magnetmotor
gdew...@gmail.com
I think I've found real prove.
I obviously need professional help.
Please, share your thoughts....
Eric Gisse
> Hello, I had this wonderful idea for a permanent magnet motor but now
> I think I've found real prove.
>
> I obviously need professional help.
Obviously.
"People say perpetual motion is an impossibility but I just had to
find out by my self. The more I looked into it the more it looked like
it could be done. After some playing-around with magnets I've come to
the following design."
>
> Please, share your thoughts....
Learn some physics that way you can stop wasting everyone's time.
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor
gdew...@gmail.com
Thank you for your reply,
but you didn't look at anything?
gdew...@gmail.com
In a1 the magnets attract another,
in a2 the magnets repel another.
In a3 the magnets both repel and attract resulting in a rotational
pull.
The pull and the push are about the same size. Therefor the magnet at
the left is almost infinitely more influenced by this interaction as
the one at the right.
Eric Gisse
I saw perpetual motion, and knew you were an idiot. Then I saw
magnets, and I figured out what kind of an idiot.
Androcles
<gdew...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1170914424.8...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Hahahahahahahahahahaha...ha... ha....wheeze...groan....sob.
I'll bet you are the first 12-year-old to think of that. Not.
.-- .- -... -. .. --. @.-----.DOT.-- Helmut Wabnig
Hmm, very close to somebody other's webpages,
nice graphic, zero content.....
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
w.
Sam Wormley
> Hello, I had this wonderful idea for a permanent magnet motor but now
> I think I've found real prove.
>
Second Law applies
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SecondLawofThermodynamics.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics
gdew...@gmail.com
Sam Wormley
Everything, including permanent magnet motors.
gdew...@gmail.com
@ .- --- -. DOT .- -> wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 07:53:13 GMT, "Androcles"
>
>
>
>
> ><gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1170914424.8...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> >>http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/ppm-theory.jpg
>
> >> In a1 the magnets attract another,
>
> >> in a2 the magnets repel another.
>
> >> In a3 the magnets both repel and attract resulting in a rotational
> >> pull.
>
> >> The pull and the push are about the same size. Therefor the magnet at
> >> the left is almost infinitely more influenced by this interaction as
> >> the one at the right.
>
> >>http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-theory
>
> >Hahahahahahahahahahaha...ha... ha....wheeze...groan....sob.
> >I'll bet you are the first 12-year-old to think of that. Not.
>
> Hmm, very close to somebody other's webpages,
> nice graphic, zero content.....
>
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
>
> w.
You accuse me of coping content. Where is your evidence for this far-
fetched claim? You are clearly delusional.
This is my mini site, so-far no-one made it across the index?
The drawings are all my own and the photos of the flux where taken for
me.
PAGE 1 - INDEX
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor
PAGE 2 - PARTS
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-parts
PAGE 3 - DRAING
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-drawing
PAGE 4 - THEORY
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-theory
Please, a comment on my design.
.
gdew...@gmail.com
You cant prove this law. It's 100% assumption.
So I suggest you go back to looking at the evidence.
Can you assume looking at my design?
I was already aware of the conversation of energy mental illness.
If 2 vectors point in opposite direction their product is ZERO
No denial of facts applies here.
.
Autymn D. C.
Nothing: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Autymn+thèrmodunamics
gdew...@gmail.com
this was an assumption.
You didn't feel like looking at the very thing you ended up reviewing.
All theories are build upon consensus.
Consensus can only happen if you have decency.
Decency is conformity to sociocultural standards of conduct and
speech.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decency
So you should buy that first.
Phineas T Puddleduck
"gdew...@gmail.com" <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 4:55 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > gdewi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Feb 8, 1:58 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > >> gdewi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>> Hello, I had this wonderful idea for a permanent magnet motor but now
> > >>> I think I've found real prove.
> > >> Second Law applies
> > >> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SecondLawofThermodynamics.ht
> > >> ml
> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics
> >
> > > applys to what?????????????????????
> >
> > Everything, including permanent magnet motors.
>
> You cant prove this law. It's 100% assumption.
Then please go ahead and prove it wrong ----- A Nobel prize awaits!
You will forgive the vast majority of people not holding their breath though. A
new poster appears with the same claim approximately every month.
--
<-Coffee Boy-> = Preferably white, with two sugars
Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.
Sam Wormley
> You can[']t prove this law. It's 100% assumption.
>
> So I suggest you go back to looking at the evidence.
>
Your ignorance [about the Second Law of Thermodynamics]
is your problem, not mine.
Phineas T Puddleduck
> Nothing: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Autymn+thčrmodunamics
This shtick about diacriticals and deliberate dyslexia is pretty lame. It does
nothing to hide your ignorance.
gdew...@gmail.com
I'm not being ignorant. You are the one who thinks he can dismiss
something he didn't look at.
This is real ignorance if there ever was any.
My hours of work against your 3 second shit sling.
You can do better as this.
.
.
Phineas T Puddleduck
"gdew...@gmail.com" <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not being ignorant. You are the one who thinks he can dismiss
> something he didn't look at.
>
> This is real ignorance if there ever was any.
>
> My hours of work against your 3 second shit sling.
>
> You can do better as this.
Go ahead and prove thermodynamics wrong then!
gdew...@gmail.com
<phineaspuddled...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> In article <1170951806.612974.216...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 8, 7:55 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > > gdewi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Feb 8, 1:58 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > > >> gdewi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>> Hello, I had this wonderful idea for a permanent magnet motor but now
> > > >>> I think I've found real prove.
> > > >> Second Law applies
> > > >> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SecondLawofThermodynamics.ht
> > > >> ml
> > > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics
>
> > > > applys to what?????????????????????
>
> > > Everything, including permanent magnet motors.
>
>
> This shtick about diacriticals and deliberate dyslexia is pretty lame. It does
> nothing to hide your ignorance.
>
> --
> <-Coffee Boy-> = Preferably white, with two sugars
> Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.
I agree my grammar is bad but it's not bad enough to prevent me from
writing. This is why my design is 90% drawings.
you have to compensate, the few out of place letters should not
prevent this.
Do you feel I should give up on writing all together?
please stay on-topic and comment the invention not the inventor.
.
gdew...@gmail.com
<phineaspuddled...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> In article <1170951684.821957.41...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
and you ignore all of them?
But thanks for the reference I'm going to look at all of them now. :-)
.
Phineas T Puddleduck
"gdew...@gmail.com" <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I agree my grammar is bad but it's not bad enough to prevent me from
> writing. This is why my design is 90% drawings.
>
> you have to compensate, the few out of place letters should not
> prevent this.
>
> Do you feel I should give up on writing all together?
>
> please stay on-topic and comment the invention not the inventor.
So are you Autumn DC - who that post was in REPLY to?
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> On Feb 8, 7:29 am, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 7, 8:46 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 8, 6:34 am, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Feb 7, 8:22 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Hello, I had this wonderful idea for a permanent magnet motor but now
> > > > > I think I've found real prove.
