back into the base of a cylinder as may be generated by the balloon when attached to an alternator motor.
The shaft of our alternator motor is attached to the rising balloon on the way up and to the falling balloon on the way down (we have assumed it falls due to an attached weight due to gravity back to the base of the cylinder), so that it is generating electricity as it moves up and down. But it is the act of getting the balloon back inside the base of the water filled cylinder that represents the practical problem.
By way of example, imagine trying to force a balloon full of air to the bottom of a swimming pool. A lifeguard (or some such other powerful swimmer) would find it difficult to force the balloon to the bottom of the pool.
Even if we assume that a powerful swimmer is capable of generating 300 watts of power for short intervals (which is very unlikely...175 watts for a professional cyclist would only be possible for a few moments), there is still no way the rising and falling balloon can generate 300 watts by rising and falling when attached to an alternator motor. The balloon motor would most likely generate no more than 5 to 10 watts (and this is an upper limit). But why is this?
The reason for the low power output is precisely the same reason that led to positive buoyancy in the first place. If an object (such as a balloon) has low mass, then yes it will have positive buoyancy and rise to the top of a column of fluid. But for precisely the same reason, it will not generate very much force when used to power an alternator motor even with a weight attached to it. Why not?
This is because Force = mass x acceleration, and therefore a slowly rising and rapidly falling balloon with low mass will generate very little force (perhaps 3 or 4 Newtons of force if you are lucky).
3 or 4 Newtons of force will be enough to generate a fraction of a watt (if you can find an alternator motor with sufficiently low torque (N.m) to get it to work in the first place.
By way of conclusion, the device will 'work', but you will get considerably less electrical or mechanical power out of it (in Watts) than you have to spend to get the balloon to move up and down when attached to an alternator motor. Most of the losses will stem from trying to cram the balloon into the high pressure environment at the base of the cylinder.
A more interesting idea would be to use glycerol or castor oil as a working fluid via two connected cylinders, and have an air compressor force the working fluid through a denser substrate such as seawater. However, the maths I did on this were inconclusive and a PhD in electrical engineering from a top ten university (as well as the OU member Fletcher) told me it would not work and provided reasoned mathematical arguments demonstrating why it would not work. This was because the air compressor is tantamount (using Lump matter discipline) to a battery, and the one cannot get more energy out of a system than is put in. Gravity is not a source of energy. It merely converts potential energy (water at altitude) to kinetic energy as it falls, and no energy is added in this process. in fact, at least 50% of the force of the falling water is immediately lost due to delta mom (the change in momentum of the blades of a turbine) when the falling water hits the cups of the turbine.
I hope this has been helpful.
@Quantumtangles,
thanks for your open minded and absolutely correct answer to my almost childishly provokative tone.
I do agree to almost everything you mentioned regarding the functionality of the Hidro.
We certainly have to wait some more time to get the validity of this fantastic device confirmed.
Quote from: quantumtangles on March 22, 2012, 04:04:35 AM
But more specifically, the chambers which rise and fall due to inflation and deflation of gas fall towards the base of the tank because of the effect of gravity when deflated. However, if the chambers are heavy enough (when deflated) to fall to the base of the water filled tank, how can the addition of gas (inflation) make them lighter (give them positive buoyancy)? The same appears to apply even if the gas chambers free fall through air rather than through water (it makes more sense for the chambers to free fall through air outside the water tank).
Regarding the above quoted notion, I depicted the functionality of the tanks quite differently. To my understanding the tanks contained inflatable rubber
balloons which when deflated of gas made the open tanks fill with water. The tanks themselves were only there to create the weight needed for
the downward motion and maybe somewhat to house the rubber balloons within a controlled vessel.
The reason I took the above assumption almost for granted is because of a deceased Swedish inventor, Arno Werner, who in the 90s constructed a
gravitywheel at his home based upon the same idea, that when changing the volume of a gas by the help of gravity in a water pillar, we might use
this differential to do work through buoyancy since the energy used to create the volume and bouyancy differential is tapped from the gravity.
I am one of the few that still have a copy of his sketches describing the function of his two story high gravity machine.
