I thought you guys might like this article, it is by far the most common sense rationalization of how absurd the general arguement is against perpetual motion.
http://www.duschl-engineering.de/Fac...otion%2038.pdf
I like these paragraphs---
Quote:
“So far as anyone knows, there is no theoretical time limit to how long an unaided current could be sustained in a superconducting circuit. If you're thinking this appears to be a form of perpetual motion, you're correct! Contrary to popular belief, there is no law of physics prohibiting perpetual motion; rather, the prohibition stands against any machine or system generating more energy than it consumes…â€
Quote:
"Yet many scientists and engineers still seem to reason along lines similar to Planck’s statement. They erroneously assume that “perpetual motion†is against the laws of physics. They erroneously infer that a system in perpetual motion would continually do work without any energy inputâ€"when basic perpetual motion actually has nothing at all to do with a machine receiving extra energy or doing work. Instead, it has to do with a system placed in motion remaining perpetually in that state of motion unless and until acted upon by an external force that changes it."
This gets to the very heart of the matter, the fact that many people have confused the context and terminology relating to perpetual motion. Physics states catagorically that everything is in perpetual motion--period, but this does not mean anything has gained energy in any way, the conservation of energy will continue to hold true as it should.
Regards
AC
lets say that you go to an area of space that contains no additional matter or energy and you take out a top and spin it to 1 RPM, you would think that since the top is in an area of space that contains no detectable matter or energy would spin forever, but, your own presents will alter the Top's speed over time and by simply observing it you will influence the top's rotational velocity over time.
you might get something to spin a long time but in 'this' Universe filled with so much influence, nothing can spin forever.
Jerry ;)
@onthecuttingedge2005
Quote:
"lets say that you go to an area of space that contains no additional matter or energy and you take out a top and spin it to 1 RPM, you would think that since the top is in an area of space that contains no detectable matter or energy would spin forever, but, your own presents will alter the Top's speed over time and by simply observing it you will influence the top's rotational velocity over time.
you might get something to spin a long time but in 'this' Universe filled with so much influence, nothing can spin forever."
You have made many assumptions which do not make very much sense to me, one is that there could be any area of space which contains neither matter nor energy. From the little we know of space we know for certain that all space is filled with radiations of various wave periods and this radiation is a form of energy. As far as "observable" status is concerned this only applies in quantum mechanics on the sub-atomic scale for reasons nobody understands and not to macroscale objects. The presence of matter, a person, will produce gravic effects pulling objects inward giving the illusion of attraction but this gravic force to my knowledge has zero effects on rotation of objects and may actually be responsible for the orbiting/rotating motions of planets through field interactions. Your last statement seems a little off as well, "nothing can spin forever"---how do you know you have not lived forever nor could you?. What we call "forever" is an abstract concept at best, the fact is nobody knows for certain--nobody. What we can do is use the physics we have and these state that a body in motion will remain in motion unless acted on by external forces, these external forces are just as likely to accelerate the top in some manner as they are to deccelerate it. What we can say with near absolute certainty is that the constituent parts that are the top will remain in motion because 1)E=mc^2, energy is matter in motion, ie. everything that is the top will be matter or energy for eternity (conservation of energy) and they will be in motion because 2) Motion is defined as a change in distance between two points or objects as such every part of the top must be moving relative to something else in the universe. I think it was Mark Twain who once said---“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.â€
Regards
AC
Physicists Measure Elusive 'Persistent Current'
Ecnmag.com - October 14, 2009
New Haven, Conn. â€" Physicists at Yale University have made the first
definitive measurements of “persistent current,†a small but perpetual
electric current that flows naturally through tiny rings of metal wire
even without an external power source.
The team used nanoscale cantilevers, an entirely novel approach, to
indirectly measure the current through changes in the magnetic force it
produces as it flows through the ring. “They’re essentially little
floppy diving boards with the rings sitting on top,†said team leader
Jack Harris, associate professor of physics and applied physics at Yale.
The findings appear in the October 9 issue of Science.
The counterintuitive current is the result of a quantum mechanical
effect that influences how electrons travel through metals, and arises
from the same kind of motion that allows the electrons inside an atom to
orbit the nucleus forever. “These are ordinary, non-superconducting
metal rings, which we typically think of as resistors,†Harris said.
“Yet these currents will flow forever, even in the absence of an applied
voltage.â€
Although persistent current was first theorized decades ago, it is so
faint and sensitive to its environment that physicists were unable to
accurately measure it until now. It is not possible to measure the
current with a traditional ammeter because it only flows within the tiny
metal rings, which are about the same size as the wires used on computer
chips.