> >
> > > > > I obviously need professional help.
> >
> > > > Obviously.
> >
> > > > "People say perpetual motion is an impossibility but I just had to
> > > > find out by my self. The more I looked into it the more it looked like
> > > > it could be done. After some playing-around with magnets I've come to
> > > > the following design."
> >
> > > > > Please, share your thoughts....
> >
> > > > Learn some physics that way you can stop wasting everyone's time.
> >
> > > > >http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor
> >
> > > Thank you for your reply,
> >
> > > but you didn't look at anything?
> >
> > I saw perpetual motion, and knew you were an idiot. Then I saw
> > magnets, and I figured out what kind of an idiot.
> this was an assumption.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
> You didn't feel like looking at the very thing you ended up reviewing.
> All theories are build upon consensus.
If by "consensus" you mean idependantly reproducable experiments, then
yes.
> Consensus can only happen if you have decency.
Babbling nonsense; science takes no notice of human presonality and is
what it is whether or not anyone likes it or the person advancing the
theory.
> Decency is conformity to sociocultural standards of conduct and
> speech.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decency
> So you should buy that first.
More babbling nonsense; you want to feel loved, join a support group,
you want to do science, do an experiment.
Go look for your magnet motore here:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Phineas T Puddleduck
"gdew...@gmail.com" <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> and you ignore all of them?
>
Yep because they make the same basic mistakes
> But thanks for the reference I'm going to look at all of them now. :-)
Go ahead. Knock yourself out.
gdew...@gmail.com
There is nothing interesting on that website. The author lacks all
decency. You have explained why you actively ignore magnet motors but
you haven't looked at anything. This makes your post spam. Hard to
believe isn't it?
Further more, when we combine 1 part of attraction and 1 part of
repulsion the product is ZERO.
It does not add up.
What part of this you don't agree with?
gdew...@gmail.com
<phineaspuddled...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> In article <1170952854.792963.293...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree my grammar is bad but it's not bad enough to prevent me from
> > writing. This is why my design is 90% drawings.
>
> > you have to compensate, the few out of place letters should not
> > prevent this.
>
> > Do you feel I should give up on writing all together?
>
> > please stay on-topic and comment the invention not the inventor.
>
> So are you Autumn DC - who that post was in REPLY to?
>
> --
> <-Coffee Boy-> = Preferably white, with two sugars
> Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.
this post was in reply to this one:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/12d2da635d160a9c
Phineas T Puddleduck
"gdew...@gmail.com" <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is nothing interesting on that website. The author lacks all
> decency. You have explained why you actively ignore magnet motors but
> you haven't looked at anything. This makes your post spam. Hard to
> believe isn't it?
Its hard to believe you're not an imbecile. You seem obsessed that science is
writen by the most genteel, not the most accurate,
>
> Further more, when we combine 1 part of attraction and 1 part of
> repulsion the product is ZERO.
>
> It does not add up.
>
> What part of this you don't agree with?
The part where you seem to think you can disobey thermodynamics? Have you taken
any basic physics courses?
Phineas T Puddleduck
"gdew...@gmail.com" <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sigh. Get a proper newsreader
heres the post - follow the headers maroon: Note Autumn wrote the line about
google groups, to which I replied.
The fact you can't use USENET properly isn't exactly a glowing recommendation
of your analytical skills.
In article <1170951806.6...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Autymn D. C." <lysd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 7:55 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > gdewi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Feb 8, 1:58 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > >> gdewi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>> Hello, I had this wonderful idea for a permanent magnet motor but now
> > >>> I think I've found real prove.
> > >> Second Law applies
> > >> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SecondLawofThermodynamics.ht
> > >> ml
> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics
> >
> > > applys to what?????????????????????
> >
> > Everything, including permanent magnet motors.
>
> Nothing: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Autymn+thčrmodunamics
This shtick about diacriticals and deliberate dyslexia is pretty lame. It does
nothing to hide your ignorance.
--------
gdew...@gmail.com
<phineaspuddled...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> In article <1170952355.313596.89...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm not being ignorant. You are the one who thinks he can dismiss
> > something he didn't look at.
>
> > This is real ignorance if there ever was any.
>
> > My hours of work against your 3 second shit sling.
>
> > You can do better as this.
>
> Go ahead and prove thermodynamics wrong then!
>
I claim to have done just that. But as you refuse to even look at it
we can only attempt to get passed your fixed believe system.
The church authorities already knew earth was the center of the
universe, so they didn't have to look true Galileo's telescope.
gdew...@gmail.com
<phineaspuddled...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> In article <1170953862.083934.108...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 8, 5:44 pm, Phineas T Puddleduck
> > <phineaspuddled...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > In article <1170952854.792963.293...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I agree my grammar is bad but it's not bad enough to prevent me from
> > > > writing. This is why my design is 90% drawings.
>
> > > > you have to compensate, the few out of place letters should not
> > > > prevent this.
>
> > > > Do you feel I should give up on writing all together?
>
> > > > please stay on-topic and comment the invention not the inventor.
>
> > > So are you Autumn DC - who that post was in REPLY to?
>
> > > --
> > > <-Coffee Boy-> = Preferably white, with two sugars
> > > Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.
>
> > this post was in reply to this one:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/12d2da635d160a9c
>
> Sigh. Get a proper newsreader
>
> heres the post - follow the headers maroon: Note Autumn wrote the line about
> google groups, to which I replied.
>
> The fact you can't use USENET properly isn't exactly a glowing recommendation
> of your analytical skills.
>
> "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 8, 7:55 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > > gdewi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Feb 8, 1:58 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > > >> gdewi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>> Hello, I had this wonderful idea for a permanent magnet motor but now
> > > >>> I think I've found real prove.
> > > >> Second Law applies
> > > >> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SecondLawofThermodynamics.ht
> > > >> ml
> > > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics
>
> > > > applys to what?????????????????????
>
> > > Everything, including permanent magnet motors.
>
>
> This shtick about diacriticals and deliberate dyslexia is pretty lame. It does
> nothing to hide your ignorance.
>
> --------
>
> --
> <-Coffee Boy-> = Preferably white, with two sugars
> Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.
I'm using google groups.
Phineas T Puddleduck
Phineas T Puddleduck <phineasp...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> In article <1170953680.5...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
> "gdew...@gmail.com" <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There is nothing interesting on that website. The author lacks all
> > decency. You have explained why you actively ignore magnet motors but
> > you haven't looked at anything. This makes your post spam. Hard to
> > believe isn't it?
>
> Its hard to believe you're not an imbecile. You seem obsessed that science is
> writen by the most genteel, not the most accurate,
> >
> > Further more, when we combine 1 part of attraction and 1 part of
> > repulsion the product is ZERO.
> >
> > It does not add up.
> >
> > What part of this you don't agree with?
>
> The part where you seem to think you can disobey thermodynamics? Have you
> taken
> any basic physics courses?