He had just started the initial stages of cooperation with a German company when he died suddenly and unexpected 1999, through heart failure.
Gwandau
I am astounded at what length you guys will go to with the hot air . No disrespect but you are fighting over a bone . All it took in the past was the physical wheel ... that's all it will take now. Note : No one as of yet has come up with a reasonable explanation of how Bessler could have faked a sealed run of his device 30 some odd days one direction and I think 24 in the other . So what is the point of driving home what can't be proven either way . To date no one has spoken or campaigned against PM with a fraction of the fire that Bessler did for it . It's time to consider that each discovery is made in it's own time by it's discoverer and Bessler , in my opinion MUST have discovered SOMETHING .
Quote from: christo4_99 on March 22, 2012, 03:52:53 PM
I am astounded at what length you guys will go to with the hot air . No disrespect but you are fighting over a bone . All it took in the past was the physical wheel ... that's all it will take now. Note : No one as of yet has come up with a reasonable explanation of how Bessler could have faked a sealed run of his device 30 some odd days one direction and I think 24 in the other . So what is the point of driving home what can't be proven either way . To date no one has spoken or campaigned against PM with a fraction of the fire that Bessler did for it . It's time to consider that each discovery is made in it's own time by it's discoverer and Bessler , in my opinion MUST have discovered SOMETHING .
Agreed Bessler discovered something that ran. It also seems Jim just can't let Ralph and I go either. He is still sending be PMs even though I told him to stop. One of us will have the wheel soon. I feel it in my wheel. LOL You do know you are now on Jim's list. :o
Alan
AB H,
I know this : Bessler left us a mountain of information concerning his alleged PM device . There is plenty of evidence that he was authentic though it is 300 or so years old yet must not be considered hearsay but valid albeit aged evidence . I personally came across something very recently in the given (public) domain which is so far unseen by any eyes except mine and some people close to me including Ralp L. (if he ever checks his email ;) ) . The wheel is much closer to being reproduced than it has been since it was produced originally .
Quote from: christo4_99 on March 22, 2012, 07:14:31 PM
AB H,
I know this : Bessler left us a mountain of information concerning his alleged PM device . There is plenty of evidence that he was authentic though it is 300 or so years old yet must not be considered hearsay but valid albeit aged evidence . The wheel is much closer to being reproduced than it has been since it was produced originally .
I suggest to make 300 (working) wheels for Bessler's 300th anniversary on 6th June 2012 ;D Seriously.
So... hurry up guys, less than three months left (!)
Quote from: Rafael Ti on March 22, 2012, 08:19:16 PM
I suggest to make 300 (working) wheels for Bessler's 300th anniversary on 6th June 2012 ;D Seriously.
So... hurry up guys, less than three months left (!)
Thanks for the heads up Raphael. I've started getting side tracked on trying to build something special.
This gives me about 2 1/2 months. I can do a basic build in that time frame.
Jim
I understand why people do not believe things that cannot be proven. I also think that such a view is myopic. Just because you can't prove something right now, or cannot prove it easily right now, does not mean that it is not possible. In a simple sentence, that idea comes down to this:
The absence of proof is not proof of absence.
I can prove that gravity based PM machines work mathematically, but in putting that idea out there, I would compromise a promise made to a friend of mine (because his device is far more refined than mine, and he wants the opportunity to market his).
It's a lot easier than you think, by the way. I don't mean to aggravate you by not finishing the story since I hate it when people do that with gossip, but still, I don't like the absolute certainty that PM motors are impossible when I can sketch one for you complete with math...so suffer :)
Quote from: Robert on March 22, 2012, 11:46:03 AM
Permanent magnet rail gun works fine, now put them end to end, and you have a motor...
12th grade science project video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo2-Qb3fUYs&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo2-Qb3fUYs&feature=related)
Magnetic rail guns work in terms of motion. They accelerate confined magnets (incapable of polar rotation) at high velocity between two lines of oppositely polarised magnets. The problem is that you can only move them in a straight line, and you have to "load" the magnetic projectile by hand. They cannot work rotationally (in a circle).