Past experiments tried to indirectly measure persistent current via the
magnetic field it produces (any current passing through a metal wire
produces a magnetic field). They used extremely sensitive magnetometers
known as superconducting quantum interference devices, or SQUIDs, but
the results were inconsistent and even contradictory.
“SQUIDs had long been established as the tool used to measure extremely
weak magnetic fields. It was extremely optimistic for us to think that a
mechanical device could be more sensitive than a SQUID,†Harris said.
The team used the cantilevers to detect changes in the magnetic field
produced by the current as it changed direction in the aluminum rings.
This new experimental setup allowed the team to make measurements a full
order of magnitude more precise than any previous attempts. They also
measured the persistent current over a wider range of temperature, ring
size and magnetic field than ever before.
“These measurements could tell us something about how electrons behave
in metals,†Harris said, adding that the findings could lead to a better
understanding of how qubits, used in quantum computing, are affected by
their environment, as well as which metals could potentially be used as
superconductors.
Authors of the paper include Ania Bleszynski-Jayich, William Shanks,
Bruno Peaudecerf, Eran Ginossar, Leonid Glazman and Jack Harris (all of
Yale University) and Felix von Oppen (Freie Universität Berlin).
Cheers.
Scotty.
Sounds like Ed's PMH... ;D
"Past experiments tried to indirectly measure persistent current via the
magnetic field it produces (any current passing through a metal wire
produces a magnetic field)."
Ed wrote. "If perpetual motion holder's North pole prong is put East. South pole prong West, and then elevate the cross-bar's center up to the South pole vertically hanging magnet (that is, its lower end), then the magnet will swing South and when the cross-bar's center is elevated up to North pole vertically hanging magnet (lower end), then the magnet will swing North. (because of the right hand rule)
The cross-bar's ability to swing the North and South pole magnets off its center will remain as long as the cross-bar is not disturbed. It has little power but it could be made stronger by making bigger dimensions." Ed. L
----------------
The scientists couldn't detect a current via its field but Ed could... ;)
BTW. If you want to try that, you will need a pure soft wrought iron for a PMH, and a laminated keeper.
True wrought iron is not easy to get now.
If a PMH was made as Ed said and a pure wrought iron was used then you might get a good result, but so far my results have been, well, not good enough to write about.
---------------
Scotty.
@scotty1
I am sure Ed.L understood the one point I was trying to make with this post, that we are surrounded by motion everywhere as matter and energy. We can debate semantics that a top may slow or matter may convert to energy or vice versa but the fact remains motion persists eternally. As Tesla once said---"Is this energy static or kinetic! If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic â€" and this we know it is, for certain â€" then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature."
Regards
AC
"They are in constant motion, they are running one kind of magnets
against the other kind, and if guided in the right channels they possess perpetual power." Ed. L
--------------
I'm sure they'll figure it out one day.
Tesla said the day we discover what electricity is will be the most important in the history of the human race.
Still waiting ;D
Cheers mate.
Scotty.
http://leedskalnin.net/ (http://leedskalnin.net/)
Quote from: allcanadian on December 07, 2009, 03:39:02 AM
http://www.duschl-engineering.de/Fac...otion%2038.pdf (http://www.duschl-engineering.de/Fac...otion%2038.pdf)
Above URL does not work.
Quote from: allcanadian on December 07, 2009, 03:39:02 AM
... common sense rationalization of how absurd the general arguement is against perpetual motion.
This gets to the very heart of the matter, the fact that many people have confused the context and terminology relating to perpetual motion. Physics states catagorically that everything is in perpetual motion--period, but this does not mean anything has gained energy in any way, the conservation of energy will continue to hold true as it should.
Regards
AC
conservation of energy only holds true " unless acted on by an outside force". and since in the universe we live in, there is no place where there is "nothing. very where we look we find "something". even the 'vacuum' of space is filled with all kinds of things, and is not even a true "vacuum". There is no such thing as a "closed system".
a nucleus that's missing an electron is sitting in empty space.
and electron is nearby.
the electron will accelerate, gaining all kinds of energy until it reaches its eatheric-threshhold, which is at just under the speed of light in most situations. (can be greater than sometimes)
and enters a state of (almost) perpetual motion.
i say almost becase over time, the sub-sub-particles [ ed refers to these as "tiny magnets"] become neutral in charge within the proton, and eventually it will decay, and so will the associated force attracting the electron, and said electron will shoot off in a tangential-line towards its next destination. we refer to this currently as the atoms "half-life", since we dont have a way yet to measure the discrete magnetic energy of the atomic nucleii within a given sample.