I find this hysterical - from this guys blog
unified apocalyptic theory
December 24th, 2006 by gaby
Itąs far worse, people are not fools, they are sheep. The most important
subjects can not even be discussed. Iąm not even sure if I can myself.
Lets make the reallyŠ reallyŠ. reallyŠ.. long story shortŠ..
Only a huge invention can steer our titanic around the iceberg we are heading
towards. Mankind desperately needs some incredibly efficient power source.
I donąt want to talk about theater wars, over population, global diseases, the
dollar going kaput, oil running out etc wtc etc.
Second of all itąs much to upsetting and First of all it all boils down to the
same thing.
Do you think we can live on this planet with 50 000 000 000 without any
industry? What kind of life expectancy do the survivors have in a world of
corpses? Would you want to live in that place?
I present to you the unified apocalyptic theory
First of all, we are perfectly happy itąs all going to end, it was all planed
this way by ourselves.
The theory prescribes itąs better to list previous civilisations and the
disasters they didnąt survive. As it is to look for an actual solution. We cant
argue with the planning of our fellow man.
When we argue there is so much historical events of hightech civilizations
doing the self-destructo-polonaise we have evident prove self destruction is
inevitable on our side.
People who argue it isnąt so are to be made fun of. They cant come up with a
shred of proof.
This makes the UAT teh supreme theory.
I think he thinks his two magnets is going to give us all unlimited power.
Phineas T Puddleduck
"gdew...@gmail.com" <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I claim to have done just that. But as you refuse to even look at it
> we can only attempt to get passed your fixed believe system.
>
> The church authorities already knew earth was the center of the
> universe, so they didn't have to look true Galileo's telescope.
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor
BWAHAHAHHAHAH
So please explain exactly WHY this works and no other design did?
I can't even begin to describe where you're wrong without laughing.
Phineas T Puddleduck
"gdew...@gmail.com" <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm using google groups.
I guessed that. So, why haven 't you built this miraculous device and fed
countless Jigawatts back into the Dutch National Grid yet?
gdew...@gmail.com
<phineaspuddled...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> In article <phineaspuddleduck-45A197.17010208022...@news.octanews.com>,> > In article <1170953680.587718.101...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
> > "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > There is nothing interesting on that website. The author lacks all
> > > decency. You have explained why you actively ignore magnet motors but
> > > you haven't looked at anything. This makes your post spam. Hard to
> > > believe isn't it?
>
> > Its hard to believe you're not an imbecile. You seem obsessed that science is
> > writen by the most genteel, not the most accurate,
>
> > > Further more, when we combine 1 part of attraction and 1 part of
> > > repulsion the product is ZERO.
>
> > > It does not add up.
>
> > > What part of this you don't agree with?
>
> > The part where you seem to think you can disobey thermodynamics? Have you
> > taken
> > any basic physics courses?
>
> I find this hysterical - from this guys blog
>
> unified apocalyptic theory
> December 24th, 2006 by gaby
> subjects can not even be discussed. I¹m not even sure if I can myself.
> Lets make the reallyŠ reallyŠ. reallyŠ.. long story shortŠ..
> Only a huge invention can steer our titanic around the iceberg we are heading
> towards. Mankind desperately needs some incredibly efficient power source.
> dollar going kaput, oil running out etc wtc etc.
> same thing.
> Do you think we can live on this planet with 50 000 000 000 without any
> industry? What kind of life expectancy do the survivors have in a world of
> corpses? Would you want to live in that place?
> I present to you the unified apocalyptic theory
> this way by ourselves.
> The theory prescribes it¹s better to list previous civilisations and the
> disasters they didn¹t survive. As it is to look for an actual solution. We cant
> argue with the planning of our fellow man.
> When we argue there is so much historical events of hightech civilizations
> doing the self-destructo-polonaise we have evident prove self destruction is
> inevitable on our side.
> shred of proof.
> This makes the UAT teh supreme theory.
>
> I think he thinks his two magnets is going to give us all unlimited power.
>
> --
> <-Coffee Boy-> = Preferably white, with two sugars
> Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.
The fact you found it worth quoting means it's priceless.
There just isn't any way for you to avoid this fact.
^___^
.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
What part of what?
All I see here is a bunch of egotistical (I have found the TRUTH, the
world is wrong), babbling, uneducated, nonsense.
If you had any decency, you would study what those before you have
spent untold millions of hours to produce.
However, if you were to do that, you would come to the conclusion your
magnet motor is ancient nonsense and your fragile little ego can't
handle that, so you choose to remain ignorant.
Phineas T Puddleduck
The seemingly mysterious ability of magnets to influence motion at a distance
without any apparent energy source has long appealed to inventors. However, a
constant magnetic field does not do work because the force it exerts on a
charged particle is always at right angles to its motion; a changing field can
do work, but requires energy to sustain. A "fixed" magnet can do work, but
energy is dissipated in the process, typically weakening the magnet's strength
over time. Thus, when a magnet does work by lifting an iron weight, potential
energy is converted to kinetic energy. Once the iron hits the magnet its
kinetic energy is converted to heat and sound. In order to release further
energy, the iron must be moved away from the magnet. This converts the energy
of your arm to potential energy again. Since the energy of parting the magnet
and iron is identical to the energy released as the magnet and iron come
together, no net energy can be gained by changing the iron - magnet distance.
http://www.crank.net/perpetual.html
http://www.jimloy.com/physics/perpet.htm
http://www.wondermagnet.com/magfaq.html#q17
Why won't my perpetual motion machine work?
Perpetual motion machines are one of the true holy grails of physics;
unfortunately, perpetual motion machines do NOT EXIST according to the
currently accepted theories. They are denied by the Three Laws of
Thermodynamics, which are proven by statistical mechanics, which is derived
from quantum mechanics, which has been verified experimentally enough that it
would be silly to deny it!
The First Law of Thermodynamics states that Energy is Conserved. This means
that the total energy of a closed system must remain constant. The universe,
considered as a closed system, thus has constant energy.
Energy exists in many forms: as heat, kinetic (motion) energy, and potential
(gravitational, electric, and magnetic) energy, to name a few. The energy can
change from one form to another. It can also pass from one system to another.
Still, the total energy of a closed system will always be constant. You can
neither create nor destroy energy; it always moves elsewhere.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that The entropy of a closed system
must always increase. The entropy is a measure of the disorder of a system. If
you consider the universe itself as a closed system, then the entropy of the
universe must always increase. Therefore, the universe is continually moving
towards a state of greater disorder!
Consider a glass of water, sitting initially on a table. You decide to push it
off the edge and it shatters into fragments. It is now in a more disordered
state, so it has greater entropy. The process can never reverse itself; you
can't reassemble the glass and put the water back in it.
Now a perpetual motion machine has, by definition, moving parts. The motion
results in the transfer of heat through friction and air resistance. This
results in a loss of energy by the device; the First Law implies that the total
energy of the universe is conserved, so the energy is actually being
transferred elsewhere.
Assuming you don't add energy to this system, its energy will continually
decrease and its entropy will likewise increase. Eventually it will slow and
stop. Therefore, there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine.