By way of thought experiment, I confess I do not know what would happen if a non-electromagnetic rail were set up around a globe of sufficient radius as to be ostensibly a continuous flat rail (around the moon for example). But even if you could make an enormous rotating magnetic rail circuit, you would not be able to rely on changes in momentum to generate electricity.
The mechanical or electrical power output in watts would depend on a 100% change in momentum in the magnets (leaving them with zero tangential velocity...bringing them to a standstill) all to provide merely a 50% change in momentum in an impulse turbine (delta mom/Benz's law). So that wont work.
The best bet would be to have the magnets rotate continuously inside a copper coil to generate electricity per Faraday's Law... but they cannot be made to complete a circular or spherical circuit. Alert the media if someone manages to do this because their invention will be worth trillions and will solve the energy crisis.
If you are serious about generating electricity, don't bother pointing at moving magnets saying "look at this". Instead, connect a multimeter to the electrical OUTPUT terminals of your machine and tell us (in volts and amperes) how many watts of electricity your magnet array can continuously generate. This will always be reported to be zero, unless the machine forms the basis of an investment scam of some sort.
So they are cool machines, but non-electromagnetic rail guns are yet another tantalising example of something that
almost works (in terms of generating electricity).
In contrast, Electromagnetic rail guns used by the military
consume vast amounts of energy. Thanks for inviting attention to another interesting idea that does not work in terms of electricity generation.
To me it seems a valid question , in a place such as this , a place where fantasy outweighs reality at least two to one , how will anyone be able to distinguish the dreamer from the prophet ? When the wheel is brought into being by laborious thought ( also laborious construction ) and brilliant imagination ( along with good luck for sure ) in a time that is nearing the 300th anniversary of it's original birth ...simply ...what will all those who said no , what will they say ? And when it's forceful turning is once again witnessed in the sights of the curious and skeptical who will deny it and say once again that it contains within it's structure ( a cat , a dog , a battery and motor , a spring , a turnspit ...or perhaps some mercury ? ) some previously known principle of motion ?
This is what I always get when try to access the: www.orffyre.com (http://www.orffyre.com)
What about you? Is that only temporary?
"Bandwidth Limit Exceeded The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later."
Quantumtangles quoted
"The first thing to realise is that the means by which we get the balloon back to the bottom of the cylinder and the means by which we get the balloon INTO the fluid at the bottom of the cylinder are path dependent."
This would be the hard part of a mechanical device, but for example a type of airlock or "waterlock" could be used.
But I dont want to discuss any practical device, I just want to read your (Quantumtangles) answer to my statement:
We can raise the potential energy of a mass without consuming as much energy as the mass will generate by falling this mean bending the "gravity elastic" as you like to call it without consuming as much energy as much energy as the mass will generate by falling (refer to my last week post, i.e using the Arechimede priniciple).
This is all on my side
Quote from: parisd on March 26, 2012, 10:37:32 AM
Quantumtangles quoted
"The first thing to realise is that the means by which we get the balloon back to the bottom of the cylinder and the means by which we get the balloon INTO the fluid at the bottom of the cylinder are path dependent."
This would be the hard part of a mechanical device, but for example a type of airlock or "waterlock" could be used.
But I dont want to discuss any practical device, I just want to read your (Quantumtangles) answer to my statement:
We can raise the potential energy of a mass without consuming as much energy as the mass will generate by falling this mean bending the "gravity elastic" as you like to call it without consuming as much energy as much energy as the mass will generate by falling (refer to my last week post, i.e using the Arechimede priniciple).
This is all on my side
Apologies for the delay in responding. The problem, old bean, is that falling objects must have crunchy mass if they are to generate productive force (in consequence of acceleration due to gravity (F=m*a)). The fact that certain configurations of rising and falling objects are more efficient than other configurations (path dependent) is not the key issue.
And falling heavy objects are well and good when heavy objects are on the way down, but the problem starts when you try to get them back up again (on the other side of the mechanical circuit when for example you try to get buoyant objects to rise in water). In order for them to rise in water, they must have density of less than 1000kg/m3 (the density of water).
