The argument for pepetual motion

[onepower]

rakarskiy

The Law of Conservation of Energy is valid only for a closed system.

It's debatable, if we have a box made of particles and fields full of particles and fields can it exclude particles and fields when all are already present and constitute energy?.

Do you see the dilemma?. Feynman/wheeler claimed even a cup sized volume of space in a perfect vacuum still contains enough energy to boil the Earth's oceans. Most other physicists claimed every space contains virtual particles popping in and out of existence which also constitutes an unimaginable amount of energy. Others claimed billions of neutrino's and other exotic particles are perpetually moving through every space thus all matter as well.

Which begs the question, when all the greatest minds in physics who often won a Nobel prize for there work claim there is really no such thing as a closed system should we believe them?.

AC

[adrouk]

Absolutely agree.
However patent office wants  to know how you did it.
Kapanadze didn't know why it works but how to build it /
His application was rejected.

So if for example this  transformer (toroidal transformer)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPXtiJaSiKA
was popular enough in 50ties  instead of this one:
https://edisontechcenter.org/Transformers.html
it  would be cheaper now than  regular  one, using transformer silicon steel sheets
the same was with   first  microwave  it was 50k and now is $120.
But for that  Patent had to be approved. some time ago only 
because they could explain  why it works.
So any "magic" device  presenting  whatever (possible  or impossible)  needs inventor  ability  to explain it.

However in USA if you come to PO and put on the table working device ,  they must examine it.
and can not deny patent if it works despite  your  ability to explain  how it works.
minimum paper  work is required.
Wesley

Seriously ? What about Joseph Newman ? Rejected patent as his device being a perpetual motion machine.

I can tell you what would work: build it, teach others how to replicate, use it make everything open source and leave all academia to catch their heads while most of people can benefit in spite of gov/military/ whatsoever.

I really don't care what any patent office might say about an device that I can build to use any kind of energy that can't be taxed or measured as long as it work it will be enough to get only 1 in the open source and all this crap will vanish together with all thin credibility exhibited by outrageous unscrupulous individuals and organisations all around the world. And it will happen soon.

Although USPTO rejected Newman's patent application but they allowed this patent https://patents.google.com/patent/US11588421B1/en for describing some other inventors work.

Patent office lately have become an extension arm of some robbery society.

And I can see you Wesley being first to jump on defence for suppression of free energy with al kind of fake analyses and conclusions that twist the truth.

[Eighthman]

As to free energy and magnets,  why couldn't an electron gun (filament as with vacuum tubes) emit electrons that are accelerated in a straight line by permanent magnets that increase in strength, one after the other, towards a conductive target.  So, there would be increased voltage and heat freely created  ?


It would be similar to a klystron or linear accelerator except without external electrical input.

[rakarskiy]

rakarskiy
It's debatable, if we have a box made of particles and fields full of particles and fields can it exclude particles and fields when all are already present and constitute energy?.

Do you see the dilemma?. Feynman/wheeler claimed even a cup sized volume of space in a perfect vacuum still contains enough energy to boil the Earth's oceans. Most other physicists claimed every space contains virtual particles popping in and out of existence which also constitutes an unimaginable amount of energy. Others claimed billions of neutrino's and other exotic particles are perpetually moving through every space thus all matter as well.

Which begs the question, when all the greatest minds in physics who often won a Nobel prize for there work claim there is really no such thing as a closed system should we believe them?.

AC

Philosophy and reality are very different things. We cannot use a very small period of time in the Universe (1000 years on earth) as a dimension for an experiment. In general we do not operate with the concept of multidimensional medium of space, we cannot control time and in general we are insignificant before what we study.

Our galaxy is expanding, it would not be possible, if the Law of Conservation of Energy is fulfilled!

[onepower]

rakarskiy

Our galaxy is expanding, it would not be possible, if the Law of Conservation of Energy is fulfilled!

It's problematic when many only look at one side of the equation of cause and effect...

For example, our Sun is a star and it will continue to radiate/expand energy until it turns into a red giant and explodes scattering all it's material out into the universe.

Which begs the question, if energy always radiates how did the star form in the first place?. Energy radiates but it also gravitates and the force of gravity brought all the stars material/fuel together initially. Thus a star is an energy converter, gravity brought the materials together starting the fusion reaction which is now radiating the energy it was given. This radiated energy is absorbed by other bodies which will eventually gravitate forming new stars and the cycle continues.

Do you see the pattern?, energy is always changing in form however the forms are cyclical. That which radiates at some point is absorbed and must then gravitate and repeat the radiation/gravitation energy cycle. This is why the conservation of energy must always hold. Thus the Conservation of energy can be defined by one question, if energy is radiated somewhere where does it go?. It just keeps going until it is absorbed by something else, ergo the Conservation of Energy.

Which of course always comes full circle back to the same old question... what is energy?.

AC