an aetheric distortion can cause a sub-sub-particle (and its opposite polarity) to manifest and either of these can attach itself to a set of sub-sub-particles and/or attach to a nearby unstable isotope, forming into a different type of atom. This atom would have additional energy that can attract a free electron, and set it into (almost) perpetual motion for many years, sometimes hundreds of thousands of years or more depending on the atomic structure.
we can ionize the atom and take this electron away.
and another electron will gain an incredible ammount of energy and the process repeates itself.
we can go down smaller than that, the quarks that make up the nucleus, are forming a magnetic path. very similar to the perpetual motion holder, just without the switch. the sub-sub particles within the quark are forming a magnetic path within the quark that determines the (+) energy flowing throuhg the atomic structure.
this is why it "radiates". this also determines the number of electrons that will be sustained in orbital paths around it, wether or not it can support a neutral quark-set (neutron), and subsequently, the "type" of atom it is.
we can go down smaller than that, the sub-sub-particles are made from aetheric-pairs (+/-, south, north) that manifest directly from the aether. a vast sea of infinite energy. this happens everywhere all the time. they generally crash into each other, in varrying number forming sub-sub-particles, and their opposites, which crash into each other (sometimes forming larger groups, such as sub-particles) then disentegrate back into the eather in a crash of energy, that (by mass) is greater than a nuclear reaction by a power of ^100,000.
occasionally, the circumstances prevail where these sub-sub-particles group together and do not crash into their opposite polarity. this forms a sub-particle. within which a magnetic path is formed. this too radiates energy, and its energy determines the path the electron will follow around the atom, and which other sub-particles it can attach to it, and in which direction.
Since space is never truly "empty", we do not find anything that is truly in "perpetual motion". but since there is (from our perspective)infinite energy all around us, everything is always "moving".
While thermodynamic theory may hold true in a macro application
( in a newtonian sort of way...), we do not even have the ability to put it to the test, much less have anything that we can actually apply thermodynamic theory to. there's always energy from outside the system interfering with it. however small we may percieve it to be.
there were people, long before our current recorded history that knew much more about this than we do now. theres no telling how many times man has progressed technologically. then something happened that destroyed it all.
think about the majority of the people in the world right now.
and how much they actually "know".
if a catastrophe occured, and society as we know it became dismantled... almost all of our knowledge would be lost.
and studied, misinterpreted, misconceived by future historians.
all we know is what we've done inthe past 5 to 6 thousand years.
yet there is evidence of advanced societies existing tens of thousands of years before that, and evidence that man has been here much longer as a whole.
there is a trail of knowledge, passed down by people that didnt know what to do with it, and it contains clues about science and technology that mankind may not fully come to grasp with until our grandkids are our age. if we make it that long.
The energy that causes perpetual motion is infinite (at least as far are we are concerned, universally regional). What we are after, is like tapping into "the hand that is spinning the top".
causing aetheric distortions, and using the energy from the (+/-) pairs, the "tiny magnets" that are flowing through everything, even you and I right now.
but we dont have to go down that small. the same rules apply even to the larger groups, just as they to to the sub-sub-sub-atomic pairs that generate out of the eather.
just as they do to a large magnet you hold in your hand
if you create a similar scenerio to the atom, with magnets you can not only create "perpetual motion", but also you can extract a massive ammount of energy from the acceleration of the "electron" magnet that is orbiting.
actually doing this, is a technological brick-wall, but there are ways around that, to create exponential acceleration. similar to the work of David Hammell, by using only a portion of the orbital path.
This does not violate Thermodynamic Theory, the theory simply does not apply in this system, because there is outside influence from the eather that give the "tiny magnets" magnets their initial energy. and there is litterally billions of billions of them inside a small magnet. and about 1/3 as many in "perpetual motion" through the center of the magnet and around its sides.
Quote
similar to the work of David Hammell, by using only a portion of the orbital path.
This does not violate Thermodynamic Theory, the theory simply does not apply in this system, because there is outside influence from the eather that give the "tiny magnets" magnets their initial energy. and there is litterally billions of billions of them inside a small magnet. and about 1/3 as many in "perpetual motion" through the center of the magnet and around its sides.
Sean CLaNZeR's Hamel Spinner:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3B9XfM0jwA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gcu2X3rTTes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW2hbMeod1o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2kz3DYpZdI
So all I need is a David Hammell spinning device and somehow apply a small electrical current (dc/ac?) to this device to get more output in the form of kinetic energy? how exactly? :) or i am completely off?
