YES, mechanical perpetual motion generator based on the Coriolis effect is going to work (JP)
janp...@gmail.com
generators cannot be build, that we are scared to even try to build
one. So it took a UFOnaut to tell us how to build a simplest
mechanical perpetual motion generator. This alien-technology generator
is described (in the Polish language) at the thread
http://groups.google.com/group/pl.sci.fizyka/browse_thread/thread/6f0835cb1d0ac861/5e0d7235dc43c262?lnk=raot#5e0d7235dc43c262
.
The principle of this generator is based on the fact that the
"Coriolis effect" keeps a flywheel motionless in relation to the solar
system, if the axis of rotation of this flywheel is parallel to the
axis of the Earth's rotation. Thus such a flywheel rotates in
relationship to the surface of the Earth once per day. If it is
connected with an electricity generator via a gearbox, it also is able
to generate electrical energy, as its torgue is equal to the inertia
moment of the flywheel minus the friction on the flywheel's bearings.
This mechanical perpetual motion generator is described in item #F4.1
of the newest update of the web page "wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm" dated 27
February 2007, or later. (Old updates of this web page do NOT have the
description of this particular perpetual motion generator.) The web
page "wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm" should be available on following web
sites (unless these sites are sabotaged in the meantime):
http://bible.webng.com/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
http://energy.atspace.org/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
http://evidence.ueuo.com/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
http://evil.thefreehost.biz/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
http://fruit.sitesled.com/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
http://fruit.xphost.org/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
http://god.ez-sites.ws/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
http://karma.freewebpages.org/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
http://memorial.awardspace.info/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
http://newzealand.myfreewebs.net/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
http://nirvana.scienceontheweb.net/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
http://pigs.freehyperspace.com/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
http://parasitism.about.tc/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
http://parasitism.xphost.org/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
http://rubik.hits.io/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
http://tornado.99k.org/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
http://users3.nofeehost.com/devils/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
http://wszewilki.greatnow.com/wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm
With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak
Sam Wormley
> Our scientists are so succesful in telling us that perpetual motion
> generators cannot be build, that we are scared to even try to build
> one.
Many people build what the think or claim are perpetual motion
machines. Some of the builders fool themselves... but most just
try to fool others for glory or profit.
Mother nature cannot be fooled... It doesn't take that much
education to understand why.
jerry warner
janp...@gmail.com wrote:
> Our scientists are so succesful in telling us that perpetual motion
> generators cannot be build,
Built? This was already covered by Lush Limbau on Tuesday. Sorry.
Eeyore
janp...@gmail.com wrote:
> Our scientists are so succesful in telling us that perpetual motion
> generators cannot be build, that we are scared to even try to build
> one. So it took a UFOnaut to tell us how to build a simplest
> mechanical perpetual motion generator. This alien-technology generator
> is described (in the Polish language) at the thread
> http://groups.google.com/group/pl.sci.fizyka/browse_thread/thread/6f0835cb1d0ac861/5e0d7235dc43c262?lnk=raot#5e0d7235dc43c262
Ridiculous nonsense.
Graham
John_H
>Our scientists are so succesful in telling us that perpetual motion
>generators cannot be build, that we are scared to even try to build
>one.
Bollocks! The cat and buttered toast principle dispelled that
nonsense years ago.
Go for it... only the whackos won't believe you!
--
John H
J Chace
<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1cd3ddbe-40e1-44e8...@x30g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
tadchem
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
CWatters
"J Chace" <jeremi...@wildblue.net> wrote in message
news:vdtxj.25$Oq3.1...@news.sisna.com...
> and lasso the moon to get er turning
>
That would work, but it would slow the moon down slightly so it wouldn't
work indefinitly. Hence it's not strictly a "perpetual motion machine".
Eugene Griessel
Instead of bleating about this on usenet why not build one, sell the
power to a utility and retire to the Riveria on the income generated
(no pun). You could live on Moet et Chandon and pate d'fois gras
while laying endless nubile young wenches. But there's the rub. You
can't can you? The practical proof of the theoretical pudding is in
the eating.
Eugene L Griessel
Transfer - A promotion you receive on the condition that you
leave town.
- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -
Androcles
"tadchem" <tad...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:e08e68de-9767-4207...@q33g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
| I'm more interested in perpetual revenue machines.
|
http://www.scda.state.sc.us/virtualtour/tobacco/pics/DSCN0597.JPG
TMA
>
> Mother nature cannot be fooled... It doesn't take that much
> education to understand why.
you seem to be an expert in this..why? Mother nature does have a perpetual
motion machine
What is it? You have 10 seconds to answer.
dke...@hotmail.com
> Our scientists are so succesful in telling us that perpetual motion
> generators cannot be build, that we are scared to even try to build
> one. So it took a UFOnaut to tell us how to build a simplest
> mechanical perpetual motion generator. This alien-technology generator
> .
>
> The principle of this generator is based on the fact that the
> "Coriolis effect" keeps a flywheel motionless in relation to the solar
> system, if the axis of rotation of this flywheel is parallel to the
> axis of the Earth's rotation. Thus such a flywheel rotates in
> relationship to the surface of the Earth once per day. If it is
> connected with an electricity generator via a gearbox, it also is able
> to generate electrical energy, as its torgue is equal to the inertia
> moment of the flywheel minus the friction on the flywheel's bearings.
>
> This mechanical perpetual motion generator is described in item #F4.1
> of the newest update of the web page "wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm" dated 27
> February 2007, or later. (Old updates of this web page do NOT have the
> description of this particular perpetual motion generator.) The web
> page "wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm" should be available on following web
> sites (unless these sites are sabotaged in the meantime):
>
>
> With the totaliztic salute,
> Jan Pajak
Hi
A little physics will show how this doesn't work.
First, it would be true that a flywheel with no force on it would
continue to point
in a constant direction.
The problem is that the gear box does apply a force. This would cause
the flywheel
to precess to a point that is would no longer apply force to the
gearbox( IOW align
to the polar axis ).
Another thought experiment would show that such a machine would not
work
because the earth/flywheel system would have to maintain a constant
moment
of rotational inertia. To power the gear box would require removing
inertia
from the rotation of the earth. It would be absorbed into the flywheel
system
as motion of some sort. Of course that motion would be to precess
until it no longer
had a force on it.
Oh well, back to the drawing board.
Dwight
Andrew Venor
"In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
`Homer J. Simpson
ALV
Chris L Peterson
<dke...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> A little physics will show how this doesn't work...
Yes, but if the OP had the ability to grasp even a "little physics" he
wouldn't have posted this in the first place!
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
daestrom
"CWatters" <colin....@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus.com> wrote in message
news:13scu62...@corp.supernews.com...
Actually, since I presume you'd be standing on the Earth when you did this,
the Earth's rotation being faster than the revolution of the moon means
you'd actually be speeding up the moon slightly (i.e. 'pulling it forward
around the Earth'). So as energy is transfered from the Earth to the moon,
it would actually move to a higher altitude.
But of course you're right, eventually the moon and Earth would be locked
together such that the same side of the Earth always faced the moon. So
it's not 'perpetual' :-)
daestrom
dke...@hotmail.com
Hi
We always try to conserve momentum in our house.
Its the green thing to do.
Dwight
Atheist Chaplain
news:eKyxj.59081$C61.47963@edtnps89...
the bullshit spewing from your keyboard ??
--
God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?
janp...@gmail.com
...
> Hi
> A little physics will show how this doesn't work.
> First, it would be true that a flywheel with no force on it would
> continue to point
> in a constant direction.
> The problem is that the gear box does apply a force. This would cause
> the flywheel
> to precess to a point that is would no longer apply force to the
> gearbox( IOW align
> to the polar axis ).
> Another thought experiment would show that such a machine would not
> work
> because the earth/flywheel system would have to maintain a constant
> moment
> of rotational inertia. To power the gear box would require removing
> inertia
> from the rotation of the earth. It would be absorbed into the flywheel
> system
> as motion of some sort. Of course that motion would be to precess
> until it no longer
> had a force on it.
> Oh well, back to the drawing board.
> Dwight
"Very interesting Little Boy, but it never will work" - is a phrase
which scientists since the medieval times keep repeating about every
new idea. It was stated about the "jet engine", about "flying
machines", "steel boats", etc. - quotes can be multiplied
infinitively.
I personally have no proper conditions to build anything - and never
expect to have them. However, every accomplishement is started with an
idea. The accomplishemnt of actual building perpetual motion starts
from thye strong believe that it can be build and from an idea how to
build it. And the flywheel that perpetually rotates on principles of
the Coriolis effect is just such an idea. It is NOT idea that would be
very useful technically, but it has a huge psychological significance.
After all, it breaks through the prejudice imposed on common people by
close-minded scientists (these prejudices state that the perpetual
motion cannot be build). The flywheel described here shown that YES,
it can be build and it will rotate perpetually after one completes it.
So even that myself I have no conditions to build one, with this
thread I try to convince someone to have a try. To my best knowledge
and engineering experience it definitely is going to work.
In Frombork (Poland) there is a tower in which the medieval
astronomer, Mikolaj Kopernik, used to work. In this tower a perpetual
pendulum does work. Everyone who visits it can see this pendulum
working. The pendulum is swining, bot also rotating. Although there is
an energy supply to make it swing, NOT energy is supplied to make it
rotate. But it rotates perpetually, as the wheel described here, means
by 15 degrees each hour and by 1 revolution per each day. So this
pendulum is actually a version of the flywheel described here. And it
really does works. Thus it also proves that the flywheel described
here is going to work. Only that someone needs to undertake the effort
to actually build it. I have no condition to build it, but I hope that
someone else will. When finally it is build, it will cause a
revolution in human thinking. It will prove wrong all scientists who
claimed that the perpetual motion cannot be build, including all these
"mud throwers" who spit at the idea of the wheel described here.
I thinik that it is NO point to write that (and why) the flywheel is
NOT going to work, because almost all scientists on our planet keep
yelling this for centuries. Whet we should discuss here, is why YES,
it it going to work, and how to build one in a simplest and most
effective manner.
With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak
P.S. To these who are tirred of spitters who throw mud at good ideas,
I recommend the old thread
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f43b7ee2d9d8e837/ecabc492dd893a64#ecabc492dd893a64
dke...@hotmail.com
Hi
Such responses are made without actual physical law. Conservation of
momentum
has never been broken by any experiment. Why do you think this
flywheel trick will break it,
since it is only Newtonian mechanics involved.
---snip--
>
> In Frombork (Poland) there is a tower in which the medieval
> astronomer, Mikolaj Kopernik, used to work. In this tower a perpetual
> pendulum does work. Everyone who visits it can see this pendulum
> working. The pendulum is swining, bot also rotating. Although there is
> an energy supply to make it swing, NOT energy is supplied to make it
> rotate. But it rotates perpetually, as the wheel described here, means
> by 15 degrees each hour and by 1 revolution per each day. So this
> pendulum is actually a version of the flywheel described here. And it
> really does works. Thus it also proves that the flywheel described
> here is going to work. Only that someone needs to undertake the effort
> to actually build it. I have no condition to build it, but I hope that
> someone else will. When finally it is build, it will cause a
> revolution in human thinking. It will prove wrong all scientists who
> claimed that the perpetual motion cannot be build, including all these
> "mud throwers" who spit at the idea of the wheel described here.
Ah, this is not evidence that you can extract any energy. In fact,
the reason
the pendulum rotates is because it is not taking energy from the
earth's
rotation. It is only Conservation of momentum that makes it appear to
be taking
energy from the earth. In fact it is not. It is proof that the earth
is rotating, though.
They used to have such a pendulum in the Hall of Science at the
Golden
Gate Park in San Francisco. The rotation rate you describe was first
calculated
by Foucault. In fact, his relation to this physical effect got him the
honor of
having it named as the Foucault Pendulum. It along with the math
proves
that the earth is rotating and not the heavens. In swinging, the
pendulum
is trying to not take energy from the earths rotation. In fact it is
doing
just the opposite. It is taking the minimal path of taking energy from
the
earth.
I regret to say that the new Hall of Science no longer has this
demonstration.