However, you're welcome to try...
Phineas T Puddleduck
"gdew...@gmail.com" <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The fact you found it worth quoting means it's priceless.
>
> There just isn't any way for you to avoid this fact.
>
> ^___^
The fact you found it worth writing is indicative of deep mental issues. The fact you have to add the disclaimer of "If you argue against me you must be wrong" is symptomatic of megalomania
gdew...@gmail.com
<phineaspuddled...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> In article <1170954450.629869.45...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm using google groups.
>
> I guessed that. So, why haven 't you built this miraculous device and fed
> countless Jigawatts back into the Dutch National Grid yet?
>
> --
> <-Coffee Boy-> = Preferably white, with two sugars
> Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.
Your own posts are undeniable evidence of what happens with inventions
like this.
This you cant try at home.
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/self-interaction.jpg
My 90 degree rule dictates:
"the combined forces of repulsion and attraction may 'add up' to
zero".
I stitch together an animated gif
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/fffxrr.gif
Now where is your debunk? With just knee jerking you are not going to
prove anything.
There is no escape, I know when I'm right. :---)
Phineas T Puddleduck
"gdew...@gmail.com" <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Your own posts are undeniable evidence of what happens with inventions
> like this.
>
> This you cant try at home.
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/self-interaction.jpg
>
> My 90 degree rule dictates:
>
> "the combined forces of repulsion and attraction may 'add up' to
> zero".
>
> I stitch together an animated gif
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/fffxrr.gif
>
> Now where is your debunk? With just knee jerking you are not going to
> prove anything.
>
> There is no escape, I know when I'm right. :---)
We have a saying here in the UK - The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
The fact you haven't built this device is proof you're full of it!
The debunk is simple. If you're so right, you'd have built it by now. Four
wheels and some magnets, come on man its not exactly a synchrotron.
Of course the other alternative is you're just trolling...
gdew...@gmail.com
Nice logic trap. You can not know what the outcome of that research
before doing it either.
Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895 "Heavier-than-air flying
machines are impossible."
Phineas T Puddleduck
"gdew...@gmail.com" <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nice logic trap. You can not know what the outcome of that research
> before doing it either.
>
> Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895 "Heavier-than-air flying
> machines are impossible."
You're just a regular little bag of logical fallacies tied together aren't you.
Tell you what - build it, get it to work and prove us wrong. Till then, stop
playing the matryr.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
<snip>
> The fact you found it worth quoting means it's priceless.
> There just isn't any way for you to avoid this fact.
There are several Abbott and Costello routines that are priceless and
just as scientific.
Who's on first?
gdew...@gmail.com
<phineaspuddled...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> In article <1170955733.050557.249...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Your own posts are undeniable evidence of what happens with inventions
> > like this.
>
> > This you cant try at home.
>
> >http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/self-interaction.jpg
>
> > My 90 degree rule dictates:
>
> > "the combined forces of repulsion and attraction may 'add up' to
> > zero".
>
> > I stitch together an animated gif
>
> >http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/fffxrr.gif
>
> > Now where is your debunk? With just knee jerking you are not going to
> > prove anything.
>
> > There is no escape, I know when I'm right. :---)
>
> We have a saying here in the UK - The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
> The fact you haven't built this device is proof you're full of it!
>
> The debunk is simple. If you're so right, you'd have built it by now. Four
> wheels and some magnets, come on man its not exactly a synchrotron.
>
lets not get things confused? Your effort is minimal compared to mine
so you are trolling my stuff. Again you not just start reviewing the
inventor in stead of the invention but you actually claim to know what
I have build and what I have not. Please supply evidence of this far-
fetched claim.
I want to share the idea and discuss the subject.
I am convinced you can understand my super simple explanation.
If you don't understand it: " give me a chance to explain"
if you desperately wish to disprove it "explain how the magnets are
equally influenced by the interaction in contrast with the flux
photos" .
Don't confuse the subject.
Phineas T Puddleduck
"gdew...@gmail.com" <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> lets not get things confused? Your effort is minimal compared to mine
> so you are trolling my stuff. Again you not just start reviewing the
> inventor in stead of the invention but you actually claim to know what
> I have build and what I have not. Please supply evidence of this far-
> fetched claim.
>
> I want to share the idea and discuss the subject.
>
> I am convinced you can understand my super simple explanation.
>
> If you don't understand it: " give me a chance to explain"
>
> if you desperately wish to disprove it "explain how the magnets are
> equally influenced by the interaction in contrast with the flux
> photos" .
>
> Don't confuse the subject.
Patents
Devising such inoperable machines has become common enough that the United
States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has made an official policy of
refusing to grant patents for perpetual motion machines without a working
model. One reason for this concern, according to various skeptics, is that a
few "inventors" have used official patents to convince gullible potential
investors that their machine is "approved" by the Patent Office.
Sam Wormley
>
> I'm not being ignorant. You are the one who thinks he can dismiss
> something he didn't look at.
>
> This is real ignorance if there ever was any.
>
> My hours of work against your 3 second shit sling.
>
> You can do better as this.
>
I have the advantage (some call it education) that the
second law of thermodynamics applies to physical systems
that you post about. Why you can't question your own
work is beyond me.
Scientist must question their own work... they have to
be sure they are not fooling themselves.
The second law of thermodynamics prohibits the construction
of a perpetual motion machine "of the second kind." I would
think you would at least want to understand why!
Sam Wormley
> I claim to have done just that. But as you refuse to even look at it
> we can only attempt to get passed your fixed believe system.
>
> The church authorities already knew earth was the center of the
> universe, so they didn't have to look true Galileo's telescope.
>
Similarly, gdewilde, knows his device works, so he doesn't have to
look into the second law of thermodynamics!
Phineas T Puddleduck
Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
As he just emailed me
"The real joke comes when you see it's for real.
:-)"
We're waiting patiently Gaby.
Autymn D. C.
<phineaspuddled...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> In article <1170951806.612974.216...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 8, 7:55 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > > >>> Hello, I had this wonderful idea for a permanent magnet motor but now
> > > >>> I think I've found real prove.
> > > >> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SecondLawofThermodynamics.ht
> > > >> ml
> > > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics
>
> > > > applys to what?????????????????????
>
> > > Everything, including permanent magnet motors.
>
> > Nothing:http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Autymn+thèrmodunamics
>
> This shtick about diacriticals and deliberate dyslexia is pretty lame. It does
> nothing to hide your ignorance.
Your dyslexia /is/ lame--it's diacritics, duslèxia, and Autymn. But
I'v no ignorance.
Phineas T Puddleduck
"Autymn D. C." <lysd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > This shtick about diacriticals and deliberate dyslexia is pretty lame. It
> > does
> > nothing to hide your ignorance.
>
> Your dyslexia /is/ lame--it's diacritics, duslèxia, and Autymn. But
> I'v no ignorance.
Welcome to my killfile. It takes a special type of maroon to enter it, but you
more then pass the entrance exam.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Ever heard of a book or a published research paper?