Quote from: FreeEnergy on July 22, 2010, 01:54:51 PM
So all I need is a David Hammell spinning device and somehow apply a small electrical current (dc/ac?) to this device to get more output in the form of kinetic energy? how exactly? :) or i am completely off?
hmm... perhaps you could position a coil off-centered with respect to the 'magnetic center', in such a way that the EMF pushes the magnet away from the center, and maintains the imbalance, while generating electricity at the same time.
just dont let your load overpower the force between the two (well now 3 actually) interacting magnetic fields.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on July 23, 2010, 02:52:42 AM
hmm... perhaps you could position a coil off-centered with respect to the 'magnetic center', in such a way that the EMF pushes the magnet away from the center, and maintains the imbalance, while generating electricity at the same time.
just dont let your load overpower the force between the two (well now 3 actually) interacting magnetic fields.
a few pulses at a time would be best i guess, not sure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ttm13AyiMs
Quote from: scotty1 on December 07, 2009, 06:18:11 AM
Physicists Measure Elusive 'Persistent Current'
Ecnmag.com - October 14, 2009
New Haven, Conn. â€" Physicists at Yale University have made the first
definitive measurements of “persistent current,†a small but perpetual
electric current that flows naturally through tiny rings of metal wire
even without an external power source.
The team used nanoscale cantilevers, an entirely novel approach, to
indirectly measure the current through changes in the magnetic force it
produces as it flows through the ring. “They’re essentially little
floppy diving boards with the rings sitting on top,†said team leader
Jack Harris, associate professor of physics and applied physics at Yale.
The findings appear in the October 9 issue of Science.
The counterintuitive current is the result of a quantum mechanical
effect that influences how electrons travel through metals, and arises
from the same kind of motion that allows the electrons inside an atom to
orbit the nucleus forever. “These are ordinary, non-superconducting
metal rings, which we typically think of as resistors,†Harris said.
“Yet these currents will flow forever, even in the absence of an applied
voltage.â€
Although persistent current was first theorized decades ago, it is so
faint and sensitive to its environment that physicists were unable to
accurately measure it until now. It is not possible to measure the
current with a traditional ammeter because it only flows within the tiny
metal rings, which are about the same size as the wires used on computer
chips.
Past experiments tried to indirectly measure persistent current via the
magnetic field it produces (any current passing through a metal wire
produces a magnetic field). They used extremely sensitive magnetometers
known as superconducting quantum interference devices, or SQUIDs, but
the results were inconsistent and even contradictory.
“SQUIDs had long been established as the tool used to measure extremely
weak magnetic fields. It was extremely optimistic for us to think that a
mechanical device could be more sensitive than a SQUID,†Harris said.
The team used the cantilevers to detect changes in the magnetic field
produced by the current as it changed direction in the aluminum rings.
This new experimental setup allowed the team to make measurements a full
order of magnitude more precise than any previous attempts. They also
measured the persistent current over a wider range of temperature, ring
size and magnetic field than ever before.
“These measurements could tell us something about how electrons behave
in metals,†Harris said, adding that the findings could lead to a better
understanding of how qubits, used in quantum computing, are affected by
their environment, as well as which metals could potentially be used as
superconductors.
Authors of the paper include Ania Bleszynski-Jayich, William Shanks,
Bruno Peaudecerf, Eran Ginossar, Leonid Glazman and Jack Harris (all of
Yale University) and Felix von Oppen (Freie Universität Berlin).
Cheers.
Scotty.
Sounds like Ed's PMH... ;D
hi everyone...my name is david lambright and i have some information you might find interesting...i have been experimenting with PMHs, using iron oxide as the core...i found a U shaped ferrite core in an old TV, and with 5 wraps of wire and a steel keeper on top, was able to get a "lock" with a 9.6v makita battery.....in another experiment, i filled an aluminum tube with black iron oxide, and bent it int o a circle [toroid], and taped the ends together making a continuous oxide core with an aluminum outer skin....i energized this rig just like an ED PMH, with a coil of insulated wire and a battery.....now there is a persistent flow of energy through the oxide core....this creates a visible distortion around the rig...it looks like a mirage or heat, but like a film or bubble....because this is now visible, i can see and study how this energy flows...if i use two of these devices, the energy flows between the rings always in a spiral....i will be making a video of this device soon and will post the link if anyone is interested....david
i also post over at energetic forum, and i offered to build copies of my ring device for testing ....i have enough oxide to make 3 for anyone on this forum as well, if anyone is interested, let me know....david...PS the rings have a constant flow of this visible energy!...david
David
Quote:
....i will be making a video of this device soon and will post the link if anyone is interested....david
------------------
Absolutely interested!!
A bubble??
Chet
Quote from: ramset on August 13, 2010, 04:38:47 PM
David
Quote:
....i will be making a video of this device soon and will post the link if anyone is interested....david
------------------
Absolutely interested!!
A bubble??