It seems that they claim that they spent too much time trying to
explain
why it does that to the public. I suspect it is more that the
the docents didn't understand it well enough to explain it to the
public.
One interesting thing is that one can calculate the latitude of the
pendulum
by the rotational rate of the free swinging Foucault Pendulum.
Please, take some time to understand the physics that causes the
rotation
and also the laws of the physical world that will prove to you that
you can not
extract continuous energy from such an effect.
>
> I thinik that it is NO point to write that (and why) the flywheel is
> NOT going to work, because almost all scientists on our planet keep
> yelling this for centuries. Whet we should discuss here, is why YES,
> it it going to work, and how to build one in a simplest and most
> effective manner.
Yes, please explain why it will violate the laws of momentum. It has
to stay within these rules or it is proof that these rules no longer
apply
to the physical world. Where is the magic little man that will make
it work. Understanding of why the Foucault Pendulum does what it
does, does not violate the laws of momentum. It in fact is one of the
best proof that the laws hold true.
As for your flywheel, when a force is applied to a flywheel, the
flywheel
doesn't move nicely in the direction of the force. It moves
perpendicular.
No enegy is net gained or lost from such a system since the energy
has to have the two verctor in the same direction, not perpendicular.
In order to have energy extracted, you'd have to change the direction
of the force over time such that a component of the force would align
with the motion of the flywheel. Such a change over time would
eventually
reorient the flywheel system such that it would align its axis with
the
polar axis. No more energy would be extracted.
It is kind of like rolling down hill compared with rolling up hill.
If you
roll down hill on the potential energy curve, you can extract energy
to do useful work. Once you reach the bottom of the hill, no more
energy
is extracted. Rolling back uphill would require putting energy into
the system.
Anyway, play with the vectors of force and movement. It might even
help
you to make a flywheel from a bicycle wheel and get swivel chair
( we used to do this in physics class. I loved it ).
You can run experiments yourself to prove to yourself that you can't
extract continuous energy form the system. You can only roll down
hill until you reach the minimum energy.
Prove it to yourself, don't waste time reading some fools web page.
It sounds like you are a thinking person, try a little physical proof
and run the experiments.
Dwight
>
> With the totaliztic salute,
> Jan Pajak
>
> P.S. To these who are tirred of spitters who throw mud at good ideas,
> I recommend the old threadhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f43b...
Anthony Matonak
> On Feb 28, 6:34 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Feb 29, 7:18 am, "dkel...@hotmail.com" <dkel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>> the flywheel
>>> to precess to a point that is would no longer apply force to the
>>> gearbox( IOW align
>>> to the polar axis ).
> Such responses are made without actual physical law. Conservation of
> momentum
> has never been broken by any experiment. Why do you think this
> flywheel trick will break it,
It's not that it wouldn't work in a way. It's that it wouldn't work
very well, very long or provide any power to speak of.
Think of the gearing required to go from 1 revolution per day to
whatever is required for your electrical generation. A typical
generator works at thousands of revolutions per minute. Even if
your generator works as slow as 100 rpm, you're looking at a
gear ratio of 144,000/1. Friction in the gears would probably
consume all your power.
Think of the scale of such a device. You would need something the
size of a mountain, spinning, to generate anything significant.
Taking this to the extreme, you're slowing down the rotation of
the Earth to power the device. What if everyone did this? If you
thought global warming was bad, think of global slowing!
Anthony
festu...@btinternet.com
> Our scientists are so succesful in telling us that perpetual motion
> generators cannot be build, that we are scared to even try to build
> one. So it took a UFOnaut to tell us how to build a simplest
> mechanical perpetual motion generator. This alien-technology generator
> .
>
> The principle of this generator is based on the fact that the
> "Coriolis effect" keeps a flywheel motionless in relation to the solar
> system, if the axis of rotation of this flywheel is parallel to the
> axis of the Earth's rotation. Thus such a flywheel rotates in
> relationship to the surface of the Earth once per day. If it is
> connected with an electricity generator via a gearbox, it also is able
> to generate electrical energy, as its torgue is equal to the inertia
> moment of the flywheel minus the friction on the flywheel's bearings.
>
> This mechanical perpetual motion generator is described in item #F4.1
> of the newest update of the web page "wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm" dated 27
> February 2007, or later. (Old updates of this web page do NOT have the
> description of this particular perpetual motion generator.) The web
> page "wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm" should be available on following web
> sites (unless these sites are sabotaged in the meantime):
>
>
> With the totaliztic salute,
> Jan Pajak
Yo! dude Jan Pajak, why don't you give me all your money for nothing.
That's what I perpetual motion, all your money coming in my direction
and me not giving anything back.
So why are you trying to persuade me to accept that you can gain
limitless energy for nothing?.
Do me a favour, give me all your money, and I will believe anything
you say.
But unfortunately the laws in this universe will not take your word
for it.
Ho ho ho, merry christmas. see I am Santa Claus, honest, please
believe me.
dke...@hotmail.com
<anthony...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
Hi Anthony
It isn't a matter of even needing a large gear ratio. The force and
motion of a flywheel are at 90 degees. You push this way and it
moves that way. The only way to get it to work
is the allow the flywheel to change angle ( remember vectors at 90
degrees
when multiplied together create a 0 length vector = 0 power ). As the
flywheel
changes angles, it will precess towards the location that its axis is
lined
up with north and south. End of game.
As for slowing the earth, when he spins the gyroscope up, it will
change
the earths rotation slightly but monentum will still be conserved.
Regardless
when the flywheel stops, it will be restored. If the flywheel is moved
at 90 degrees,
it will add or subtract to balance the original change. This is the
law, we can't
change it.
The only way to permanently change the earth rotation would be to
spin
a flywheel up and then send it off into outer space. The total
momentum
of the flywheel and earth still doesn't change, it is just that we
will never see
the flywheel again. Anything we do on the earth that stays on the
earth
doesn't change the total momentum.
The moon is slowly slowing down the earth but the total momentum of
the
earth moon system doesn't change. In the case of the moon/earth, the
moon is moving to a higher orbit.
Dwight
janp...@gmail.com
<anthony...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
...
> Think of the gearing required to go from 1 revolution per day to
> whatever is required for your electrical generation. A typical
> generator works at thousands of revolutions per minute. Even if
> your generator works as slow as 100 rpm, you're looking at a
> gear ratio of 144,000/1. Friction in the gears would probably
> consume all your power.
>
> Think of the scale of such a device. You would need something the
> size of a mountain, spinning, to generate anything significant.
>
> Taking this to the extreme, you're slowing down the rotation of
> the Earth to power the device. What if everyone did this? If you
> thought global warming was bad, think of global slowing!
>
> Anthony
YES, I am aware that this particular principle is NOT going to provide
much energy. I am also aware that the friction on the gearbox will
consume a significant proportion of the propelling momentum that the
flywheel is going to produce. This is why I mailny indicate this
device as a visual proof that science is wrong about the perpetual
motion devices, not as a so-called "free energy device". However, once
we have a visual proof which everyone can see, people will have a
courage to look for other principles which will not only work
perpetually, but will also generate an abundance of free energy. These
other principles involve telekinesis (which is a reversal of
friction), as a technically induced telekinesis allows to form a
feedback loop in such devices, means it allows that a part of the
output energy that their perpetual motion generates is feed back to
them as an input energy that propells their movements. Some of such
devices based on the telekinetic effect are described on totaliztic
web pages "free_energy.htm", "boiler.htm", and "fe_cell.htm" (to see
any of these web pages, in addresses provided before one needs to
replace the name "wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm" with the name of the web
page, e.g. "boiler.htm", which he or she wishes to see).
When slowing down of the Earths motion is concerned, if the Earth
could be slowed down then already long ago would slow it the friction
caused by tidal waves induced by the moon, by winds, ocean currents,
etc. The fact that the earth is NOT slowing down proves, that our
plated is actually propelled by something in its rotation. This
invisible propulsion causes that whatever we humans would do, our
planet will be rotating at the same speed (unles this propelling
effect is changes). What actually propells the Earth, it is explained
by the "theory of everything" called the Concept of Dipolar Gravity
(to have a look at summary of this theory one needs to see the
totaliztic web page "dipolar_gravity.htm").
In spite that thyere is a lot of enemies of the wheel discussed here,
I do hope that someone, or some museum, finances or makes it
constructed, so that it proves to people who thing that thay know
everything, that is "much more on heaven and earth than philosophers
dreamed about". One of such matters is this flywheel, which if slanted
at a correct angle towards the Earth surface, will revolve
infinitively long. Probably the only reason why this wheel was NOT
constructed by accident as yet, is that it requires slanting in
relationship to the Earth's surface, so that the axis of rotation of
it is parallel to the Earth's axis of rotation. This slanting is quite
significant, because for example for the area of Poland it is equal to
49 to 55 degrees - depending on the exact location of the area in
which this flywheel is to be assembled.
How exatly one should approach the construction of this flywheel (e.g.
from an old locomotive wheel), I am just describing it at the newest
update of the totaliztic web page "free_energy.htm". Perhaps in my
next comments I will explain the most vital points of thie
construction.
Sevenhundred Elves
> web pages "free energy.htm", "boiler.htm", and "fe cell.htm" (to see
> any of these web pages, in addresses provided before one needs to
> replace the name "wszewilki jutra uk.htm" with the name of the web
> page, e.g. "boiler.htm", which he or she wishes to see).
>
> When slowing down of the Earths motion is concerned, if the Earth
> could be slowed down then already long ago would slow it the friction
> caused by tidal waves induced by the moon, by winds, ocean currents,
> etc. The fact that the earth is NOT slowing down proves, that our
> plated is actually propelled by something in its rotation. This
> invisible propulsion causes that whatever we humans would do, our
> planet will be rotating at the same speed (unles this propelling
> effect is changes). What actually propells the Earth, it is explained
> by the "theory of everything" called the Concept of Dipolar Gravity
> (to have a look at summary of this theory one needs to see the
> totaliztic web page "dipolar gravity.htm").
>
> In spite that thyere is a lot of enemies of the wheel discussed here,
> I do hope that someone, or some museum, finances or makes it
> constructed, so that it proves to people who thing that thay know
> everything, that is "much more on heaven and earth than philosophers
> dreamed about". One of such matters is this flywheel, which if slanted
> at a correct angle towards the Earth surface, will revolve
> infinitively long. Probably the only reason why this wheel was NOT
> constructed by accident as yet, is that it requires slanting in
> relationship to the Earth's surface, so that the axis of rotation of
> it is parallel to the Earth's axis of rotation. This slanting is quite
> significant, because for example for the area of Poland it is equal to
> 49 to 55 degrees - depending on the exact location of the area in
> which this flywheel is to be assembled.
>
> How exatly one should approach the construction of this flywheel (e.g.
> from an old locomotive wheel), I am just describing it at the newest
> update of the totaliztic web page "free energy.htm". Perhaps in my
> next comments I will explain the most vital points of thie
> construction.
>
> With the totaliztic salute,
> Jan Pajak
This was discussed on sci.physics a few years ago, if my memory serves
me right.
Also, in 1994 Rodger C. Finvold and Paul E. Humphrey managed to get a
patent on this obvious technology:
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5313850-claims.html
S.
Sevenhundred Elves
He can't build one, because it is patented:
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5313850-claims.html
S.
zzbu...@netscape.net
But the answer to that bit of idiot physics, is always:
"But in the attic, they obey the laws of lasers,
and in the house next door, they obey the laws of robots,
and even better, the tax man obeys the laws of A.I.
>
> ALV
Anthony Matonak
> On Mar 1, 9:05 am, Anthony Matonak
> <anthony...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
> ...
>> the Earth to power the device. What if everyone did this? If you
>> thought global warming was bad, think of global slowing!
>
> much energy. I am also aware that the friction on the gearbox will
> consume a significant proportion of the propelling momentum that the
> flywheel is going to produce. This is why I mailny indicate this
> device as a visual proof that science is wrong about the perpetual
> motion devices, not as a so-called "free energy device". However, once
> we have a visual proof which everyone can see, people will have a
> courage to look for other principles which will not only work
> perpetually, but will also generate an abundance of free energy. These
> other principles involve telekinesis
It's not a perpetual motion because (if it worked) it's powered by
the slowing down of the spinning of the Earth. Just because something
takes a long time to run down doesn't make it forever.