Oil as a working fluid would seem to prove me wrong, as it has a density of about 865kg/m3. Oil rises up through water. Therefore oil could be used as a working fluid in two water tanks where falling oil could strike a turbine, generate electricity on the way down, and them rise due to positive buoyancy in the water filled tank.
The problem is that this does not work. I am embarrassed to admit I tried it. The less dense oil does indeed produce electricity but it produces less electricity than falling water would because the mass and therefore the force is lower (Force in Newtons = 865kg/m3 x 9.81 m/s/s, as opposed to F = 1000kg/m3 x 9.81 m/s/s).
The lower density of oil means you get less force and therefore less electricity from your impulse turbine. The second problem is delta mom (see my earlier posts in this thread). The change in the momentum of the spinning turbine due to falling fluid can only ever give you half the force the falling fluid had to begin with (Benz's law). So at best, with an ideal (100% efficient) system, you only get half as much force back as you spend getting the oil to rise in the water filled tank in the first place. Ouch.
The third problem is getting the oil to enter the base of a high pressure water tank. Base pressure depends on height, fluid density and gravity. In other words, the taller the cylindrical water tank you use to cause your oil to float to the top of it, the higher the base pressure in that tank will be.
Even if we had an ideal one way valve allowing oil to move efficiently into the base of the water filled tank, the problem is that overcoming base pressure in the water tank (to force the oil back into it) consumes much more energy than the falling oil can generate (consumes more even if we disregard Benz's law and imagine it does not apply (which it does)).
Here, I have used the example of oil as a working fluid (moving through a water substrate) because this is the most counter-intuitive or difficult scenario to understand and debunk. But there is a clearer example. A lead balloon.
A lead balloon will fall through air and thus can generate electricity, but if you fill the balloon with Helium for the journey up, it will not rise because it will be too heavy. The upshot is that you need large mass on the way down and small mass on the way up, and this is impossible. So you are correct that Archimedes principle manifests itself in the real world. But if you claim over-unity from any sort of gravity machine, you must build one that works, and such machines have never been built because they do not work. Specifically, they are impossible.
And here comes the clincher. The killer point.
If it were possible to build an over-unity machine (other than a machine which is supplied with energy from the environment, e.g. an open system in which mass/energy can transcend the system boundaries such as in solar panel arrays), and you wired the electrical output (using non S.I units of electron-volts as an example) back into the machine, the machine would gain mass until it had infinite mass (which is impossible).
The punch line is that electrons have mass. Check out the Large Hadron Collider in Cern. Unless these people are living in cuckoo land, electrons have mass. That is why they use Gigaelectron-volts as a unit of MASS (Electron-volts are a non-S.I. unit). Now look at the equation E = Mc2.
You will see that energy and mass are essentially equivalent (once light speed is factored in). If you accept that electrons have mass (e.g. if you are sane), it follows, due to the fact electrons have mass, that overunity (getting more energy out than you put in) is impossible in closed systems. If it were possible, an overunity gravity machine with output wired back into the machine would end up having infinite mass (which is impossible).
Obviously you cannot get more mass out of a system than you put into it. Even die-hard OU fantasists would agree with this. But OU fantasists cannot seem to take a small further logical step of realising that if you cannot get more mass out of, for example, a water pipe than you put into it in the first place (which is to say, you cannot get more water out of a water pipe than you pump into it in the first place), that it follows inexorably from this (and for precisely the same reason...given the mass-energy equivalence demonstrated by Einstein), that you cannot get more energy out of a system than you put into it.
Gravity can only ever convert existing potential energy into kinetic energy. All one can ever hope to do is convert energy from one form into another. But gravity cannot ever ADD energy. Good day.
If ignorance was a criminal offence, I would be in ADX Florence.
Only if you were convicted. Based on the above post, I think you walk free.
:D
Quote from: quantumtangles on March 10, 2012, 06:33:04 AM
But gravity cannot apply its 'force field' to "falling" objects like apples unless energy has first been supplied to raise them from the ground. In the case of apples, chemical energy has been supplied to cause the apple tree to grow and form apples. So too, when you lift an object from the ground and release it, it will fall because you supplied chemical energy to lift it in the first place.