Chet
.chet...so you would like to test one of the oxide and aluminum rings?...send me your mailing info...my email is david.lambright@hotmail.com...anyway, i have some videos of my other devices ...potatoheadists channel.....the ring device produces a film or bubble like look, like when you dip a ring into soapy water, only this is an "energy" field....this is new stuff here....i cant find any other site where anyone has documented this type of energy field before.....if you are interested, i will get to building!......david
David,
I am not qualified to evaluate your find!
I do however have some EE buddies that could offer opinions as to whether this is truly an Anomoly.
My Email is Chetkremens@gmail.com
Posting a vid would probably be a good move!
Chet
I am interested too.
Jesus
hi chet....i know there will be others who will test this and i will post a video soon....this energy field is subtle and is not easy to capture on video...but it is absoulely real...i have shown the device to others who see it too!...anyway thanks for your interest.....david
Hello Dave. AT LAST. I cannot tell you how glad I am to see you here at last. You definitely need to do some posting updates. Just post over whatever is significant to this thread. And GIVE US SOME LINKS. POST OVER EVERYTHING you can.
DELIGHTED to see you here.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
jesus.....would you like to test the ring device?....david
Quote from: david lambright on August 13, 2010, 05:38:16 PM
jesus.....would you like to test the ring device?....david
Yes
What am I suppose to do?
Jesus
hi rose!....i am glad to hear form you as well!...have you been keeping watch over at EF?....i emailed you and i want to build you one of my new devices....remember i mentioned about the lens-less optical device.....well these are the prototypes....you are really going to like this!.....the glimmer effect now starts to look like a bubble film ...but with lensing characteristics...email me an address to send it to and i will send it ASAP....again, good to hear from you...david
jesus....my email is david.lambright@hotmail.com....send me an address and i will get one of the devices to test...show everyone you can and then you can let others test it as well....i have to get some tubing, so it will be a few days....OK so i have one more device.....if you would like to check one out, let me know...david
I've just emailed you. Dave - PLEASE - make sure you systematically cover ALL your points that there's full record of this for the readers here. You REALLY need to do this. Yes I would indeed like to see the new apparatus. I'm afraid I rather put my own experiments here on hold as there was no appropriate dialogue.
But I've sort of got myself involved in another thread about something similar. Anyway. Give us the whole schebang Dave. Otherwise the guys here will not be able to understand the claim.
Kindest as ever,
R
;D
rose, thanks....what do you think i should start with?....i will email you OK...david
I already sent you my address on a pm.
Jesus
Quote from: david lambright on August 13, 2010, 06:02:53 PM
rose, thanks....what do you think i should start with?....i will email you OK...david
Dave, I've just seen that the subject is really possibly hijacking allcanadian's thread. I think we should ask if he minds. Otherwise - can you start a new thread? Let this be a dedicated topic? Maybe? Either way.
Just pm him.
Kindest
Rosie
jesus....OK, so give me a little while and i will send you a device!.....it does not weigh much, so shipping should not be a problem....thanks for your interest...david
Quote from: david lambright on August 13, 2010, 06:12:10 PM
jesus....OK, so give me a little while and i will send you a device!.....it does not weigh much, so shipping should not be a problem....thanks for your interest...david
Thank you, I will wait.
Jesus
Quote from: allcanadian on December 07, 2009, 03:39:02 AM
This gets to the very heart of the matter, the fact that many people have confused the context and terminology relating to perpetual motion. Physics states catagorically that everything is in perpetual motion--period, but this does not mean anything has gained energy in any way, the conservation of energy will continue to hold true as it should.
Regards
AC
Hi AC. I've just seen this thread. I thought Dave started it and then saw that I was looking at page 2. Very interesting topic.
Just out of interest - say something knocked our planet out of its orbit that it moved closer to the sun. Then it also described a tighter faster orbit around the sun due to it's greater proximity to the sun's mass. Then what? Is the increased orbital velocity a result of a gravitational pull from the sun? Or is that velocity determined by the strength of the impact that first knocked it out of orbit?
As I'm arguing it here - the force of the impact is entirely dissipated in repositioning it nearer the sun. Yet it develops a greater velocity. And in a second example - the force of impact is NOT entirely dissipated in repositioning it. And yet its velocity is determined by that gravitational proximity that overrides the energy that first repositioned it.
Which means that theoretically, the energy added to the object from the force of impact can be overridden by the force of gravity. What's happened to all that energy that has not yet been dissipated or expressed in that velocity from that early impact?
It is the same in an electric current from an AC supply source. If the electron 'gives up its energy' to, let us say 'heat' in a resistor - then that same electron still returns to its source with the same energy quotient that it had when it first left the source.
Then - using fire as an example. It takes the smallest effort to generate the smallest spark that can generate a conflagration that can entirely consume a whole forest. Yet the energy input to generate that spark required almost no effort at all.