Telekinesis... I know someone who will give you a million dollars
if you can show it (or anything paranormal) exists.
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
> The fact that the earth is NOT slowing down proves...
The Earth IS slowing down. Don't take my word for it. Do some research.
I still prefer the 9 & 6 wheel as an elegant example of a perpetual
motion device. It's easy and cheap to build while working as good as
every other perpetual motion device ever created.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/art.htm
Anthony
Quadibloc
> Our scientists are so succesful in telling us that perpetual motion
> generators cannot be build, that we are scared to even try to build
> one.
What we're scared of is wasting our time, not of the Science Police
breaking down our doors and dragging us to re-education camps.
How do you build a new machine of any kind? A steam engine or an
internal combustion engine, for example? You apply the laws of physics
that we know to figure out what will happen if you do this or do that.
And the laws of physics that we know lead us to the conclusion that
nothing we know how to do gets energy out of nowhere - or even
extracts energy from a source of heat with better than Carnot cycle
efficiency. Nothing.
So, if it seems like some gadget will extract energy from Coriolis
forces without taking it from somewhere, then one has made a mistake
in one's sums. (However, a device that takes energy from the Coriolis
forces caused by the Earth's rotation, at the cost of slowing the
Earth down to a totally negligible and undetectable extent is
perfectly possible. If this is what your UFO friends have shown you,
though, good luck in producing practical quantities of energy from an
installation of reasonable size with it.)
John Savard
Quadibloc
> I thinik that it is NO point to write that (and why) the flywheel is
> NOT going to work, because almost all scientists on our planet keep
> yelling this for centuries. Whet we should discuss here, is why YES,
> it it going to work, and how to build one in a simplest and most
> effective manner.
Since the type of machine you propose draws its energy from the
rotation of the Earth, it doesn't really break the laws that
scientists say makes perpetual motion impossible.
But the Earth is very big, so its rotation only departs from motion in
a straight line when considered over a very large area. You could
build a small machine that would extract energy from the rotation of a
merry-go-round. To do so from that of the Earth, the machine would
have to be gigantic to make a tiny trickle of energy.A machine the
size of a Ferris wheel to make the power of a single dry cell battery?
Probably overoptimistic by orders of magnitude!
There is no point claiming it will work, unless it really will work
and be useful. There is every point to warn people against wasting
time and effort.
John Savard
The Translucent Amoebae
> Our scientists are so succesful in telling us that perpetual motion
> generators cannot be build, that we are scared to even try to build
> mechanical perpetual motion generator. This alien-technology generator
> .
>
> The principle of this generator is based on the fact that the
> "Coriolis effect" keeps a flywheel motionless in relation to the solar
> system, if the axis of rotation of this flywheel is parallel to the
> axis of the Earth's rotation. Thus such a flywheel rotates in
> relationship to the surface of the Earth once per day. If it is
> connected with an electricity generator via a gearbox, it also is able
> to generate electrical energy, as its torgue is equal to the inertia
> moment of the flywheel minus the friction on the flywheel's bearings.
>
> This mechanical perpetual motion generator is described in item #F4.1
> of the newest update of the web page "wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm" dated 27
> February 2007, or later. (Old updates of this web page do NOT have the
> description of this particular perpetual motion generator.) The web
> page "wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm" should be available on following web
> sites (unless these sites are sabotaged in the meantime):
>
>
> With the totaliztic salute,
> Jan Pajak
i don't know if this approach will work or not, but you certainly got
it right that inventors don't invent things that they believe to be
impossible.
And The world is full of inventions that someone, somewhere thought
was impossible at one time or another.
i believe that P-Motion is possible.
Things like gravity & magnetism certainly seem to suggest that you can
have an infinite supply of force... it can't be all that difficult to
squeeze magnets & gravity in just the right way to make one... But no
one that believes that it's impossible is going to figure it out, Only
a crazy person will.
Another invention that seems to be 'almost' possible or untamed, is
the internal inertia generator.
It seems like someone invents one of these every 5 years, or so, and
then it's suppressed.
i very much suspect that P-Motion Generators are invented more often
than that...
The trick is; If you do invent one, the moment that you get all greedy
and want to make some money off it, that gives the forces that want to
suppress it, the opportunity to come over to your house, and instead
of buying it, kill you and burn your plans.
If you ever do invent a P-Motion Machine or Internal Inertia
Generator, just post it everywhere that you can think of on the
internet, and mail copies of the plans to every newspaper that you can
afford to, and maybe you'll be famous and make some money off it
afterwards.
But if you try to keep it a secret, you will, all too successfully.
janp...@gmail.com
wrote:
> > Instead of bleating about this on usenet why not build one, sell the
> > power to a utility and retire to the Riveria on the income generated
> > (no pun). You could live on Moet et Chandon and pate d'fois gras
> > while laying endless nubile young wenches. But there's the rub. You
> > can't can you? The practical proof of the theoretical pudding is in
> > the eating.
...
> He can't build one, because it is patented:http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5313850-claims.html
...
I would NOT scare potential builders of this perpetual motion flywheel
just by telling them that it was patented. This is because every
patent has its life span, and also because every patent can be walk
around by utilising some specific technical details for which it is
not restricted. Therefore, the existence of this patent only should
encourage various hobbyists to build this flywheel, as it proves that
it actually DOES work as a perpetual motion device. The patent also
proves that all this spitting done by some individuals on the idea
presented here is actually out of place and unjustified. The flywheeel
will really work - no matter what some well masked individuals are
telling us about it.
I personally cannot build this flywheel for the simple reason that I
do NOT have conditions for building it. After all, in order to build
something mechanical, one needs to have space, tools, materials,
money, time, practical skills, and many other encouraging conditions.
I do not have any of these. But I have a will and proper conditions to
encourage others to build it in modern days simply to prove visually
that are untrue all these loud claims of scientists who stated that a
perpetual motion device cannot be build. In turn when once we prove
these claims to be untrue, then many people will have the courage to
seek other principles of operation that will be more efficient from
the energy generation point of view. After all, if perpetual motion
devices can be build at all, then building them can take place on many
different principles. On my web page "free_energy.htm" I am providing
such another principle, based on the phenomenon of telekinesis, which
is this "better" principle for implementing perpetual motion. This is
because telekinesis allows to form feedback loops of energy, means
devices which operate on principles of telekinesis allow their output
energy to be supplied to them as their input energy. This in turn
multiplies their energy yield.
Layt...@gmail.com
Its called chinamen
veritas
C'mon Tom, let me whitewash the fence......pleeze
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
daestrom
<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:51d80f05-61c4-425c...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...<snip>
When slowing down of the Earths motion is concerned, if the Earth
could be slowed down then already long ago would slow it the friction
caused by tidal waves induced by the moon, by winds, ocean currents,
etc. The fact that the earth is NOT slowing down proves, that our
plated is actually propelled by something in its rotation. This
invisible propulsion causes that whatever we humans would do, our
planet will be rotating at the same speed (unles this propelling
effect is changes). What actually propells the Earth, it is explained
by the "theory of everything" called the Concept of Dipolar Gravity
(to have a look at summary of this theory one needs to see the
totaliztic web page "dipolar_gravity.htm").
Well then your 'dipolar-gravity' is failing because the earth *is* slowing
down. And measurements confirm that the moon is moving farther away as a
result of tidal forces slowing the earth and acceleratingn the moon.
Since the slowing of earth's rotation is a well established fact, guess the
rest of your nonsense is just that. Nonsense.
Now go away silly boy and let the grown ups talk now.
daestrom
tadchem
wrote:
> <janpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:51d80f05-61c4-425c...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 1, 9:05 am, Anthony Matonak<anthony...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
>
> ...
> <snip>
>
> When slowing down of the Earths motion is concerned, if the Earth
> could be slowed down then already long ago would slow it the friction
> caused by tidal waves induced by the moon, by winds, ocean currents,
> etc. The fact that the earth is NOT slowing down proves, that our
> plated is actually propelled by something in its rotation.
WRONG
Fossil rugose corals preserve daily and yearly growth patterns and
show that the day was about 22 hours long 370 million years ago, in
rough agreement with the 22.7 hours predicted from a constant rate of
slowing (Scrutton 1964; Wells 1963).
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE011.html
NASA
http://bowie.gsfc.nasa.gov/ggfc/tides/intro.html
Google:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=earth+slowing+rotation&btnG=Google+Search
about 1,610,000 hits
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
daestrom
"tadchem" <tad...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2943fc8a-bf07-4495...@e31g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 2, 4:55 pm, "daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com>
> wrote:
>> <janpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:51d80f05-61c4-425c...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Mar 1, 9:05 am, Anthony Matonak<anthony...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> <snip>
>>
>> When slowing down of the Earths motion is concerned, if the Earth
>> could be slowed down then already long ago would slow it the friction
>> caused by tidal waves induced by the moon, by winds, ocean currents,
>> etc. The fact that the earth is NOT slowing down proves, that our
>> plated is actually propelled by something in its rotation.
>
> WRONG
Gee I wish you'd pay attention to who wrote what and reply to the right
person. I didn't say the above drival, yet your silly, knee-jerk response
makes it look like it was me that wrote this drival.
daestrom
janp...@gmail.com
...
> Fossil rugose corals preserve daily and yearly growth patterns and
> show that the day was about 22 hours long 370 million years ago, in
> rough agreement with the 22.7 hours predicted from a constant rate of
> slowing (Scrutton 1964; Wells 1963).http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE011.html
Well, for this slow down of the Earth's rotations can be a lot of
explanations, not just the natural slow down of the rotational
velocity of the Earth due to e.g. friction. For example, perhaps in
these old times the Earth had more than one Moon - as mythology of
some nations states this. Perhaps these creatures which planted the
life on the Earth changed the rotational velocity of our planet, so
that to make it more similar to their own planet. Perhaps in the
meantime our planet was hit by a large heavenly body which slowed it
down. There are NO limits to such possibilities! Thus, just claiming
that there is evidence for the Earth's motion slowing down, without
having any evidence about what caused this slowing down, is just an
empty talk. And for sure it does NOT contradict the findings of the
"theory of everything" called the Concept of Dipolar Gravity (see it
described at the totaliztic web pages "dipolar_gravity.htm"), that our
planet is actually propelled in its rotary motion by forces which
present scientists still refuse to acknowledge. These are such forces
resulting from the Concept of Dipolar Gravity, that keep our planet
rotating steadily in spite of the friction from tidal action of the
Moon, in spite of the action of the Coriolis effect, in spite of the
frinction of solar winds, in spite of the gear effect of the Earth's
magnetic field interacting with fields of other planets, etc., etc.
Let us NOT be silly. If a "miaw-miaw" noise comes from a closed bag,
it still does NOT make sure that there is a cat in that bag.
janp...@gmail.com
You do not seem to look logically at this matter. There is a lot of
evidence that you actually can extract the energy from such
perpetually rotating flywheel that is propelled by the Coriolis
effect. Especially when you create an improved version of such a
flywheel, which (the version) will be composed of a cascade of several
flywheels liked together by a planetary gear. Such a cascade allows us
to create a feedback for the flywheels' rotational motion, means allow
every next flywheel to take at the entry the rotational velocity of
the previous flywheel and additionally multiply this velocity. For
more details see the desciptions on the web page
"free_energy.htm" (but only on the update from 3rd March 2008, or from
later date), which you should be able to find on some amongst
following addresses (unless these addresses were sabotaged in the
meantime):
http://evidence.ueuo.com/free_energy.htm
http://evil.thefreehost.biz/free_energy.htm
http://fruit.sitesled.com/free_energy.htm
http://fruit.xphost.org/free_energy.htm
http://god.ez-sites.ws/free_energy.htm
http://karma.freewebpages.org/free_energy.htm
http://memorial.awardspace.info/free_energy.htm
http://newzealand.myfreewebs.net/free_energy.htm
http://nirvana.scienceontheweb.net/free_energy.htm
http://pigs.freehyperspace.com/free_energy.htm
http://parasitism.about.tc/free_energy.htm
http://rubik.hits.io/free_energy.htm
http://tornado.99k.org/free_energy.htm
http://wszewilki.greatnow.com/free_energy.htm
janp...@gmail.com
wrote:
...