Energy always has to be expended lifting objects up from the floor and the 'force' of gravity cannot possibly ever add 'extra' energy to the object. When you lifted it, you added energy, but it does not gain energy on the way down.
The upshot of this is that working 'magnetic motors' made from arrays of magnets are impossible; have always been impossible and will always be impossible (unless you go to a different Universe where different laws of physics apply).
Our predisposition to confuse force (in the sense of field lines) with energy or power has led countless inventors to waste time and resources trying to build PM magnetic motors, PM pendulums, and other gravity based machines, but none of these devices can ever possibly work because the laws of physics render them impossible. Just because you do not understand why it cannot work will not change the facts. These devices cannot ever possibly work. PM is impossible.
I am sorry but I really have to comment on this text.
The first thing You need to understand before making claims like these is that the LAWS of physics are exactly what they say they are. LAWS.
Meaning that there is NO complete proof that the laws are indeed absolute certainties, there is just a huge number of tests of which not one has yet shown a different result.
What You are talking about is general understanding of physics (textbooks), but what I have to emphasize here is that in experimental physics (and this IS an absolute certainty) we do not use words like CANNOT, IS NOT, IMPOSSIBLE, WILL NOT, and so on.
Do not misunderstand me, I do not think that what You are saying is incorrect, I am just trying to tell You that with this attitude You will most certainly get nowhere. By trying to build and test these absurd devices you might get a glimpse of knowledge that you would not get out of any conventional physics experiment. The goal here is to create an overunity device or ideally a perpetual motion device, regardless of the means used to do it. Can You see what I am trying to tell You here?
To stress the LAWS issue further, for the last 300 years scientists were trying to prove that there is usable energy in gravity, however, there was merely a handful of people that actually did this, and in the last 300 years they created let's say hundreds of devices that failed and therefore they proclaimed it as a LAW.
Now take in consideration that during this time there was an average of about 1.5 billion people on earth of which only a few put their brains into this matter. Today, there is over 7 billion people and considering the economy and simply increase in global conscience, the number of people that are working on this problem has increased super significantly. Now think about this, the people that work on this today, can create the same number of experimental devices in one week as the people then could in a hundred years.
And here is a super stupid question for You to explain to me.
I have to put energy into an apple to lift it off the ground in order for it to fall back down to the ground.
If I dig the ground under the apple, since I did not put any energy into the apple, why doesn't the apple sit floating in the air where it was before I dug the hole.
Quote from: DocX on April 13, 2012, 12:31:45 PM
What You are talking about is general understanding of physics (textbooks), but what I have to emphasize here is that in experimental physics (and this IS an absolute certainty) we do not use words like CANNOT, IS NOT, IMPOSSIBLE, WILL NOT, and so on.
Excellent post DocX!
The above quote condenses it all. Thank you for your lucid simplicity.
You describe the very core of the innovative mindset needed for any progress in science.
To make scientific progress you have to be the rare combination of a person schooled in critical thinking
and at the same time being a person who regards all Laws written in the books as relative information,
revisable at any moment.
As myself being a person involved in research in the surface coating industry for many years, I have learned first hand
that many discoveries are the result of unexpected observations done when performing a set of tests made for
totally other reasons.
To go by the text book and conforming to all the present Laws of physics won't lead you anywhere outside the already known.
Gwandau
Quote from: DocX on April 13, 2012, 12:31:45 PM
I have to put energy into an apple to lift it off the ground in order for it to fall back down to the ground.
If I dig the ground under the apple, since I did not put any energy into the apple, why doesn't the apple sit floating in the air where it was before I dug the hole.
Because of gravity, specifically, the curvature of space due to the mass of the earth. Look it up on wikipedia.
Incidentally, digging a hole beneath an apple would be a riproaringly inefficient way of adding potential energy (in order that gravity may convert that potential energy to kinetic energy). Much more energy would be expended digging the hole than lifting the apple. Nonetheless, congratulations are in order. I have never before come across an 'apple hole energy generator'. Beyond a peradventure, you have graced us with a novelty.