In my opinion there are many, many examples where energy seems to exceed the laws of conservation. I'm sure they can be argued either way. But it may give some pause for thought?
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 13, 2010, 07:03:52 PM
Hi AC. I've just seen this thread. I thought Dave started it and then saw that I was looking at page 2. Very interesting topic.
Just out of interest - say something knocked our planet out of its orbit that it moved closer to the sun. Then it also described a tighter faster orbit around the sun due to it's greater proximity to the sun's mass. Then what? Is the increased orbital velocity a result of a gravitational pull from the sun? Or is that velocity determined by the strength of the impact that first knocked it out of orbit?
...
Rosemary;
It turns out that the tighter the orbit the *higher* the systems energy.
So to get to the surface of the sun from orbit around it takes quite a bit
of energy. (this is opposed to a collision course where there is no orbiting).
So spacecraft use retrorockets to add energy until atmospheric drag
adds enough to have the earth and the spacecraft be in the same inertial
frame.
The opposite of course is true of an increasing orbit. The earth/moon
system looses orbital momentum due to tidal interaction, and the moon
moves away from the earth because of it.
There was an interesting article in an Aviation Magazine on spacecraft
orbital rendezvous techniques that they do in phases because of the
counter intuitive energetic processes of an orbiting spacecraft.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Oh Mr. Tesla what if energy is both static and kinetic. Dave love your work on magnetics. I working on an idea a magnet attraction {static and negative]/ repel {kinetic x2 positive} forces or fields. Rosemary I give you "d' orbital electron". The top tear drop sphere spins c.w. to dominate over the lower sphere spinning c.c.w.
More come later, BobTEW
Quote from: BobTEW on August 16, 2010, 09:46:25 AM
Oh Mr. Tesla what if energy is both static and kinetic. Dave love your work on magnetics. I working on an idea a magnet attraction {static and negative]/ repel {kinetic x2 positive} forces or fields. Rosemary I give you "d' orbital electron". The top tear drop sphere spins c.w. to dominate over the lower sphere spinning c.c.w.
More come later, BobTEW
Hello Bob - welcome to the discussion. Would love to know more about the tear drop sphere spins but have no idea what c.w or c.c.w stand for? Be glad if you could explain. Dave has started his own thread. I'll post a link to it.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9603.msg252833#new
Regards,
Rosemary
@rosemary
I think that cw stands for clockwise and ccw counter clockwise.
Jesus
jesus, i believe you are correct.....rose, thanks for posting that link to that new thread...i appologize if i got carried away on this thread with my stuff.. .here is a question, what has to be in motion, can it be visual motion?..like rising heat?...if so, these devices are at least persistent in their visual motion...david
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9603.msg253069#new
Hi Guys,
That's the link to Dave's new thread. Sorry I was a bit tardy here. And abject apologies to Allcanadian in these extraneous discussions.
Dave - I think the prospect of perpetual motion - as discussed here - relates to the possibility or otherwise of producing work from that motion. That it exists in a perpetual moving state is more or less acknowledged. I may be wrong here but I think that's a fair summation.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 13, 2010, 07:03:52 PM
Hi AC. I've just seen this thread. I thought Dave started it and then saw that I was looking at page 2. Very interesting topic.
Just out of interest - say something knocked our planet out of its orbit that it moved closer to the sun. Then it also described a tighter faster orbit around the sun due to it's greater proximity to the sun's mass. Then what? Is the increased orbital velocity a result of a gravitational pull from the sun? Or is that velocity determined by the strength of the impact that first knocked it out of orbit?
As I'm arguing it here - the force of the impact is entirely dissipated in repositioning it nearer the sun. Yet it develops a greater velocity. And in a second example - the force of impact is NOT entirely dissipated in repositioning it. And yet its velocity is determined by that gravitational proximity that overrides the energy that first repositioned it.
Which means that theoretically, the energy added to the object from the force of impact can be overridden by the force of gravity. What's happened to all that energy that has not yet been dissipated or expressed in that velocity from that early impact?
It is the same in an electric current from an AC supply source. If the electron 'gives up its energy' to, let us say 'heat' in a resistor - then that same electron still returns to its source with the same energy quotient that it had when it first left the source.
Then - using fire as an example. It takes the smallest effort to generate the smallest spark that can generate a conflagration that can entirely consume a whole forest. Yet the energy input to generate that spark required almost no effort at all.
In my opinion there are many, many examples where energy seems to exceed the laws of conservation. I'm sure they can be argued either way. But it may give some pause for thought?
Regards,
Rosemary
The answers to the questions you pose are trivial and I am surprised you are asking them.