Sam Wormley
>
> All theories are build upon consensus.
>
Theories have nothing to do with consensus. In science, a theory
is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of
interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting
future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable
of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through
empirical observation.
Sam Wormley
>
> Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895 "Heavier-than-air flying
> machines are impossible."
>
Perfect example of an opinion. Whereas nature doesn't allow
for perpetual motion machines... and the second law of
thermodynamics shows why!
Eric Gisse
The invention was already reviewed. It doesn't work, it can't work,
and will never work.
Now we have moved on to the inventor who thinks he is a genius for
ignoring physics.
>
> I want to share the idea and discuss the subject.
No, you don't.
You want accolades, not a serious explanation why your crap won't
work.
>
> I am convinced you can understand my super simple explanation.
Which, so far, has been "MAGNETS! Don't you see? MAGNETS!"
>
> If you don't understand it: " give me a chance to explain"
>
> if you desperately wish to disprove it "explain how the magnets are
> equally influenced by the interaction in contrast with the flux
> photos" .
>
> Don't confuse the subject.
What is your education in physics, fella?
Androcles
<gdew...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1170955733.0...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
A pity you don't know when you are wrong.
That's a long nose you are growing, Pinocchio.
gdew...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1170955733.0...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > There is no escape, I know when I'm right. :---)
> >http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor
>
> A pity you don't know when you are wrong.
> That's a long nose you are growing, Pinocchio.
Again you review the inventor not the invention.
Phineas T Puddleduck
"gdew...@gmail.com" <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
Build it then. Its not exactly rocket science.
Uncle Al
>
> On Feb 8, 7:29 am, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 7, 8:46 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 8, 6:34 am, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Feb 7, 8:22 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Hello, I had this wonderful idea for a permanent magnet motor but now
> > > > > I think I've found real prove.
> >
> > > > > I obviously need professional help.
> >
> > > > Obviously.
> >
> > > > "People say perpetual motion is an impossibility but I just had to
> > > > find out by my self. The more I looked into it the more it looked like
> > > > it could be done. After some playing-around with magnets I've come to
> > > > the following design."
> >
> > > > > Please, share your thoughts....
> >
> > > > Learn some physics that way you can stop wasting everyone's time.
> >
> > > > >http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor
> >
> > > Thank you for your reply,
> >
> > > but you didn't look at anything?
> >
> > I saw perpetual motion, and knew you were an idiot. Then I saw
> > magnets, and I figured out what kind of an idiot.
>
> this was an assumption.
>
>
>
>
> speech.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decency
>
> So you should buy that first.
This is hard scence - not Liberal Arts, not economics, not psychology,
not weather forcasting, not looking up your own asshole and calling it
ethnic or gender studies.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm
Perpetual motion machines
Idiot. You are not even wrong.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
gdew...@gmail.com
Good, you clearly state the inventor is irrelevant.
What is your description of my proposed theory?
This is what this discussion is about in case you've missed it.
My point here is that you should least look before you say anything
about something.
Your arguments against this point are not worth reading.
Phineas T Puddleduck
"gdew...@gmail.com" <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
Build it.
gdew...@gmail.com
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
yes, but again you didn't look at anything that means you review the
author based on ...... well nothing?
The museum you link to is a troll fest. There isn't anything worth
reading here.
You should try harder writing something about the subject discussed.
Knee jerking is pointless, it proves nothing Al.
Androcles
<gdew...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1170973851.8...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Again, what invention?
There is no escape, I know when you are wrong.
Phineas T Puddleduck
"gdew...@gmail.com" <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> yes, but again you didn't look at anything that means you review the
> author based on ...... well nothing?
>
> The museum you link to is a troll fest. There isn't anything worth
> reading here.
>
> You should try harder writing something about the subject discussed.
>
> Knee jerking is pointless, it proves nothing Al.
Build it then. Stop your pointless ego-wanking and put your money where your
mouth is.
gdew...@gmail.com
<phineaspuddled...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> In article <1170973851.807335.258...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 8, 11:18 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> > > <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > > messagenews:1170955733.0...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > There is no escape, I know when I'm right. :---)
> > > >http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor
>
> > > A pity you don't know when you are wrong.
> > > That's a long nose you are growing, Pinocchio.
>
> > Again you review the inventor not the invention.
>
> Build it then. Its not exactly rocket science.
lol, will you make up your mind? It either works or it doesn't work
not a little bit of both. If you desire to claim something doesn't
work you would have to make the exact same effort. Not an inch more
not an inch less. I therefor am innocent until proven guilty. Now
lets see you weapon your claims with arguments and facts.
So until you come up with a better theory you will have to accept
mine.
So far we have 50 comments that do not cover one line of my page.
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-theory
This is hard evidence what happened to the previous art.
You cant deny that.
Phineas T Puddleduck
"gdew...@gmail.com" <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> lol, will you make up your mind? It either works or it doesn't work
> not a little bit of both. If you desire to claim something doesn't
> work you would have to make the exact same effort. Not an inch more
> not an inch less. I therefor am innocent until proven guilty. Now
> lets see you weapon your claims with arguments and facts.
>
Science doesn't work like that. Stop the martyr bullshit.
> So until you come up with a better theory you will have to accept
> mine.
>
We already have. Thermodynamics says you're full of it. Thermodynamics as been
around lomger then you, and has more evidence.
> So far we have 50 comments that do not cover one line of my page.
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-theory
>
> This is hard evidence what happened to the previous art.
>
> You cant deny that.
Build it, loon. Until then, you're just a megalomaniac idiot.
Ben Newsam
<gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Nice logic trap. You can not know what the outcome of that research
>before doing it either.
In this case we can. Would you be willing to bet, say a hundred
pounds, that useful power can be demonstrated to be obtained from a
rotating device powered by a few permanent magnets?
Ben Newsam
<gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 8, 1:58 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> gdewi...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > Hello, I had this wonderful idea for a permanent magnet motor but now
>> > I think I've found real prove.
>>
>> Second Law applies
>> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SecondLawofThermodynamics.html
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics
>
>
>applys to what?????????????????????
Everything, you and your "motor" included.
Ben Newsam
<gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 8, 5:28 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> gdewi...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > You can[']t prove this law. It's 100% assumption.
>>
>> > So I suggest you go back to looking at the evidence.
>>
>> Your ignorance [about the Second Law of Thermodynamics]
>> is your problem, not mine.
>
>I'm not being ignorant. You are the one who thinks he can dismiss
>something he didn't look at.
>
>This is real ignorance if there ever was any.
>
>My hours of work against your 3 second shit sling.
>
>You can do better as this.
Ben Newsam
<gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>we can only attempt to get passed your fixed believe system.
"Past" and "belief". Sorry to do a spelling flame, but if you want to
put yourself in the same category as such people as Galileo, you
really need to learn how to communicate properly.
Ben Newsam
<gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>There is no escape, I know when I'm right. :---)
>
>http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor
So, build one then, and post a video of it. Bet you can't.