> > "In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
> > `Homer J. Simpson
Well, firstly you would need to prove that there are such things as
the "laws of thermodynamics". For my best knowledge, whatever you call
by this name, are actually just statistical predictions which
sometimes do work, sometimes refuse to work. A perfect example when
these statistic predictions are disobeyed, are so-called "heat pumps"
which have over 100% efficiency. Also, as I explained this before, our
planet Earth as a whole disobeys these "laws" too.
Thus, since there are already numerous cases identified, when these
supposed "laws" do NOT work, all evidence indicates that the flywheel
perpetually propelled by the Coriolis effect, will be a next such a
case. So let us encourage someone to build one, and to prove that it
actually DOES work in practice against these supposed "laws".
Sevenhundred Elves
> Let us NOT be silly. If a "miaw-miaw" noise comes from a closed bag,
> it still does NOT make sure that there is a cat in that bag.
Is this how you spell "meow" nowadays? Don't let that cat out of the
bag!
S.
Mauried
>On Mar 1, 10:58=A0pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
>wrote:
>=2E..
>> > "In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
>> > `Homer J. Simpson
>=2E..
>
>Well, firstly you would need to prove that there are such things as
>the "laws of thermodynamics". For my best knowledge, whatever you call
>by this name, are actually just statistical predictions which
>sometimes do work, sometimes refuse to work. A perfect example when
>these statistic predictions are disobeyed, are so-called "heat pumps"
>which have over 100% efficiency. Also, as I explained this before, our
>planet Earth as a whole disobeys these "laws" too.
>
>Thus, since there are already numerous cases identified, when these
>supposed "laws" do NOT work, all evidence indicates that the flywheel
>perpetually propelled by the Coriolis effect, will be a next such a
>case. So let us encourage someone to build one, and to prove that it
>actually DOES work in practice against these supposed "laws".
>
>With the totaliztic salute,
>Jan Pajak
>
There are no such things as heat pumps which have > 100% efficiency.
There are heat pumps with a COP > 1 .
Maybe you need to learn the differance.
daestrom
<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b6ed0271-0ef5-45fa...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>Well, for this slow down of the Earth's rotations can be a lot of
>explanations, not just the natural slow down of the rotational
>velocity of the Earth due to e.g. friction. For example, perhaps in
>these old times the Earth had more than one Moon - as mythology of
>some nations states this. Perhaps these creatures which planted the
>life on the Earth changed the rotational velocity of our planet, so
>that to make it more similar to their own planet. Perhaps in the
>meantime our planet was hit by a large heavenly body which slowed it
>down. There are NO limits to such possibilities! Thus, just claiming
>that there is evidence for the Earth's motion slowing down, without
>having any evidence about what caused this slowing down, is just an
>empty talk.
No, your silly theories are 'empty talk'. The tidal friction of the moon on
the earth and it's effect on both the earth's rotation and the orbit of the
moon are well documented with both theory and direct measurements. The
change in kinetic energy of the earth's rotation coincides very well with
the gain in energy that the moon experiences.
Your ideas on the other hand......
daestrom
daestrom
<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc81ea0a-0ae2-4edf...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>You do not seem to look logically at this matter. There is a lot of
>evidence that you actually can extract the energy from such
>perpetually rotating flywheel that is propelled by the Coriolis
>effect.
You might want to learn what the Coriolis effect really is before you start
trying to spout physics. What your 'idea' is trying to use to extract
energy from the earth's rotation is *not* the Coriolis effect. It is the
gyroscopic effect. Tain't the same thing.
Learn some physics.
daestrom
daestrom
<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:53280456-27ae-4df5...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>Well, firstly you would need to prove that there are such things as
>the "laws of thermodynamics". For my best knowledge, whatever you call
>by this name, are actually just statistical predictions which
>sometimes do work, sometimes refuse to work. A perfect example when
>these statistic predictions are disobeyed, are so-called "heat pumps"
>which have over 100% efficiency. Also, as I explained this before, our
>planet Earth as a whole disobeys these "laws" too.
Thermodynamics explains *very well* exactly how heat pumps work. But it
would appear you know *very little* about thermodynamics so you can't tell
when you're wrong.
>Thus, since there are already numerous cases identified, when these
>supposed "laws" do NOT work, all evidence indicates that the flywheel
>perpetually propelled by the Coriolis effect, will be a next such a
>case. So let us encourage someone to build one, and to prove that it
>actually DOES work in practice against these supposed "laws".
Since there are *not* numerous cases identified when the laws of thermo
don't work, your argument is based on false premise. In programming we call
that "Garbage in, Garbage out". The rest of your argument is also flawed.
daestrom
P.S. Look up Coriolis effect and quite using terms you don't understand.
janp...@gmail.com
wrote:
...
> Thermodynamics explains *very well* exactly how heat pumps work. But it
> would appear you know *very little* about thermodynamics so you can't tell
> when you're wrong.
I see that your strategy is to bit me on the terminology, not on the
merit. Obviously, in spite of your refusal to understand how things do
work, you still managed to notice that I am not a native English
speaker - and you take an advantage of this situation. But this write-
up is NOT about the terminology, but about the real possibility which
was just revealed, namely that in fact we can build a perpetual motion
flywheel.
Well, if we forget about the terminology, and get into the merit of
this matter, then whatever name you attach to what the heat pump does,
it still turns out that e.g. a heat pump consumes electrical energy
worth e.g. one dollar, and produces the amount of heat which would be
worth of let say 3 dollars of electrical energy - if the same heat is
produced by a heater working on electrical resistance. So whether you
give to the the outcome of heat pumps work the term "efficiency", or
any other term, still their outpur is over 100% of their imput. Thus,
if we could master the way of propelling such heat pumps with the
thermal energy, instead of electricty, these pumps would not only work
for free, but would also generate for free an excess of thermal
energy. And this is the merit of the entire matter. There are
phenomena, which according to principles that I outlined at the other
thread ( http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f43b7ee2d9d8e837/ecabc492dd893a64#ecabc492dd893a64
) someone intensely tries to hide, but which (the phenomena) are able
to provide basis for constructing perpetual motion devices. The effect
which I am describiong on this web page, and which you try to
misleadingly name with other terms than the "Coriolis effect", is just
one mongst such processes that are able to yield over 100% efficiency.
So human civilisatioon should do everything in its capabilities to
research these phenomena, instead of discouraging everyone from
looking at them more carefuly. So let us ask again the question which
I already asked at the thread "
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f43b7ee2d9d8e837/ecabc492dd893a64#ecabc492dd893a64
", namely: who pays you guys for making water out of brains of these
ones who participate in this discussion group?
Dan Bloomquist
> it still turns out that e.g. a heat pump consumes electrical energy
> worth e.g. one dollar, and produces the amount of heat which would be
> worth of let say 3 dollars of electrical energy
They do not 'produce' it, they move it.
> - if the same heat is
> produced by a heater working on electrical resistance. So whether you
> give to the the outcome of heat pumps work the term "efficiency", or
> any other term, still their outpur is over 100% of their imput.
It is not. It requires a condenser, 'outside', as a source for that heat.
> So human civilisatioon should do everything in its capabilities to
> research these phenomena, instead of discouraging everyone from
> looking at them more carefuly.
Your premise is that thermodynamics is not well understood. Well, it is.
And like daestrom said, you should bother to learn some science before
spewing such claims.
> ", namely: who pays you guys for making water out of brains of these
> ones who participate in this discussion group?
NO. The participants have 'paid' their dues by investing in an education.
You should try it...
Andrew Venor
> On Mar 1, 10:58 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
> ...
>
>>>"In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
>>>`Homer J. Simpson
>
> ...
>
> Well, firstly you would need to prove that there are such things as
> the "laws of thermodynamics". For my best knowledge, whatever you call
> by this name, are actually just statistical predictions which
> sometimes do work, sometimes refuse to work. A perfect example when
> these statistic predictions are disobeyed, are so-called "heat pumps"
> which have over 100% efficiency. Also, as I explained this before, our
> planet Earth as a whole disobeys these "laws" too.
You obviously are ignoring the Law of Conservation or Energy. In short
that states that energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only be
changed from one form to another.
>
> Thus, since there are already numerous cases identified, when these
> supposed "laws" do NOT work, all evidence indicates that the flywheel
> perpetually propelled by the Coriolis effect, will be a next such a
> case. So let us encourage someone to build one, and to prove that it
> actually DOES work in practice against these supposed "laws".
>
> With the totaliztic salute,
> Jan Pajak
>
By the way, your perpetual motion fly wheel would not work if for no
other reason than due to both air resistance and friction in the mechanism.
Now stop trying to BS the people on sci.energy who have backgrounds in
the sciences or engineering. It only makes you like an even bigger fool
that we thought you were when you made your first post.
My Simpson's quote aside, I think that Kurt Vonnegut said it best when
he described perpetual motions machines as "The Complicated Futility of
Ignorance."
ALV
Dan Bloomquist
>
> It is not. It requires a condenser, 'outside', as a source for that heat.
(add blushy face here.)
Mauried
>On Mar 4, 10:29=A0am, "daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com>
>wrote:
>=2E..
>> Thermodynamics explains *very well* exactly how heat pumps work. =A0But it=
>
>> would appear you know *very little* about thermodynamics so you can't tell=
>
>> when you're wrong.
>=2E..
>
>I see that your strategy is to bit me on the terminology, not on the
>merit. Obviously, in spite of your refusal to understand how things do
>work, you still managed to notice that I am not a native English
>speaker - and you take an advantage of this situation. But this write-
>up is NOT about the terminology, but about the real possibility which
>was just revealed, namely that in fact we can build a perpetual motion
>flywheel.
>
>Well, if we forget about the terminology, and get into the merit of
>this matter, then whatever name you attach to what the heat pump does,
>it still turns out that e.g. a heat pump consumes electrical energy
>worth e.g. one dollar, and produces the amount of heat which would be
>worth of let say 3 dollars of electrical energy - if the same heat is
>produced by a heater working on electrical resistance. So whether you
>give to the the outcome of heat pumps work the term "efficiency", or
>any other term, still their outpur is over 100% of their imput. Thus,
>if we could master the way of propelling such heat pumps with the
>thermal energy, instead of electricty, these pumps would not only work
>for free, but would also generate for free an excess of thermal
>energy. And this is the merit of the entire matter. There are
>phenomena, which according to principles that I outlined at the other
>thread ( http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f4=
>3b7ee2d9d8e837/ecabc492dd893a64#ecabc492dd893a64
>) someone intensely tries to hide, but which (the phenomena) are able
>to provide basis for constructing perpetual motion devices. The effect
>which I am describiong on this web page, and which you try to
>misleadingly name with other terms than the "Coriolis effect", is just
>one mongst such processes that are able to yield over 100% efficiency.
>So human civilisatioon should do everything in its capabilities to
>research these phenomena, instead of discouraging everyone from
>looking at them more carefuly. So let us ask again the question which
>I already asked at the thread "
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f43b7ee2d9d=
>8e837/ecabc492dd893a64#ecabc492dd893a64
>", namely: who pays you guys for making water out of brains of these
>ones who participate in this discussion group?
>
>With the totaliztic salute,
>Jan Pajak
A heatpump is called a heatpump for a very good reason.
It pumps heat.
The input to a heatpump is to use your example 1KW of electrical
energy and 2 KW of heat energy, and the output is 3 KW of heat energy.
Energy in = energy out.
Entropy is increased.
Both laws of thermodynamics are conserved.
Try running your heatpump at a temp of 0 deg K and see how much heat
comes out of it.
Bob F
<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6e792c9-190b-4e5d...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Your misunderstanding of basic physics is monumental. Please feel free to throw
your life savings into these ideas. You will never see your money again.
Things just don't work the way you think they will.
Father Haskell
> Our scientists are so succesful in telling us that perpetual motion
> generators cannot be build, that we are scared to even try to build
> one.
They can't.
However, the next best thing would be a machine that outlasts
us, such as a solar-powered steam turbine. It would be
indistinguishable from a pmm, since no one would live
long enough to see it run down.