Excuse my ignorance but I have some silly questions
Let's say a helicopter lifted from the ground and the engine performed work to to 10m high in the air.
Siting at 10m the engine still needs to perform work to balance the force of gravity and keep the helicopter in position
We slightly switched from a system with energy transfer to a system with equilibrium of forces.
Does earth consume the energy the helicopter engine produce?
How do we explain work/energy consumer to maintain a force in a fixed position? Something in the system produces energy and something else consume it
The helicopter is not moving so how can we have mechanical work (Force X distance) created?
Quote from: cristache on April 15, 2012, 11:32:11 PM
Excuse my ignorance but I have some silly questions
Let's say a helicopter lifted from the ground and the engine performed work to to 10m high in the air.
Siting at 10m the engine still needs to perform work to balance the force of gravity and keep the helicopter in position
We slightly switched from a system with energy transfer to a system with equilibrium of forces.
Does earth consume the energy the helicopter engine produce?
How do we explain work/energy consumer to maintain a force in a fixed position? Something in the system produces energy and something else consume it
The helicopter is not moving so how can we have mechanical work (Force X distance) created?
the prop pushes air down to produce lift. the wind thus created is where the energy goes.
fritznien
A lead airplane will not fly : bad experiment . Human aspirations never amounted to anything : lie . We honor inventors of the technologies that we use in our daily lives : nope . Nature has not provided us with everything we need : misinformation . Companies make the resources that we consume every day : wrong again . All men are endowed by their Creator certain unalienable rights : True but more so for those who have a lawyer . My point being that a lot of things we see as "truths" are just what others have convinced us of over time . Like Bessler said : "the world of mechanics is unfathomable ; why shouldn't the perpetual mobile have a place in it somewhere ?"
I think I can get this thing built before the 300th anniversary . I just wanna know one thing QT ... what rock are you gonna hide under ? LOL . You should form your own opinions instead of just taking people's words for fact ... you'd be in a better position , but campaigning against a subject you obviously know nothing about does you little service . And since you insist that people who search for P.M. must have a low IQ , a seriously unfounded insult , I'll pray for you and YOUR IQ . ;) Do you still not understand ? ROFLMAO
Quote from: christo4_99 on April 17, 2012, 03:44:09 AM
I think I can get this thing built before the 300th anniversary . I just wanna know one thing QT ... what rock are you gonna hide under ? LOL . You should form your own opinions instead of just taking people's words for fact ... you'd be in a better position , but campaigning against a subject you obviously know nothing about does you little service . And since you insist that people who search for P.M. must have a low IQ , a seriously unfounded insult , I'll pray for you and YOUR IQ . ;) Do you still not understand ? ROFLMAO
Flaming ?
I dunno ...you tell me smart guy . You are content to pretend that you have it all figured out , and I recognize it because I have a valid design based on a valid principle ...it's as simple as that . If you call that flaming then I guess so . Just as Bessler's detractors were silenced so too shall mine be also . You will find that it is futile to attack me (unless you are an admin, LOL).
Quote from: christo4_99 on April 17, 2012, 11:12:29 AM
I dunno ...you tell me smart guy . You are content to pretend that you have it all figured out , and I recognize it because I have a valid design based on a valid principle ...it's as simple as that . If you call that flaming then I guess so . Just as Bessler's detractors were silenced so too shall mine be also . You will find that it is futile to attack me (unless you are an admin, LOL).
There's a difference between myself and a spammer like you, I am spending MY money to build.
In all you have posted, I have NEVER seen anything. Show nothing, expect nothing.
Yet for some reason you have it in for Quantumangles, and while doing so also attacking builders, you come off as a whiney little brat.
You have shown things and there is still nothing . Just so you know I have used the words of people like you to serve as incentive to figure this out . So don't think that you are harming me in any way ...there may have been a detail or two I missed in the concept , your insults will be put to good use .