I believe the orbit one has already been answered, but essentially, if the planet keeps orbiting the sun at the same speed as before, but is suddenly forced to shift to a closer orbit, the orbital period will decrease. It's like a ball on a tether, winding around a pole, same concept.
With electricity, electrons that bump into obstacles generate heat. So resistance would cause an electron not to make it all the way around, and this is how you lose power over time.
And with fire, are you serious about this? Yes, the initial spark did not require much energy, but it was a catalyst for a large scale chemical reaction that converts mass into energy. The energy of a forest fire comes from the consumption of wood on a mass scale. This goes back to E=MC2, and the laws of conservation of energy are in full effect during a forest fire. As soon as there is no more wood to burn, the fire ends.
I was going to go and read the documents about your invention from the beginning to see if I could grasp it, since you seemed to be a serious scientist, but now I think it would be a waste of time, if you seriously hold the positions you just described.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on August 18, 2010, 10:01:39 AM
The answers to the questions you pose are trivial and I am surprised you are asking them.
I believe the orbit one has already been answered, but essentially, if the planet keeps orbiting the sun at the same speed as before, but is suddenly forced to shift to a closer orbit, the orbital period will decrease. It's like a ball on a tether, winding around a pole, same concept.
With electricity, electrons that bump into obstacles generate heat. So resistance would cause an electron not to make it all the way around, and this is how you lose power over time.
And with fire, are you serious about this? Yes, the initial spark did not require much energy, but it was a catalyst for a large scale chemical reaction that converts mass into energy. The energy of a forest fire comes from the consumption of wood on a mass scale. This goes back to E=MC2, and the laws of conservation of energy are in full effect during a forest fire. As soon as there is no more wood to burn, the fire ends.
I was going to go and read the documents about your invention from the beginning to see if I could grasp it, since you seemed to be a serious scientist, but now I think it would be a waste of time, if you seriously hold the positions you just described.
Hello shruggedatlas. Feel free to entertain your opinions. No doubt they're valid. I have no interest in arguing the merits of something that is dismissed out of hand. And you've both missed and dismissed the point of my post - entirely.
regards,
Rosemary
@shruggedatlas,
I agree it's a waste of time to read Rosemary's stuff because her claims are entirely groundless let alone that she demonstrated complete lack of basic understanding in chemistry and physics.
However, let me ask you what are you talking about:
QuoteYes, the initial spark did not require much energy, but it was a catalyst for a large scale chemical reaction that converts mass into energy.
You don't know that there's no conversion of mass into energy in chemical reactions, is that it? Please correct that at once because it's embarrassing.
Quote from: Omnibus on August 18, 2010, 10:11:19 AM
You don't know that there's no conversion of mass into energy in chemical reactions, is that it? Please correct that at once because it's embarrassing.
I am not a scientist, so I may have used the wrong terminology. But I think that fire is basically oxygen combining with molecules from the fuel, which happens at an appropriate heat level. Energy is also released during this process.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on August 18, 2010, 10:01:39 AM
The answers to the questions you pose are trivial and I am surprised you are asking them.
I believe the orbit one has already been answered, but essentially, if the planet keeps orbiting the sun at the same speed as before, but is suddenly forced to shift to a closer orbit, the orbital period will decrease. It's like a ball on a tether, winding around a pole, same concept.
Yes, conservation of momentum, Coriolis, etc... Heil to free energy kicks and knocks..
Quote
With electricity, electrons that bump into obstacles generate heat. So resistance would cause an electron not to make it all the way around, and this is how you lose power over time.
What do you mean by electron would not to make it all the way around? ...loosing power over time???
You should check up Mr. Gustav Kirchoff... There are some LAWS named after him.... Think about his 1st one... An electrotechnical equivalent of CoE... Conservation of charge? Anyone? Ah, sorry...
Quote
And with fire, are you serious about this? Yes, the initial spark did not require much energy, but it was a catalyst for a large scale chemical reaction that converts mass into energy. The energy of a forest fire comes from the consumption of wood on a mass scale. This goes back to E=MC2, and the laws of conservation of energy are in full effect during a forest fire. As soon as there is no more wood to burn, the fire ends.
Chemical reactions do not have anything with the E=mc2 equation...
With a wood (or even any chemical reaction/oxidation) burning, there actually isn't any mass to energy conversion happening...
This is a common knowledge, widely known even on the primary school chemistry level... Hell, even OmniBot knows that...
Quote
I was going to go and read the documents about your invention from the beginning to see if I could grasp it, since you seemed to be a serious scientist, but now I think it would be a waste of time, if you seriously hold the positions you just described.
There's not even one active member on this site, who can claim about himself that he (she) is a REAL scientist....
Surely you knew that?