Androcles
"Father Haskell" <father...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f5050aed-fded-4e32...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Why would one use steam when solar cells are readily
available?
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0605/iss2_sts114_big.jpg
But anyway, what's the big deal here?
You are saying (the equivalent of) a car engine will run forever
if you continue to supply fuel. It won't, it'll wear out. The PMM
has to run without energy input of any kind.
janp...@gmail.com
...
> Your misunderstanding of basic physics is monumental. Please feel free to throw
> your life savings into these ideas. You will never see your money again.
> Things just don't work the way you think they will.
Well, on the totaliztic web page named "free_energy.htm" several
working prototypes of free energy devices are already described. For
example, consider the telekinetic "thesta-distatica" described over
there, or the "telekinetic boiler" described also on the totaliztic
web page "boiler.htm". So som people actually invested in these
devices and got a success in building them, although were later
stopped by these evil creatures which I described on the thread
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f43b7ee2d9d8e837/ecabc492dd893a64#ecabc492dd893a64
(as we can see these creatures act also on this discussion group).
I again repeat here that I do NOT have conditions required to develop
these machines. But I have conditions to describe them and to explain
their operation to those people who can build them. I researched them
for many years. I also saw working prototypes of some amongst these
devices with my own eyes. And in spite that there is such thing as the
"curse of inventors", behind which actually hide nasty but intelligent
creatures, it is highly advisable to our civilisation to build these
devices. These devices are the key to saving the humanity from death
because of the lack of energy. We need these devices for the sake of
our children and grandchildren.
We must remember that various pseudo-scientists who know weel
terminology, but whose minds were cemented, were criticising the
possibility of building any new device or any new machine. And always
their claims turned out untrue. If we believe these pseudo-scientists
who had lod voices and used good terminology, then "flying machnes"
supposedly were impossible, so were impossible steel boats and
locomotives that do NOT use "horse-kind of legs", etc., etc. In eyes
of close-minded scientists everything is imnpossible. What is the most
horryfying, that worsking prototypes of several different kinds of
"perpetual motion devices" and "free energy generators" are already
build and working - for details see the totaliztic web page
"free_energy.htm". But still various individuals claims that building
of these devices cannot be accomplished. So the history repeats -
after all, when the first airplane of the Wright brother has flows,
the "Scientific American" published an article that such flying
machines are impossible to be build.
Bob F
<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:fcd2092a-5fc6-4b16-a5f1-
We must remember that various pseudo-scientists who know weel
terminology, but whose minds were cemented, were criticising the
possibility of building any new device or any new machine. And always
their claims turned out untrue. If we believe these pseudo-scientists
who had lod voices and used good terminology, then "flying machnes"
supposedly were impossible, so were impossible steel boats and
locomotives that do NOT use "horse-kind of legs", etc., etc. In eyes
of close-minded scientists everything is imnpossible. What is the most
horryfying, that worsking prototypes of several different kinds of
"perpetual motion devices" and "free energy generators" are already
build and working - for details see the totaliztic web page
"free_energy.htm". But still various individuals claims that building
of these devices cannot be accomplished. So the history repeats -
after all, when the first airplane of the Wright brother has flows,
the "Scientific American" published an article that such flying
machines are impossible to be build.
If you think that perpetual motion is on the same order as steel boats, you are
sadly wrong. I have no doubt that new energy sources will be developed. I do
doubt that any of the perpetual motion machine ideas will lead to any new
sources of energy.
This type of arguement is highly unlikely to convince anyone with a basic
knowledge of physics or science.
Dan Bloomquist
Mauried
wrote:
Indded they dont.
For a good laugh go here.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm
Its somewhat sad the amount of effort that people put in to trying to
build things that simply havnt no chance of working.
Im somewhat surprised though that no one has yet suggested using giant
Crookes Radiometers to generate electricity.
Chris L Peterson
<father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>However, the next best thing would be a machine that outlasts
>us, such as a solar-powered steam turbine. It would be
>indistinguishable from a pmm, since no one would live
>long enough to see it run down.
It would be readily distinguishable from a PPM, since it would have an
obvious external energy source. A machine that is engineered to run
forever isn't a PPM. A PPM must produce more energy than it consumes,
which is clearly impossible. (Technically, a PPM could simply operate at
100% efficiency, which isn't impossible, just not feasible. But
operating at 100% efficiency isn't useful, since you can't use the
machine to do any work.)
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
Martin Brown
<9dd31140-fdf2-4089...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
janp...@gmail.com writes
>On Mar 1, 10:12 pm, Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhund...@elves.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>> > Instead of bleating about this on usenet why not build one, sell the
>> > power to a utility and retire to the Riveria on the income generated
>> > (no pun). You could live on Moet et Chandon and pate d'fois gras
>> > while laying endless nubile young wenches. But there's the rub. You
>> > can't can you? The practical proof of the theoretical pudding is in
>> > the eating.
>...
>> He can't build one, because it is
>>patented:http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5313850-claims.html
>...
>
>I would NOT scare potential builders of this perpetual motion flywheel
>just by telling them that it was patented. This is because every
>patent has its life span, and also because every patent can be walk
>around by utilising some specific technical details for which it is
>not restricted. Therefore, the existence of this patent only should
>encourage various hobbyists to build this flywheel, as it proves that
>it actually DOES work as a perpetual motion device. The patent also
>proves that all this spitting done by some individuals on the idea
>presented here is actually out of place and unjustified. The flywheeel
>will really work - no matter what some well masked individuals are
>telling us about it.
Even USPTO is no longer so completely dumb as to grant perpetual motion
machine patents any more. Though it doesn't stop them granting new
patents for blindingly obvious and prior art invalidated software. They
will still grant a patent on almost anything if your money is the right
colour.
>
>I personally cannot build this flywheel for the simple reason that I
>do NOT have conditions for building it. After all, in order to build
>something mechanical, one needs to have space, tools, materials,
>money, time, practical skills, and many other encouraging conditions.
Like living in a universe where it is possible to build one? I suspect
you will find that it is an even more non-trivial undertaking to create
a new universe.
Regards,
--
Martin Brown
Moses Lim
> Our scientists are so succesful in telling us that perpetual motion
> generators cannot be build, that we are scared to even try to build
> one. So it took a UFOnaut to tell us how to build a simplest
> mechanical perpetual motion generator. This alien-technology generator
> is described (in the Polish language) at the thread
I know some Polish folks and I wonder if you realise that some Polish people
have a wicked sense of humour? :)
TMA
electro-magnetic wave.
Anthony Matonak
> The only example of perpetual motion in nature is the
> electro-magnetic wave.
Maybe not even that. A physical object, such as a speeding
bullet, loses energy and slows down due to friction in the
atmosphere. Perhaps electro-magnetic waves experience a
kind of ether friction and lose energy as they pass through
space. Light waves losing energy would show as red-shifted
so the more distant an object (star or galaxy) is in space
the more energy the light would have lost getting here and
the more red-shifted it would appear.
Anthony
Sam Wormley
> The only example of perpetual motion in nature is the
> electro-magnetic wave.
>
>
Baaaaad example!
1. photons are emitted (by charged particles)
2. photons propagate at c
3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles)
Sam Wormley
Actually they don't.... however photons can lose energy
to to the cosmic expansion of the universe.
Tired light --- has just failed two crucial tests
Ref: Volume 292, Number 5526, Issue of 29 Jun 2001, p. 2414.
Copyright © 2001 by The American Association for the Advancement of Science
ASTROPHYSICS: 'Tired-Light' Hypothesis Gets Re-Tired
Charles Seife
The "tired-light" hypothesis, mainstay of a dwindling band
of contrarians who deny the big bang and its corollary, the
expanding universe, has suffered a one-two punch.
Observations of supernovae and of galaxies provide the best
direct evidence that the universe is truly expanding and
promise to shed light on the evolution of galaxies to boot.
"The expansion is real. It's not due to an unknown physical
process. That is the conclusion," says Allan Sandage, an
astrophysicist at the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena,
California, and leader of the galaxy study.
It's a conclusion that most astronomers reached long ago. In
1929, Edwin Hubble announced that light from distant
galaxies is redder than light from nearby ones. Hubble and
others took the redshifts as evidence that the universe is
expanding, causing distant galaxies to speed away faster
than nearby ones. To an observer on Earth, they reasoned,
this would appear to stretch the wavelength of their light,
just as the sound of a police-car siren seems to drop in
frequency as it speeds away. However, within a few months of
the publication of Hubble's paper, astrophysicist Franz
Zwicky came up with an alternative explanation: that
galaxies' light reddens because it loses energy as it passes
through space. In Zwicky's tired-light scenario, the
universe doesn't expand at all. Distant galaxies are red not
because they are moving, but because their light has
traveled farther and gotten pooped along the way.
Beyond the fringe. "Tired light"--a radical alternative to
the standard expanding-universe model of the cosmos--has
just failed two crucial tests.
When experimenters first measured the cosmic microwave
background more than 30 years ago, they found that the
radiation was too dim to be explained by Zwicky's
hypothesis. That realization relegated "tired light" firmly
to the fringe of physics, but scientists still sought more
direct proofs of the expansion of the cosmos.
Two new papers provide the best direct evidence yet. The
first, slated to appear in Astrophysical Journal, measures
the brightening and dimming of a certain type of supernova.
Thanks to Einstein's theory of relativity, if distant
supernovae are speeding away from us, they will appear to
flare and fade at a more leisurely pace than close-by ones.
A team of scientists led by Gerson Goldhaber of the Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) in Berkeley, California,
has shown that this is, indeed, the case with 42 recently
analyzed supernovae. "It's such a clean-looking curve," says
Saul Perlmutter, a member of the LBNL team. "It's very
unambiguous."
In the second study, Sandage and Lori Lubin of Johns Hopkins
University in Baltimore analyzed space-based measurements of
the surface brightness of galaxies. Both the standard
expanding-universe and the tired-light theory, they
realized, agree that redshifted light should make distant
galaxies look dimmer than they really are. In an expanding
universe, however, time dilation and other relativistic
distortions will also dim distant galaxies, making them
appear much fainter than tired-light theory dictates. What's
more, young stars--and thus young galaxies--tend to be
considerably brighter than old ones. When that extra
brightness is taken into account, the observations match
expanding-universe predictions, as Lubin and Sandage will
report in Astronomical Journal. For the tired-light theory
to be correct, young galaxies would have to be dimmer,
rather than brighter, than old ones. "There's no way to
explain that," says Lubin.
Although not surprising in themselves, the results are
useful for "tidying things up in our cosmology," says
Michael Pahre, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian
Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who
performed a similar surface-brightness experiment in the
mid-1990s. By comparing the expanding-universe theory's
predictions with observed values of the surface brightness
of distant galaxies, scientists can work backward and figure
out how much brighter those galaxies must have been earlier
in the history of the universe.
Even so, researchers doubt whether the results will convert
tired-light diehards. "I don't think it's possible to
convince people who are holding on to tired light," says Ned
Wright, an astrophysicist at the University of California,
Los Angeles. "I would say it is more a problem for a
psychological journal than for Science."
janp...@gmail.com
> The only example of perpetual motion in nature is the
> electro-magnetic wave.
Actually NOT the only example. Another examples include: the path of
every planet around the Sun, the path of our Moon around the Earth,
the daily rotation of the Earth, and many more everlasting phenomena.
Thus, if an inventor can tap to any of these phenomena, as the
"perpetually rotating flywheel" described here does, then this person
can draw free energy forever (at least in human history scale). The
flywheel described in this thread is drawing its energy from the
Earh's rotational motion. So it practically will rotate forever (in
human understanding of this word), and will supply its energy forever.
In the slightly modified version of a cascade of such flywheels, it
may even supply a reasonably amount of free energy.
One should also realise, that there is omnly a very small difference
between the operation of so-called "renewable energy generators" (e.g.
consider a windmill), and "perpetual motion generators" (e.g. consider
the flywheel discussed here). The main difference is in the
reliability of energy and motion supply. For example, a "windmill"
works only then there is a wind of an appropriate force. In turn the
"perpetually rotating flywheel" described here, rotates forever. But
principles of both these devices are almost the same. So there is NO
reason to claim that one will work, while the other will NOT work. The
only difference is that one of these two devices was already build and
everyone knows that it works, while the other one was NOT build yet,
so some close-minded pseudo-scientists can claim that it will NOT
work. But when this other is also build, then everyone will rush to
benefit from it, even these sceptical ones which now claim that it is
NOT going to work.