P.S. And since you asked why am I attacking QT , here is your answer : This thread , in it's highest purpose seeks to educate people in the alleged folly of pursuing P.M. . But what if the very basis of this thread is born of a lie ? What if the smartest men ( and they do attempt to dabble with P.M. concepts : let no one deny ) in their greatest efforts have passed this knowledge on to us not because they proved or disproved anything but rather , because they failed and therefore assume that all who attempt it should fail also ? What if there was one man who applied the core of his very being to the problem and finally had success , thereby gaining palpable knowledge that was in direct conflict with what amounts to FALSE belief ? That is why I have a problem with QT , it's not personal but merely a difference of opinion based on MY KNOWLEDGE and what I know to be ignorance (which for those who don't know means " a lack of knowledge " and not intended as an insult) . So do not defend what does not need to be defended .
Quote from: christo4_99 on April 17, 2012, 01:49:18 PM
You have shown things and there is still nothing . Just so you know I have used the words of people like you to serve as incentive to figure this out . So don't think that you are harming me in any way ...there may have been a detail or two I missed in the concept , your insults will be put to good use .
P.S. And since you asked why am I attacking QT , here is your answer : This thread , in it's highest purpose seeks to educate people in the alleged folly of pursuing P.M. . But what if the very basis of this thread is born of a lie ? What if the smartest men ( and they do attempt to dabble with P.M. concepts : let no one deny ) in their greatest efforts have passed this knowledge on to us not because they proved or disproved anything but rather , because they failed and therefore assume that all who attempt it should fail also ? What if there was one man who applied the core of his very being to the problem and finally had success , thereby gaining palpable knowledge that was in direct conflict with what amounts to FALSE belief ? That is why I have a problem with QT , it's not personal but merely a difference of opinion based on MY KNOWLEDGE and what I know to be ignorance (which for those who don't know means " a lack of knowledge " and not intended as an insult) . So do not defend what does not need to be defended .
Well,
I guess if what I'm working on proves to be correct, it will show everything you said to be wrong.
Then again, I thought other people might find it interesting to know most likely how Bessler's wheel worked.
But as you so eloquently stated, all you have are words.
Bye
If you are gonna put words in my mouth could you at least think a little harder first so that I sound intelligent ?
accidently deleted while editing slo smart phone chris, what people like you fail to appreciate is the amount of hard work pursuing and building something takes i possibly couldve had a family by now but always someone like you around, my motivation, you,re a loser like alan
you guys could care less about bessler and what it takes to build his wheels,
Quote from: quantumtangles on April 13, 2012, 09:24:32 AM
Gravity can only ever convert existing potential energy into kinetic energy. All one can ever hope to do is convert energy from one form into another. But gravity cannot ever ADD energy. Good day.
Gravity IS a force. Without gravity there is no 'existing' potential energy directed to the centre of earth and no conversion 'potential <-> kinetic' can be made along with this vector. Although gravity is relatively a weak force it is also a long range force not much differing from the force of wind... Using leverage system one can harness it.
http://mirek-kucharski.w.interia.pl/Image/Perpetum%20mobile/1_2/maszyna%20na%204.swf (http://mirek-kucharski.w.interia.pl/Image/Perpetum%20mobile/1_2/maszyna%20na%204.swf) :)
Quote from: Rafael Ti on April 18, 2012, 09:36:15 AM
Gravity IS a force. Without gravity there is no 'existing' potential energy directed to the centre of earth and no conversion 'potential <-> kinetic' can be made along with this vector. Although gravity is relatively a weak force it is also a long range force not much differing from the force of wind... Using leverage system one can harness it.
http://mirek-kucharski.w.interia.pl/Image/Perpetum%20mobile/1_2/maszyna%20na%204.swf (http://mirek-kucharski.w.interia.pl/Image/Perpetum%20mobile/1_2/maszyna%20na%204.swf) :)
here's a link to a video. someone should be able to replicate it to find out if it is a hoax or not. but have not seen people in forums or on youtube replicate anything. not sure why.
any directional force has potential to be converted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHN-Nr61IDI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHN-Nr61IDI)