Ben Newsam
<gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>you actually claim to know what
>I have build and what I have not.
Everyone here knows that you have *not* built a working "magnet
motor".
gdew...@gmail.com
I'm a genius, I'm a genius and I will always be a genius. Like that
you mean?
Now we can move on to your other claims.
> > I want to share the idea and discuss the subject.
> No, you don't.
> You want accolades, not a serious explanation why your crap won't
> work.
Don't be so vague
Up to what point do you agree with the theory?
Where do I go wrong according to you?
> > I am convinced you can understand my super simple explanation.
>
> Which, so far, has been "MAGNETS! Don't you see? MAGNETS!"
I have created a beautiful page, why not review that? I'm convinced
you cant miss it.
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor
If you don't understand it: " give me a chance to explain". If you
desperately wish to disprove it "explain how the magnets are equally
influenced by the interaction in contrast with the flux photos". You
shall have to accept my theory until you deliver a credible
explanation for: (A) where the energy comes from. OR (B) why it
doesn't work. To be credible it needs to address the points made not
something else. Don't confuse the subject, this topic is not about you
or me. As long as your comment doesn't relate to the content you are
merely reviewing your own observation.
There is no room for baseless dismissal in the scientific method.
Phineas T Puddleduck
"gdew...@gmail.com" <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you don't understand it: " give me a chance to explain". If you
> desperately wish to disprove it "explain how the magnets are equally
> influenced by the interaction in contrast with the flux photos". You
> shall have to accept my theory until you deliver a credible
> explanation for: (A) where the energy comes from. OR (B) why it
> doesn't work. To be credible it needs to address the points made not
> something else. Don't confuse the subject, this topic is not about you
> or me. As long as your comment doesn't relate to the content you are
> merely reviewing your own observation.
>
> There is no room for baseless dismissal in the scientific method.
Then build it. Why are you hanging around here begging for crumbs of acceptance
- go get your flight to Stockholm booked!!
Sam Wormley
Putting my words on your website without my permission, I see.
Get them off!
-Sam Wormley
Phineas T Puddleduck
Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> Putting my words on your website without my permission, I see.
> Get them off!
> -Sam Wormley
So he's a plagarist too. Bad Gaby, you're supposed to ask permission before
doing that.
More intellectual dishonesty!
gdew...@gmail.com
> On 8 Feb 2007 09:49:00 -0800, "gdewi...@gmail.com"
>
> <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >you actually claim to know what
> >I have build and what I have not.
>
> Everyone here knows that you have *not* built a working "magnet
> motor".
thanks Ben for all your comments.
If you wish to claim something you should deliver EVIDENCE. it's a big
word I know. So, prove to us you have any knowledge about what I did
or didn't "build". If you have no evidence you are a liar even if you
are correct.
Perpetual motion is a relativist term.
You are looking for:
http://www.google.com/search?q=magnet+motor
http://www.google.com/patents?q=magnet%20motor
or
http://www.google.com/search?&q=permanent+magnet+motor
http://www.google.com/patents?q=permanent%20magnet%20motor
or even better
http://www.google.com/search?q=joseph+newman
http://www.google.com/search?q=steorn
http://www.google.com/search?q=perendev
http://www.google.com/search?q=howard+johnson
http://www.google.com/search?q=hamel
http://www.google.com/search?q=Vyacheslav+Strushchenko
http://www.google.com/search?q=bowman
http://www.google.com/search?q=calloway
http://www.google.com/search?q=minato
http://www.google.com/search?q=Ed+Leedskalnin
http://www.google.com/search?q=wesley+gary
http://www.google.com/search?q=nicolas+tesla
http://www.google.com/search?q=cycclone
http://www.google.com/search?q=mxlo
http://www.google.com/search?q=Franc+Jakelj
http://www.google.com/search?q=Adams+Motor
http://www.google.com/search?q=searl+effect
http://www.google.com/search?q=hudchison+zpe
http://www.google.com/search?q=Wes+Crosiar
and so on....
Do remember this covers only some of the inventions and it only covers
magnet motors. The resonance, gravity, fusion, vortexes and hydrogen
technologies are also very real.
So where is that long awaited evidence that disproves all this? I can
hardly wait to see it, it obviously doesn't exist. To disprove
something you have to go true just as much effort as to prove it.
Where is the usual scientific debunkery? PWND by the pseudo thing?
Don't take it personal. ghehehehe I'm dieing to learn what there is
wrong with my theory. please help! please???
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor
gabydewilde - magnetmotor
Phineas T Puddleduck
"gdew...@gmail.com" <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> thanks Ben for all your comments.
>
> If you wish to claim something you should deliver EVIDENCE. it's a big
> word I know. So, prove to us you have any knowledge about what I did
> or didn't "build". If you have no evidence you are a liar even if you
> are correct.
>
> Perpetual motion is a relativist term.
You claim to have the designs for a machine that delivers perpetual motion .
Its impossible. I don't need evidence as much as I don't need evidence you keep
the Moon in your basement when I can't see it.
Stop trying to play the hurt scientist, plagiarist.
You didn't build it because its BS. Plus you're a plagiarist who has taken
peoples words from here for their website without asking permission. Seeing as
you are a photographer I would have thought you'd have known what a big nono
that is.
Phineas T Puddleduck
"gdew...@gmail.com" <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So where is that long awaited evidence that disproves all this? I can
> hardly wait to see it, it obviously doesn't exist. To disprove
> something you have to go true just as much effort as to prove it.
> Where is the usual scientific debunkery? PWND by the pseudo thing?
> Don't take it personal. ghehehehe I'm dieing to learn what there is
> wrong with my theory. please help! please???
Take a basic science course in thermodynamics, and stop expecting the world to
spoon feed you.
Sam Wormley
I doubt it.
Ben Newsam
<gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 8, 11:39 pm, Phineas T Puddleduck
><phineaspuddled...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Build it then. Its not exactly rocket science.
>
>lol, will you make up your mind? It either works or it doesn't work
>not a little bit of both.
It doesn't work. Period.
> If you desire to claim something doesn't
>work you would have to make the exact same effort. Not an inch more
>not an inch less. I therefor am innocent until proven guilty. Now
>lets see you weapon your claims with arguments and facts.
The facts are the laws of thermodynamics. That's a BIG argument. Not
been beaten yet.
gdew...@gmail.com
I thought you had quote: "the advantage of education"?
I've removed your words.
please review:
Phineas T Puddleduck
Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
One thing I doubt is this guys sanity. Or he's just a troll.
Phineas T Puddleduck
"gdew...@gmail.com" <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought you had quote: "the advantage of education"?
>
> I've removed your words.
>
> please review:
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor
> gabydewilde - magnetmotor
Remove my name please. I have no wish to be associated with your madness, even
with my pseudonym. As I said, seeing as you are a photographer I would have
thought you MIGHT have understood the politeness of asking first.
gdew...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > Putting my words on your website without my permission, I see.
> > Get them off!