Please notice that the newest description of this flywheel is provided
at blogs of totalizm, which can be viewed at following internet
addresses:
http://www.getablog.net/totalizm
http://totalizm.wordpress.com
http://totalizm.myblog.net
http://www.newfreehost.com/weblog/?u=god
With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak
P.S. For other threads of my authorship, which discuss similar
"controversial" topics, please see addresses:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/0b85905d2dc9f083#c374dc041f3c5fdf
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/8040cef26d37261f#de22942cb8fe3aee
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f43b7ee2d9d8e837/ecabc492dd893a64#ecabc492dd893a64
Sam Wormley
> Actually NOT the only example. Another examples include: the path of
> every planet around the Sun, the path of our Moon around the Earth,
> the daily rotation of the Earth, and many more everlasting phenomena.
> Thus, if an inventor can tap to any of these phenomena, as the
> "perpetually rotating flywheel" described here does, then this person
> can draw free energy forever (at least in human history scale).
Not free energy... but at the expense of orbital deterioration.
dke...@hotmail.com
Hi Sam
You'd still have to tie the flywheel to something outside
the earth. Conservation of Momentum says that you just
won't change the total. Where is the momentum going
in his magic flywheel??
Dwight
Bob F
Warning - at least one of the sites listed in this posting causes a virus alert
from AVG antivirus.
janp...@gmail.com
...
> You'd still have to tie the flywheel to something outside
> the earth.
This particular flywheel (that we discuss here) is already tied up to
the kind of substance which the Concept of Dipolar Gravity calls
"counter-matter" (for details see the totaliztic web page named
"dipolar_gravity.htm"). Thus the flywheel which has the axis of
rotation alligned appropriately (means maintains it parallel to the
axis of rotation of the Earth), is working in a different set of
coordinates than the Earth does. This is why such a flywheel remains
motionless, while the Earth rotates in its daily cycle. This is also
why such a flywheel looks as if it rotates in relation to the Earth.
After all, we already know the above behaviour from the action of the
Coriolis effect, as this behaviour represents the mechanism which
propells the the Coriolis effect.
dke...@hotmail.com
Hi
What kind of junk are you reading ( dipolar_gravity.htm ).
I will restate the problem.
First, force without motion is not power.
Second, a force applied to tha axis of an otherwise free flywheel
will case a perpendicular motion ( not power, vectors are at 90
degrees ). This means your machine will need to restrict the motion
of the flywheel to some angle like 45 degrees between the force and
free motion. At this angle, over time, the flywheel will precess
until
it is exactly aligned with the polar axis.
Third, at this time, the rotation of the earth will no longer effect
the flywheel.
End of game.
Fourth, there has been nothing ever shown to prove that conservation
of momentum
has ever, ever been violated. You need to work with reality. Anyone
can
publish a bunch of junk science on the web.
Fifth, Coriolis effect has been completely described with Newtonian
mechanics
and does not in any way shape or form violate the laws of conservation
of
momentum. It doesn't need any special outside junk like
dipolar_gravity
to understand it. Why pull this junk in when it is completely
predicable with
known science. Coriolis is simple inertia. Always was and always will
be.
I believe the statement, " an object in motion tends to stay in
motion" is
enough to show why we have the Coriolis effect. It also explains
Foucault's
pendulum.
These have been explained to you several times and all you can use to
justify that you are right is some junk science that has nothing to do
with
real observed effects. This is why I asked you to run some experiments
with simple setups that don't require things like the entire earth.
You can
easily create a rotation frame of reference with simple junk
parts( swivel
chair ).
You can easily create a nice flywheel from an old bicycle wheel. You
can then easily
prove to yourself that it won't work. You don't have to depend on
anything
from junk web pages. You can use real world experiments!
I have told you why it won't work and I've proposed experiments you
can
run yourself to show you why it doesn't work. I've run similar
experiments
many years ago in science class so I know how they work.
I can see that you really want this to work but I can only show you
how
to think, I can't make you actually think. The laws of motion and
inertia
haven't changed since man has been looking at things. If someone
tells you different, they are either liars or mistaken( most seem to
be liars ).
Dwight
Anthony Matonak
...
>> This particular flywheel (that we discuss here) is already tied up to
>> the kind of substance which the Concept of Dipolar Gravity calls
>> "counter-matter"
> What kind of junk are you reading ( dipolar_gravity.htm ).
I've got no idea what counter-matter or dipolar gravity are but
clearly they're up there with magnetic monopoles and brownian
motion rectifiers.
> Second, a force applied to tha axis of an otherwise free flywheel
> will case a perpendicular motion ( not power, vectors are at 90
> degrees ). This means your machine will need to restrict the motion
> of the flywheel to some angle like 45 degrees between the force and
> free motion. At this angle, over time, the flywheel will precess
> until
> it is exactly aligned with the polar axis.
Couldn't you fix this with a pair of counter-rotating flywheels?
I've heard of motorcycles with counter-rotating brakes used to
cancel out some of the weird gyro forces that happen when steering
or leaning at high speeds. Perhaps it would work for this as well.
Anthony
Dan Bloomquist
<snip crap>
Dan Bloomquist
> What kind of junk are you reading
Needs a question mark. This shit has been beat to death for decades on
usenet. The op is a troll.......
daestrom
<dke...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0a626567-eeaf-43d7...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 6, 2:37 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Mar 6, 7:51 pm, "dkel...@hotmail.com" <dkel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> ...> You'd still have to tie the flywheel to something outside
>> > the earth.
>>
>> ...
>
> Second, a force applied to tha axis of an otherwise free flywheel
> will case a perpendicular motion ( not power, vectors are at 90
> degrees ). This means your machine will need to restrict the motion
> of the flywheel to some angle like 45 degrees between the force and
> free motion. At this angle, over time, the flywheel will precess
> until
> it is exactly aligned with the polar axis.
>
> Third, at this time, the rotation of the earth will no longer effect
> the flywheel.
> End of game.
>
Whilst I don't agree with any of the OP's junk science, if you arrange the
gyro's shaft so that it is perpendicular to the earth's axis, and the shaft
is limited to a track that is also perpencidular to the earth's axis (on the
equator it would be vertical, at other latitudes it would be tilted away
from the pole by the degree of latitude), then as the earth rotates each
day, the gyro's shaft would make one complete revolution around the track.
This revolution of the shaft around the track could be harnessed to draw
some power. But the drawing of power would cause the shaft to try and
precess up/down out of the track so the track must have bearing surfaces to
constrain the shaft.
If there is no restraining the shaft, the gyro will not precess at all, but
maintain its shaft aligned (in space) and the shaft will appear to revolve
around the track once every day. If the shaft is locked in the track so
that it cannot revolve around, then a gyroscopic force will be developed
trying to lift one end of the shaft out of the track. Since the track is
enclosed so the shaft cannot lift out, a torque is developed. But of course
a torque with no motion isn't power (as you point out).
Take for example a flat 1000 kg disc with a diameter of 2m. It has a moment
of inertia of 500 kg-m^2. Spin this up to 4000 RPM (419 rad/s). If the
thing is mounted perfectly vertical at the equator, the combination of its
moment of momentum and the rotation of the earth (7.27e-5 rad/s) will
generate a torque of 15.2 N-m. And with respect to an observer on the earth
next to the gyro (say, a mechanical machine), the shaft would revolve at 0
rad/s so no power (0 Watts). If the shaft is allowed to revolve very slowly
(say, 1/2 the earth's speed), then you get a torque of 7.6 N-m and an
observed speed of 3.64e-5 rad/s for a total power output of 0.000277 Watts.
And of course if you let the shaft revolve around it's track freely, you get
a torque of 0 N-m and an 'observed speed' of 76.27e-5 rad/s and 0 Watts
again.
I seriously doubt that the losses involved in just spinning a 1000 kg disc
at 4000 RPM are anywhere near as low as 0.000277 Watts, so you could never
get a net power output.
daestrom
Dan Bloomquist
>
> Whilst I don't agree with any of the OP's junk science, if you arrange
> the gyro's shaft so that it is perpendicular to the earth's axis, and
> the shaft is limited to a track that is also perpencidular to the
> earth's axis (on the equator it would be vertical, at other latitudes it
> would be tilted away from the pole by the degree of latitude), then as
> the earth rotates each day, the gyro's shaft would make one complete
> revolution around the track. This revolution of the shaft around the
> track could be harnessed to draw some power.
Hi daestrom,
This is about converting angular momentum to energy. But, angular
momentum is conserved. i.e., you can't slow the rotation of the earth
from a closed system.
I'm sure the details would bare this out.
Best, Dan.
Father Haskell
> "Father Haskell" <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f5050aed-fded-4e32...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> | On Feb 27, 10:38 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
> | > Our scientists are so succesful in telling us that perpetual motion
> | > generators cannot be build, that we are scared to even try to build
> | > one.
> |
> | They can't.
> |
> | However, the next best thing would be a machine that outlasts
> | us, such as a solar-powered steam turbine. It would be
> | indistinguishable from a pmm, since no one would live
> | long enough to see it run down.
>
> Why would one use steam when solar cells are readily
> available?
> http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0605/iss2_sts114_big.jpg
Which is more efficient given present state of development?
As a nod to pv, connect an LED to a voltmeter. Point it
at the sun. At noon, clear sky, the LED will easily put
out in excess of one volt, though the current will be
low.
> But anyway, what's the big deal here?
> You are saying (the equivalent of) a car engine will run forever
> if you continue to supply fuel. It won't, it'll wear out. The PMM
> has to run without energy input of any kind.
Magnetic bearings.
Father Haskell
If energy is lost, the light would dim, but the color
would stay the same.
Dan Bloomquist
By discrete quanta of energy just poofing out of existence? Red shifting
is an observed phenomena. And the underlying mechanism is understood to
be receding galaxies. Red shifted light does have less energy. But that
is in the frame of the red shift observation. The energy is not really lost.
Sam Wormley
Other way around.
Sam Wormley
E = h/wavelength
daestrom
"Dan Bloomquist" <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:7tdAj.5709$7d1....@news01.roc.ny...
On the 'big picture' I can see what you mean, but if we put the gyro on the
equator with the shaft pointing straight up at noon, six hours later the
shaft is horizontal, six more hours and it points straight down, etc...
If we attach some mechanism to capture that 'revolution' of the shaft around
the track, we transfer some angular momentum (AM) from the earth to the
mechanism (albeit a tiny amount). Momentum is conserved but kinetic energy
is transferred from one rotating body (the earth) to another (the
mechanism).
Interestingly, when we first erect the gyro, its mass is part of the earth
and it revolves around the earth's axis with you and I. As we spin it up
and it starts to remain oriented in one direction in space (say with the
shaft pointing towards some distant star at the equator), the component of
angular momentum represented by the originally stationary gyro is no longer
a part of the earth's AM. Since we know AM must be conserved, we deduce
that the act of 'spinning up' the gyro causes the earth's rotation to
increase slightly. This is born out by examining the torque of the spin
motor. Obviously as it accelerates the gyro rotor, it applies a reaction
torque to the planet. This torque tends to shift the poles of the planet
but it's moment of momentum turns that into a tiny precession. This
procession creates a tiny moment of angular momentum of the planet along the
line *from* the distant star (vector quantity in the opposite direction) of
the gyro's moment of angular momentum as it accelerates.
It's all an interesting 'thought experiment', but the amount of equipment to
get even the tiniest energy is a non-starter. Of course, if we were on a
rotating space station such that the total moment of inertia was several
orders of magnitude smaller, it could make for some interesting experiments.