Unless, of course, you really think that OmniBot is a scientist? :-)
When an object is in obrit, such as the earth orbiting the sun,
or even our own satellites orbiting the earth (moon excluded due to extra variables)
is orbits in a near-perfect balance bewteen gravitational pull and centrifugal outward-force. gravity slightly wins this battle, but the balance is so close that the wind-down of orbital circumference is very slow. This can only occur when the planet or object enters the attraction field at relatively tangential angles to the gravitational sphere. If the object is vectorally directed on a path too perpendicular, or to obtuse the object will either crash into the mass, or fly right past it. the materials that formed the planets in our solar system, passed the sun at just the appropriate angle to become trapped in their circling-spiral towards the center of the sun.
if you take a ball, and wrap a think wire around it concentrically, like a pancake-coil. then stretch this up like a spring.
now cut each "ring" seperate, and flatten them all out so they piece together like a jugsaw puzzle, of concenrtic spirals.
each ring represents a single orbit around the mass (sun, earth, atom, ect). without an outside force interfering with its velocity, as the satellite moves into each closer ring, its velocity will increase with the increase of strength of the gravitational field.
This is very similar to magnetism, except that the gravitational field changes with both distance AND time, whereas the magnetic field only changes with distance. - they are both caused by the same force, but the differences between the two manifestations could take up an entire other thread to explain. The gravitational force at each closer ring is stronger than the ring before, and this is where the energy is drawn from to accelerate the orbital velocity of the satellite.
When the satellite slows down, due to outside interactions, it (normally) moves to a closer orbit to the mass, which accelerates the satellite, until it either enters into a collisional vector, or regains the orbital-balance, of pull in both directions.
When the satellite is sped-up by outside interactions, it moves to an orbit further away from the mass. more centrifugal force pulling it outward, until enough time and distance pass than the mass can begin to slow it down again, and the ortibal balance is one again at equilibrium. If too much energy was transfered into the satellite from an outside collision, it can free the satellite completely from the gravitational field and it will fly off into space.
This is identicle to what occurs around the atomic structure.
its not perpetual motion, but it is very very close.
The remaining "half-life" of our solar system is longer than the expected life-span of our sun. But all one has to do is look at Mercury, to see what happens to an electron as it about to collide into an atomic nuclii.
When you analyize the vectoral direction of the electron spin, at this moment, you will begin to understand the true nature of atomic radiation, and the interactions that take place when the atom "decays" into another type of element.
When you analyze an orbit, you must consider the two perpendicular forces towards and away from the gravitational field, as well as the forward momentum. Momentum is always conserved, but an increase or decrease in the force of the gravitational field translates into velocity changes in the satellite.
minus the energy required to offset its momentum.
the energy of the field is exponentially greater mass for mass than the energy added to the satellite as it moves to a closer distance.
Meaning there is exponentially more energy contained in the field than is required to acellerate the satellite to its orbital-velocity.
Take for instance a coil, positioned in a stationary magnetic field.
due to the magnetic interactions between the nucleus and the magnetic field, the electrons assume a particular energy level, and thus establish an associated orbit around the copper atom.
When you move this coil towards the magnet, electricity flows through the coil. The energy you put into the coil to move it closer, is offset perfectly by the lorent'z force, holding you back.
so, "where" does this energy come from?? It comes from the field itself, and the fact that the coil is moving through it.
As the field-strength becomes greater, the magnetic interactions become more intense, and the electron assumes a higher energy-state. if you move far enough into the field, and at a fast enough rate, the electrons will "fly" out of their atomic-orbit and travel along the conductive path of the wire.
This would be similar to hitting the earth from behind with a fast moving asteroid and accelerating it to an orbit further out, or out of orbit completely.
Nothing we observe is in a state of true "pertual motion", but everything seems to be moving perpetually.
There are fields of energy everywhere, and when one orbit breaks down, the mass will be captured and accelerated into another orbit, starting the whole process over again.
like an electron breaking free from an atom, only to be captured into orbit by an ion nearby, and then accelerated back up orbital velocity.
These fields of energy exist on every level, from the smallest we can imagine, to the largest of scales we can comprehend.
To the point that we cannot create an area of space void of all energy, much less figure out a way to measure it if we did.
There is infinite energy all around us, thats why everything is in perpetual motion. Mercury may one day crash into the sun, when its orbit decays, and it will be consumed by the sun, and spat out of spews of dust, light, and radiation.
and Mercury ( or rather its pieces) will travel on through the universe on route to their next semi-perpetual destiny.
We know a great deal about these fields, where they come from, how to interact with them,
its just a matter of utilzying the fields of energy at the right time, and in the right way to achieve a desired outcome.