> > -Sam Wormley
>
> So he's a plagarist too. Bad Gaby, you're supposed to ask permission before
> doing that.
>
> More intellectual dishonesty!
Your reviews are important to show how real scientists respond to
ideas.
Phineas T Puddleduck
"gdew...@gmail.com" <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
What happened to ASKING FIRST?
gdew...@gmail.com
<phineaspuddled...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> In article <1170980419.034782.314...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 12:53 am, Phineas T Puddleduck
> > <phineaspuddled...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > In article <pGOyh.383140$1i1.177145@attbi_s72>,
> > > Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Putting my words on your website without my permission, I see.
> > > > Get them off!
> > > > -Sam Wormley
>
> > > So he's a plagarist too. Bad Gaby, you're supposed to ask permission before
> > > doing that.
>
> > > More intellectual dishonesty!
>
> > Your reviews are important to show how real scientists respond to
> > ideas.
>
> What happened to ASKING FIRST?
>
> --
> <-Coffee Boy-> = Preferably white, with two sugars
> Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.
look here:
> Its hard to believe you're not an imbecile. You seem obsessed that science is
> writen by the most genteel, not the most accurate,
> This shtick about diacriticals and deliberate dyslexia is pretty lame. It does
> nothing to hide your ignorance.
first you talk rubbish and insult me. I don't care but you did.
Then you copy a whole webpage of mine without source!
> I find this hysterical - from this guys blog
>
> unified apocalyptic theory
> December 24th, 2006 by gaby
> It¹s far worse, people are not fools, they are sheep. The most important
> subjects can not even be discussed. I¹m not even sure if I can myself.
> Lets make the reallyŠ reallyŠ. reallyŠ.. long story shortŠ..
> Only a huge invention can steer our titanic around the iceberg we are heading
> towards. Mankind desperately needs some incredibly efficient power source.
> I don¹t want to talk about theater wars, over population, global diseases, the
> dollar going kaput, oil running out etc wtc etc.
> Second of all it¹s much to upsetting and First of all it all boils down to the
> same thing.
> Do you think we can live on this planet with 50 000 000 000 without any
> industry? What kind of life expectancy do the survivors have in a world of
> corpses? Would you want to live in that place?
> I present to you the unified apocalyptic theory
> First of all, we are perfectly happy it¹s all going to end, it was all planed
> this way by ourselves.
> The theory prescribes it¹s better to list previous civilisations and the
> disasters they didn¹t survive. As it is to look for an actual solution. We cant
> argue with the planning of our fellow man.
> When we argue there is so much historical events of hightech civilizations
> doing the self-destructo-polonaise we have evident prove self destruction is
> inevitable on our side.
> People who argue it isn¹t so are to be made fun of. They cant come up with a
> shred of proof.
> This makes the UAT teh supreme theory.
and again!
> http://www.crank.net/perpetual.html
>
> http://www.jimloy.com/physics/perpet.htm
>
> http://www.wondermagnet.com/magfaq.html#q17
>
> Why won't my perpetual motion machine work?
>
> Perpetual motion machines are one of the true holy grails of physics;
> unfortunately, perpetual motion machines do NOT EXIST according to the
> currently accepted theories. They are denied by the Three Laws of
> Thermodynamics, which are proven by statistical mechanics, which is derived
> from quantum mechanics, which has been verified experimentally enough that it
> would be silly to deny it!
>
> The First Law of Thermodynamics states that Energy is Conserved. This means
> that the total energy of a closed system must remain constant. The universe,
> considered as a closed system, thus has constant energy.
>
> Energy exists in many forms: as heat, kinetic (motion) energy, and potential
> (gravitational, electric, and magnetic) energy, to name a few. The energy can
> change from one form to another. It can also pass from one system to another.
>
> Still, the total energy of a closed system will always be constant. You can
> neither create nor destroy energy; it always moves elsewhere.
>
> The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that The entropy of a closed system
> must always increase. The entropy is a measure of the disorder of a system. If
> you consider the universe itself as a closed system, then the entropy of the
> universe must always increase. Therefore, the universe is continually moving
> towards a state of greater disorder!
>
> Consider a glass of water, sitting initially on a table. You decide to push it
> off the edge and it shatters into fragments. It is now in a more disordered
> state, so it has greater entropy. The process can never reverse itself; you
> can't reassemble the glass and put the water back in it.
>
> Now a perpetual motion machine has, by definition, moving parts. The motion
> results in the transfer of heat through friction and air resistance. This
> results in a loss of energy by the device; the First Law implies that the total
> energy of the universe is conserved, so the energy is actually being
> transferred elsewhere.
>
> Assuming you don't add energy to this system, its energy will continually
> decrease and its entropy will likewise increase. Eventually it will slow and
> stop. Therefore, there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine.
>
> However, you're welcome to try...
so what are you talking aobut?
Phineas T Puddleduck
"gdew...@gmail.com" <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Its hard to believe you're not an imbecile. You seem obsessed that science
> > is
> > writen by the most genteel, not the most accurate,
>
> > This shtick about diacriticals and deliberate dyslexia is pretty lame. It
> > does
> > nothing to hide your ignorance.
>
> first you talk rubbish and insult me. I don't care but you did.
That was at Autmyn DC - he was the one who used diacriticals and deliberate dyslexia. I am beginnign to wonder if you're not developmentally impaired
Phineas T Puddleduck
"gdew...@gmail.com" <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Then you copy a whole webpage of mine without source!
>
> > I find this hysterical - from this guys blog
I quoted where it was from.
Try again Gaby. One day YOU MIGHT get something right!
Sam Wormley
Perhaps you don't get it... physics has advanced enough over the
last two centuries to understand why perpetual motion machine
can't work. It wouldn't hurt you to do some self education gdewilde.
Sam Wormley
Thank you.
Phineas T Puddleduck
Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps you don't get it... physics has advanced enough over the
> last two centuries to understand why perpetual motion machine
> can't work. It wouldn't hurt you to do some self education gdewilde.
What amazes me the most is the thinking behind it. With all the advanced work
and tests going into any facet of modern physics, does anyone GENUINELY think
that one day two scientists are going to have a conversation along the lines of:
1: I've just realised something!
2: What?
1: We never did try four magnets on a wheel did we?
2: No.....
1: I mean, we spent a fortune on that machine over there, and we spent all that
money putting that probe into space. Then we blew a few hundred thousand on the
equipment over there to freeze circuits....
2: Hey - you're right! Perhaps we should try it!
1: No we must surpress it. The four magnets on a wheel must be forever
surpressed knowledge!
Sam Wormley
Gaby, did you know your Canon PowerShot A80 obeys the second law of
thermodynamics?
Eric Gisse
Since it has been well established that the term "relativist" means
"scientist" when used on this newsgroup so I think it is valid.
Eric Gisse
[...]
Tell you what.
If you build it, and it works as advertised, I will admit that I was
wrong and you were right.
Until then, your device violates every law of physics known and has
been attempted many times over the centuries by folks who were a whole
lot smarter than you and much better equipped. Not that long ago we
had someone attempting the _very same thing_ with magnets, and
amazingly enough he didn't get that far.