(but no energy generating device).
daestrom
janp...@gmail.com
The point which you seem to overlook here is that the flywheel that we
are discussing is actually moving (ratating). It makes one revolution
per day. It is NOT much and in such technical version it cannot be
utilised for giving out perpetual free energy. However, it is perfect
for proving to all these close-minded people who believe in claims of
the orthodox science that "perpetual motion" is impossible, that in
reality the perpetual motion is possible to accomplish, and even is
easy to accomplish. Building perpetual motion devices is like building
windmils, only that these devices must utilise the perpetually
propelling phenomenon instead of the wind.
We must remember also, that the flywheel discussed here can be
improved further. The method of this improvement is already described
on blogs of totalizm from internet addresses http://www.getablog.net/totalizm
, http://totalizm.wordpress.com , http://totalizm.myblog.net , and
http://www.newfreehost.com/weblog/?u=god . Namely it can be replaced
by a whole system of such flywheels. In turn such a system has many
advantages - e.g. can increase its momentum of inertia due to the
centrifugal effect, and also can mutually propell each other. In turn,
from the behaviour of water particles acted upon by the Coriolis
effect, we can expect that forces which propel the rotation of this
flywheel will still propel it when it is already rotating. In this way
its "revolution per ..." component can be increased almost limitless,
and thus the power copmponent can be improved. So there is a chance,
that after building the first such flywheel, and after researching it
to determine its properties, we can build systems of such flywheels
that are going to supply a lot of free energy. At least enough energy
to be feasable as souces of free energy for individual households.
With the totaliztyc salute,
Jan Pajak
Androcles
"Father Haskell" <father...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0a382969-96ad-4216...@u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
| On Mar 4, 4:30 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| > "Father Haskell" <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| >
| > news:f5050aed-fded-4e32...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
| > | On Feb 27, 10:38 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
| > | > Our scientists are so succesful in telling us that perpetual motion
| > | > generators cannot be build, that we are scared to even try to build
| > | > one.
| > |
| > | They can't.
| > |
| > | However, the next best thing would be a machine that outlasts
| > | us, such as a solar-powered steam turbine. It would be
| > | indistinguishable from a pmm, since no one would live
| > | long enough to see it run down.
| >
| > Why would one use steam when solar cells are readily
| > available?
| > http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0605/iss2_sts114_big.jpg
|
| Which is more efficient given present state of development?
A heat engine is a physical or theoretical device that converts thermal
energy to mechanical output. The mechanical output is called work, and the
thermal energy input is called heat. Heat engines typically run on a
specific thermodynamic cycle.
Heat engines are often confused with the cycles they attempt to mimic.
The efficiency of various heat engines proposed or used today ranges from 3
percent (97 percent waste heat) for the OTEC ocean power proposal through 25
percent for most automotive engines, to 45 percent for a super critical coal
plant, to about 60 percent for a steam-cooled combined cycle gas turbine.
All of these processes gain their efficiency (or lack thereof) due to the
temperature drop across them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_engine
| As a nod to pv, connect an LED to a voltmeter. Point it
| at the sun. At noon, clear sky, the LED will easily put
| out in excess of one volt, though the current will be
| low.
|
| > But anyway, what's the big deal here?
| > You are saying (the equivalent of) a car engine will run forever
| > if you continue to supply fuel. It won't, it'll wear out. The PMM
| > has to run without energy input of any kind.
|
| Magnetic bearings.
This should be steam powered?
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2926400396387878713
Try one of these, dad.
http://www.science-engineering.net/
Dan Bloomquist
Hi daestrom,
It has been a while and I never finished working through any math. But
here is what I recall happens. As soon as you put some force on the axis
of the gyro, (restrict precision), you the angular momentum of the
rotor. This change will exactly balance the change in the angular
momentum of the earth. And, of course, it will take a force to get
energy, FxD. If there is any question that the rotor will change
velocity with external force, see this toy:
I've been meaning to buy one of these for years. Question is, can I get
one cheap enough on ebay to make the cost of fun balance. I'm thinking I
can. :)
So, the energy will come from what ever energy it took to accelerate the
rotor.
Best, Dan.
Androcles
I shudder at such incredible naivety.
Energy is not lost, it is spread over a greater area.
For a photon, E = h(nu) -- Max Planck.
Light travels as photons which are like raindrops. One raindrop
will not make you wet. Many raindrops will.
One raindrop can pass right through an egg slicer,
http://www.ubored.net/images/200px-Eierschneider.jpg
and if it hits a wire it still gets through but can be deflected.
If we have a star emitting light in all directions the total energy
and raindrop-like photons arriving is roughly constant at r for all
r, the photons are spread over an ever increasing surface of
sphere. Far enough away and the photon-raindrops are arriving
at a reduced rate per unit area. The raindrop can also cool
and become a snowflake (which travels more slowly, but still
spreads out from other snowflakes) and when that happens,
the photon is redder.
Max Planck's equation is limited to the special conditions
that the velocity of the photon is constant and so is the area
it falls on. It isn't "wrong" per se, it is what you'll find in a
laboratory, but it doesn't take the conditions you are describing
into consideration.
Androcles
| Father Haskell wrote:
| > On Mar 5, 12:16 pm, Anthony Matonak
| > <anthony...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
| >> TMA wrote:
| >>> The only example of perpetual motion in nature is the
| >>> electro-magnetic wave.
| >> Maybe not even that. A physical object, such as a speeding
| >> bullet, loses energy and slows down due to friction in the
| >> atmosphere. Perhaps electro-magnetic waves experience a
| >> kind of ether friction and lose energy as they pass through
| >> space. Light waves losing energy would show as red-shifted
| >> so the more distant an object (star or galaxy) is in space
| >> the more energy the light would have lost getting here and
| >> the more red-shifted it would appear.
| >>
| >> Anthony
| >
| > If energy is lost, the light would dim, but the color
| > would stay the same.
|
| By discrete quanta of energy just poofing out of existence? Red shifting
| is an observed phenomena.
Yes, of course.
| And the underlying mechanism is understood to
| be receding galaxies.
Naive nonsense. That's like saying this pencil is bent
and broken because we can see it is.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/optpic/brokpen.jpg
Anthony Matonak
> | > > The only example of perpetual motion in nature is the
> | > > electro-magnetic wave.
> | If energy is lost, the light would dim, but the color
> | would stay the same.
>
> I shudder at such incredible naivety.
> Energy is not lost, it is spread over a greater area.
Hmm... would this work literally? Say, take one of those
laser level things that scans a laser beam in a plane
(spins a mirror I would think) and place it right up
against a very flat, very long, white wall.
Someone viewing this wall at right angles should see this
spot of laser light moving at very fast velocity and thus
the light would be "spread out" and shifted in color?
Anthony
Dan Bloomquist
> "Dan Bloomquist" <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
> news:18hAj.5718$7d1....@news01.roc.ny...
>
> | be receding galaxies.
>
> Naive nonsense.
Once a crank, always a crank. How you doing cranky?
You have quite the track record...
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/optpic/brokpen.jpg
Retard. Does it hurt?
Eugene A. Pallat
To quote C.P. Snow,
a.. You cannot win (that is, you cannot get something for nothing, because
matter and energy are conserved).
a.. You cannot break even (you cannot return to the same energy state,
because there is always an increase in disorder; entropy always increases).
a.. You cannot get out of the game (because absolute zero is unattainable).
Androcles
When faced with physics you are forced to resort to personal abuse, right?
Well, cunt, if it's a flame war you want then its a flame war you can't
have,
you fucking ignorant tord! *plonk*
Androcles
"Anthony Matonak" <antho...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:47d22a80$0$6946$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
| Androcles wrote:
| > "Father Haskell" <father...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > | > TMA wrote:
| > | > > The only example of perpetual motion in nature is the
| > | > > electro-magnetic wave.
| ...
| > | If energy is lost, the light would dim, but the color
| > | would stay the same.
| >
| > I shudder at such incredible naivety.
| > Energy is not lost, it is spread over a greater area.
|
| Hmm... would this work literally?
Yes.
[rest snipped in retaliation, like you I can only read one sentence even
though I write more]
]
daestrom
<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:47611c33-439c-4e48...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 7, 1:37 pm, "dkel...@hotmail.com" <dkel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
> First, force without motion is not power.
...
>The point which you seem to overlook here is that the flywheel that we
>are discussing is actually moving (ratating). It makes one revolution
>per day. It is NOT much and in such technical version it cannot be
>utilised for giving out perpetual free energy. However, it is perfect
?for proving to all these close-minded people who believe in claims of
>the orthodox science that "perpetual motion" is impossible, that in
>reality the perpetual motion is possible to accomplish, and even is
>easy to accomplish.
All you accomplish is to prove that the earth is rotating on its axis. Your
revolving gyro is no more 'perpetual' than the earth's rotation is.
daestrom
daestrom
So let me see, (using my earlier example of a gyro mounted with its shaft
vertical at the equator), as the earth rotates the shaft will turn from
up-down to east-west orientation if we don't restrict it at all. If we *do*
attach some sort of mechanism that retards it in the east-west direction
(i.e. doesn't let the shaft top end tip to the west freely), then precession
will try to tip the shaft towards the north-south direction. Okay, and I
postulated a 'track' that is oriented east-west' so any precession toward
north-south is restricted entirely.
A concrete example. Start with shaft vertical. Spin rotor such that the
'northern' side is moving towards the west, and the 'southern' side is
moving towards the east (i.e. CCW when viewed from 'above'). Since the
earth is moving towards the east, the top of the shaft tends to move toward
the west. We retard this movement somewhat with our mechanism. Because of
the particular spin and the force we are applying to the top of the shaft to
try and get the top to move eastward with us and the planet, the gyro
precesses and a force is developed by the gyro to move the top of the shaft
towards the north. If we let it move towards the north, things would
continue until it (the gyro shaft) is parallel with the earth's axis. Then
all precession would stop. (Congratulations, we have a rudimentary
gyrocompass. I used to work on marine gyrocompasses in the navy, they take
a bit more than this, but we at least have a 'north-seeking' gyro)
But if we don't let it move north (constrained by the 'track'), then
whatever retarding force we are applying in the east-west direction is
translated to the north-south direction against the track. These forces may
increase friction in 'real' bearings, but let's assume 'ideal' bearings so
this addtional force against the shaft doesn't slow the spin of the gyro.
The force against the track in the north-south direction moves through zero
distance so no work there. But our retarding force in the east-west
direction is adjusted to allow the shaft to tilt west at something less than
one revolution per day so we have a force working through an angular
displacement and have work.
As I said before, I believe this transfers some of the angular momentum from
one part of the closed system to another (i.e. from the spinning planet to
the mechanism that is retarding the gyro shaft's east-west apparent motion).
Momentum is conserved and energy is transferred.
But my earlier calcs show the amount of power involved is terribly small.
To measure it experimentally against all the frictions and other losses
would be pretty hopeless. Unless you find a planet with a much shorter day
:-)
daestrom
Havr...@aol.com
ago.
Dan Bloomquist
>
>
> But if we don't let it move north (constrained by the 'track'), then
> whatever retarding force we are applying in the east-west direction is
> translated to the north-south direction against the track. These forces
> may increase friction in 'real' bearings, but let's assume 'ideal'
> bearings so this addtional force against the shaft doesn't slow the spin
> of the gyro.
But, from what I understand, w does change as you alter the particle
path of the rotor.
> The force against the track in the north-south direction
> moves through zero distance so no work there. But our retarding force
> in the east-west direction is adjusted to allow the shaft to tilt west
> at something less than one revolution per day so we have a force working
> through an angular displacement and have work.
There is a curious phenomena that if you force a gyroscope to move on a
single axis, it will brake free, stop resisting the torque. I'd
forgotten but now recall being there playing with a gyro.
See: Captive (one degree of freedom) gyro
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/IYearLab/gyroscop.pdf
But this seems to creates a contradiction to conservation of angular
momentum. Spin up a gyro oriented to the poles which transfers momentum
to the earth. Push it around on a single axis, broken free from torque,
180 degrees. Now brake the rotor and you have added even more angular
momentum to the earth!??
What am I missing?
Best, Dan.
Dan Bloomquist
>
> When faced with physics...
Gads, you are delusional.
oriel36
> daestrom wrote:
>
> > But if we don't let it move north (constrained by the 'track'), then
> > whatever retarding force we are applying in the east-west direction is
> > translated to the north-south direction against the track. These forces
> > may increase friction in 'real' bearings, but let's assume 'ideal'
> > bearings so this addtional force against the shaft doesn't slow the spin
> > of the gyro.