Ben Newsam
<gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>So where is that long awaited evidence that disproves all this?
The simple fact that you haven't built one yet. If you think you have,
please post a link to a video of a working model that is providing
energy output.
hanson
Gaby <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170975250.9...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 7, 8:22 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello, I had this wonderful idea for a permanent magnet motor
but now think I've found real prove.
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor
I obviously need professional help.
Please, share your thoughts....
>>
On Feb 8, 6:34 am, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Obviously.
"People say perpetual motion is an impossibility but I just had to
find out by my self. The more I looked into it the more it looked like
it could be done. After some playing-around with magnets I've come to
the following design."
Learn some physics that way you can stop wasting everyone's time.
>>
[Gaby]
Thank you for your reply,
but you didn't look at anything?
>>
[Eric]
I saw perpetual motion, and knew you were an idiot. Then I saw
magnets, and I figured out what kind of an idiot.
>>
[Gaby]
this was an assumption.
You didn't feel like looking at the very thing you ended up reviewing.
All theories are build upon consensus.
Consensus can only happen if you have decency.
Decency is conformity to sociocultural standards of conduct and
speech.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decency
So you should buy that first.
>>
[Al]
This is hard scence - not Liberal Arts, not economics, not psychology,
not weather forcasting, not looking up your own asshole and calling it
ethnic or gender studies.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm
Perpetual motion machines
Idiot. You are not even wrong.
-- Uncle Al
>
[Gaby]
yes, but again you didn't look at anything that means you review the
author based on ...... well nothing?
The museum you link to is a troll fest.
There isn't anything worth reading here.
You should try harder writing something about the subject discussed.
Knee jerking is pointless, it proves nothing Al.
>
[hanson]
You are of course right, Gaby, in your mind. But see, that
does not count. Your opinion that they are all wrong is right
too. But see, that does not count. You must change your sales
pitch, short of calling a news conference & demonstrating your
fine magnetmotor. You must be humble and not behave like the
great inventor that you are. Tell'em that Benjamin Franklin did it
and that you discovered his/this magetmotor when you cleaned
up your basement. A little good prormo goes a long way.... ahahaha...
I wish you good luck for the day when it will dawn on you/
Thanks for the laughs, dude.
Sam Wormley
Well established by whom?
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=relativist
gdew...@gmail.com
But you claim to be able to fully define it's outcome. How irrational.
> Perhaps you don't get it...
I am the only one here who does understand it.
>physics has advanced enough over the last two centuries to understand why perpetual motion machine can't work.
I started this discussion to show you that this is nonsense. Where
is your defence against my claim?
> It wouldn't hurt you to do some self education gdewilde.
You are again talking about me in stead of my invention. Could you
stop doing that?
How far did you get with creating an understanding of my theory?
Point me at the exact point where the theory is wrong.
you really do have to accept my theory if you cant disprove it.
That's how things work.
Ben Newsam
<gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You are again talking about me in stead of my invention. Could you
>stop doing that?
>
>How far did you get with creating an understanding of my theory?
>
>Point me at the exact point where the theory is wrong.
>
>you really do have to accept my theory if you cant disprove it.
>
>That's how things work.
Check yourself out on John Baez's Crackpot Index. I reckon you are
close to 100 points and possibly more:
gdew...@gmail.com
> On 8 Feb 2007 07:49:00 -0800, "gdewi...@gmail.com"
>
> <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Second Law applies
> >> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/
SecondLawofThermodynamics.html
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics
>
> >applys to what?????????????????????
>
> Everything, you and your "motor" included.
Well show me then?
I'm sure you can draw up a formulla for the simple 2 magnet
interaction I describe.
Or are you chicken?
magnet A has a northpole NA and a southpole SA
Magnet B has a northpole NB and a southpole SB
Magnet B is moved towards the side of magnet A.
.NA
.. |
.. | . .. . . . . . . . .<----- . . SB---NB
.. |
.SA
Now NA is attracted to SB and SA is repelled by SB
Repulsion and attraction are equal in size.
This means magnet B doesn't move in any direction.
Now, you have to be a lunatic if you don't get this. NO???
So, I am right and you are ALL wrong you are. HAHAHA *points finger*
What painful reality isn't it?
gdew...@gmail.com
> gdewi...@gmail.com <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > gdewi...@gmail.com <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > gdewi...@gmail.com <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Feb 7, 8:46 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Feb 8, 6:34 am, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > > > > > Hello, I had this wonderful idea for a permanent magnet motor but now
> > > > > > > > > > I think I've found real prove.
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > > "People say perpetual motion is an impossibility but I just had to
> > > > > > > > > find out by my self. The more I looked into it the more it looked like
> > > > > > > > > it could be done. After some playing-around with magnets I've come to
> > > > > > > > > the following design."
>
>
> > > > > > > > > Learn some physics that way you can stop wasting everyone's time.
>
>
> > > > > > > > Thank you for your reply,
>
> > > > > > > > but you didn't look at anything?
>
> > > > > > > magnets, and I figured out what kind of an idiot.
>
> > > > > If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
>
> > > > > > You didn't feel like looking at the very thing you ended up reviewing.
> > > > > > All theories are build upon consensus.
>
> > > > > yes.
>
> > > > > > Consensus can only happen if you have decency.
>
> > > > > what it is whether or not anyone likes it or the person advancing the
> > > > > theory.
>
> > > > > > Decency is conformity to sociocultural standards of conduct and
> > > > > > speech.
> > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decency
> > > > > > So you should buy that first.
>
> > > > > you want to do science, do an experiment.
>
> > > > > Go look for your magnet motore here:
>
> > > > >http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm
> > > > There is nothing interesting on that website. The author lacks all
> > > > decency. You have explained why you actively ignore magnet motors but
> > > > you haven't looked at anything. This makes your post spam. Hard to
> > > > believe isn't it?
> > > > Further more, when we combine 1 part of attraction and 1 part of
> > > > repulsion the product is ZERO.
> > > > It does not add up.
> > > > What part of this you don't agree with?
>
> > > What part of what?
>
> > > All I see here is a bunch of egotistical (I have found the TRUTH, the
> > > world is wrong), babbling, uneducated, nonsense.
>
> > > If you had any decency, you would study what those before you have
> > > spent untold millions of hours to produce.
>
> > > However, if you were to do that, you would come to the conclusion your
> > > magnet motor is ancient nonsense and your fragile little ego can't
> > > handle that, so you choose to remain ignorant.
>
> > > --
> > > Jim Pennino
>
> > > Remove .spam.sux to reply.
> > Nice logic trap. You can not know what the outcome of that research
> > before doing it either.
>
> Ever heard of a book or a published research paper?
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
If I didn't doubt your ability to shape an objective opinion that
would be a good idea. I'm trying to picture you walking down the
street with "the new physics picture book" under your arm. This is
probably not going to happen?
Or have I now misjudged my biggest fan?