>
> But, from what I understand, w does change as you alter the particle
> path of the rotor.
>
> > The force against the track in the north-south direction
> > moves through zero distance so no work there. But our retarding force
> > in the east-west direction is adjusted to allow the shaft to tilt west
> > at something less than one revolution per day so we have a force working
> > through an angular displacement and have work.
>
> There is a curious phenomena that if you force a gyroscope to move on a
> single axis, it will brake free, stop resisting the torque. I'd
> forgotten but now recall being there playing with a gyro.
>
>
> But this seems to creates a contradiction to conservation of angular
> momentum. Spin up a gyro oriented to the poles which transfers momentum
> to the earth. Push it around on a single axis, broken free from torque,
> 180 degrees. Now brake the rotor and you have added even more angular
> momentum to the earth!??
>
> What am I missing?
>
> Best, Dan.
The Earth does not move around th Sun like a train on a track,a given
location will turn through 360 degrees with resprect to the Sun over
the course of 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes .
Axial tilt is nothing more than rotational orientation and certainly
it has less to do with gyroscopes which are a childish distraction
more than anything else.If you can grasp that rotational orientation
just keeps a planet pointing in one direction in space,then you can
treat the change in orientation to the Sun as an orbital
component .Try Uranus -
http://ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ast110_06/quizzes/disc02_fig01.png
If you cannot see that there is a new orbital component to be applied
to the Earth from the graphic above then try actual images showing how
a location changes with respect to the Sun over an annual orbit -
http://asymptotia.com/wp-images/2007/08/uranus_rings.jpg
I think you may be so in love with the late 17th century jargon of
conservation of this and that ' law ' to notice a new motion which can
be applied to the Earth by extracting the information from the motion
of the Equatorial rings above.I also feel that it is now too late to
do anything about it,at least among those who consider themselves
'scientists'.
.
Robert J. Kolker
> I think you may be so in love with the late 17th century jargon of
> conservation of this and that ' law ' to notice a new motion which can
> be applied to the Earth by extracting the information from the motion
> of the Equatorial rings above.I also feel that it is now too late to
> do anything about it,at least among those who consider themselves
> 'scientists'.
Conservation Laws are a consequence of underlying symmetries. See
Noether's Theorem.
(Linear) Momentum is conserved because of the translational symmetry of
physical laws. Angular Momentum is conserved because of the the angular
symmetry of physical laws. Energy is conserved because of the time
symmetry of physical laws.
Bob Kolker
daestrom
> daestrom wrote:
>>
>>
>> But if we don't let it move north (constrained by the 'track'), then
>> whatever retarding force we are applying in the east-west direction is
>> translated to the north-south direction against the track. These forces
>> may increase friction in 'real' bearings, but let's assume 'ideal'
>> bearings so this addtional force against the shaft doesn't slow the spin
>> of the gyro.
>
> But, from what I understand, w does change as you alter the particle path
> of the rotor.
>
>> The force against the track in the north-south direction moves through
>> zero distance so no work there. But our retarding force in the east-west
>> direction is adjusted to allow the shaft to tilt west at something less
>> than one revolution per day so we have a force working through an angular
>> displacement and have work.
>
> There is a curious phenomena that if you force a gyroscope to move on a
> single axis, it will brake free, stop resisting the torque. I'd forgotten
> but now recall being there playing with a gyro.
>
> See: Captive (one degree of freedom) gyro
> http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/IYearLab/gyroscop.pdf
>
Ah HA!!
Yes, this explains it all and now I must admit my earlier statements were
wrong! This is one little thing that was bugging me. Returning to my
example, we try and retard the revolution of the shaft around the track. It
tries to precess and lift the shaft off the track. So now the *track* is
applying a torque to the shaft at right angle from the torque we were
applying. This second torque effectively tries to make the shaft precess
also, but (and this is the 'mind-warping' part), the direction of precession
from this side force applied by the track is in the same direction as the
torque we initially applied. It's magnitude is just enough to move the
shaft eastward in the track by just the amount we were trying to restrain it
from moving westward. It's as if the restraining of the shaft to prevent
precession to the north-south causes the shaft to precess to the east, and
thus there is virtually no torque required to make the shaft stay upright as
we rotate around the earth in 24 hours (well, some small friction perhaps,
but no significant amount regardless of how large/fast the rotor).
So we can either watch it remain oriented in space and have movement (with
respect to us planet dwellers) with no torque applied, or we can gently
nudge it periodically to remain keep it perfectly upright as the planet
rotates around in 24 hours and have no movement (with respect to us planet
dwellers) and no torque. Either way, no output.
As your link points out, since there is no motion in the north-south
direction, the torque developed in east-west....
T(e-w) = Omega(n-s) X L
No motion n-s, no resisting torque e-w
So a restrained gyro as I was postulating will not generate even the
pitifully small amount of power I calculated before. (learned something new
today about gyros instead of just getting 24 hours older. Thanks for
sticking with it :-)
> But this seems to creates a contradiction to conservation of angular
> momentum. Spin up a gyro oriented to the poles which transfers momentum to
> the earth. Push it around on a single axis, broken free from torque, 180
> degrees. Now brake the rotor and you have added even more angular momentum
> to the earth!??
>
> What am I missing?
If I understand your experiment, you align the shaft parallel to the earth's
at the north pole and then spin up the rotor (let's say same direction as
the earth for argument's sake). The reaction force of the spin motor will
have slowed the earth a tiny amount. But the interesting part is if we push
the top of the shaft to the right it will precess away from us and we can
use this to turn the rotor upside down. Now, by simply applying a small
torque to the right of the shaft, we have changed the direction of the
rotor's momentum by 180 degrees.
So, somehow, the reaction force on the planet when we applied that torque to
the shaft to invert the gyro, must have added /subtracted 2L angular
momentum from the planet.
{Iniitially system momentum was Lplanet1 + Lrotor1 and now total is Lplanet2
+ Lrotor2. For these two to be equal and assuming the speed of the rotor is
not diminished ( Lrotor1 = - Lrotor2) Lplanet2 = Lplanet1 +2Lrotor1 }
Interestingly, the total impulse needed to invert the rotor is a constant if
the rotor's L is constant. A small torque will cause a slow precession and
have to be applied longer than a high torque that causes a faster
precession.
If we can show that the torque impulse *does* impart 2Lrotor1 momentum to
the planet, then your issue of spinning up / inverting and braking the rotor
is closed.
I wonder what the effects of that reaction force would be? In theory it
would cause the planet's axis to precess an infitesimal amount 'toward' us
as we push our shaft to the 'right'. Now in our 'ideal thought experiment',
the shaft and axis are no longer perfectly aligned..... hmm.....
daestrom
oriel36
Sounds great and have a ball.
Most kids would like to know why we experience variations in daylight/
darkness throughout the year and the answer is not a variable tilting
Earth to the Sun,orbital plane or anything else.The cause of the
variation is in the Earth's orbital motion as a seperate component.
I would say 'Eppure Si muove' but you all seem to be enjoying
yourselves and happy to ignore what is observationally in front of you
-
http://asymptotia.com/wp-images/2007/08/uranus_rings.jpg
All bets are off Bob and forget the late 17th century agenda that
spawned the jargon you reproduced.Doubt if anything will come of the
new orbital component though,astronishing as it may seem,the
investigation of terrestrial/celestial phenomena has descended fairly
rapidly into a struggle to find yourselves better than the
creationists and in my impartial judgement you have already lost.
Time to move on from the usenet
The Ghost In The Machine
<publ...@lakeweb.com>
wrote
on Sat, 08 Mar 2008 06:26:55 GMT
<PkqAj.5745$7d1...@news01.roc.ny>:
> Androcles wrote:
>> "Dan Bloomquist" <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
>> news:18hAj.5718$7d1....@news01.roc.ny...
>>
>> | And the underlying mechanism is understood to
>> | be receding galaxies.
>>
>> Naive nonsense.
>
> Once a crank, always a crank. How you doing cranky?
>
> You have quite the track record...
>
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
Yes he does, and I think Dirk gave up out of sheer frustration on
cataloging all of them. ;-)
>
> > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/optpic/brokpen.jpg
>
> Retard. Does it hurt?
The only thing that appears to pain him is the fact that
SR has been widely accepted in the world of physics (or,
as he might put it, pushed on the world by a cynical
military-industrial-scientific complex) for over half a
century (I'd say century but SR was vehemently opposed by
the scientists when it first came out in the early 1900's
-- until the experimental data weighed in).
Regrettably, actual data validating SR is a little hard to
come by, and some experiments are easily misinterpreted --
he routinely touts Sagnac as disproving SR, for example.
(Short answer: it doesn't, really.)
He does have a point in that all we can see is from our
vantage point. That pencil is "broken" only in the sense
that it's getting wet; were we to change our vantage point,
the view would change (note, for instance, the part visible
below, in the glass proper, hinting at a second pencil
somehow inserted out of view, were this not just all a
refractive effect).
And of course the world is generally Newtonian anyway,
until one gets into satellite speeds. The peace officer
reporting on an accident will use 120 mph relative speed,
not 119.99999999999903942 mph, in the case of two cars
barrelling into each other at 60 mph relative to the
roadway, were he to need to compose velocities at all
(more likely he'll just say "60 mph eastbound hits car
going 60 mph westbound" or some such). Throwing a 5
ounce baseball 90 mph (0.14 kg, 40 m/s) will result
in KE = 1/2(0.14)(40^2) = 112 J, not (gamma-1)*mc^2
= 112.0000000000009969 J, in an introductory physics
textbook. A plane such as the now-retired SR-71 Blackbird
flying 671 mph (300 m/s) and weighing 50,000 kg [*] would
have KE 2250 MJ, not 2250.00000000169 MJ, in a blurb
needing to mention such.
And yet, the discrepancies remain. A 107 MeV [+] muon
lasting 2.2 microseconds when created at rest or low
velocities somehow makes it from the upper atmosphere
to sea level, can be measured to have 2 GeV of energy
with Earthly detectors, and can be estimated to lose at
most about 3 additional GeV by ionizing the air in a 9
km uniformly pressured slice (the 9 km is the Earth's
"scale height" and is an approximation that can be useful
in problems such as these when one doesn't want to deal
with the complexities of variable pressure with height).
A 5 GeV muon in Newtonian theory (moving about 6.84 c)
can only move about 4.5 km before decaying.
While this is plausible in itself, this does lead to
some height/flux curves which don't match what's actually
measured. SR purportedly gives a far better fit, by giving
a 5 GeV muon a gamma of 46.73 or a v of 0.99977 c.
(I've not seen the curves, myself. Presumably they're out
there. I should note that Androcles in one post disputed
the 107 MeV value of a muon at rest; this doesn't exactly
help his creds any.)
Were c' = c+v, as one poster put it, a supernova would
look quite a bit different as well, especially one from
another galaxy. I could go on, but you probably got the
point long ago, and I'm hoping (I'm an optimist!) that
certain others will get it at some point (you know who
you are :-P).
[*] empty weight is 30,600 kg, but we'd want to give
the pilot some fuel up there! ;-)
[+] for whatever reason, the actual mass of particles is
rarely given; rather, the masses are given using their
energy equivalent, E = mc^2.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of
elderberries!" - Monty Python and the Holy Grail
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Dan Bloomquist
> In sci.physics, Dan Bloomquist
> <publ...@lakeweb.com>
> wrote
> on Sat, 08 Mar 2008 06:26:55 GMT
> <PkqAj.5745$7d1...@news01.roc.ny>:
>> Androcles wrote:
>>> "Dan Bloomquist" <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
>>> news:18hAj.5718$7d1....@news01.roc.ny...
>>>
>>> | And the underlying mechanism is understood to
>>> | be receding galaxies.
>>>
>>> Naive nonsense.
>> Once a crank, always a crank. How you doing cranky?
>>
>> You have quite the track record...
>>
>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
>
> Yes he does, and I think Dirk gave up out of sheer frustration on
> cataloging all of them. ;-)
>
>>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/optpic/brokpen.jpg
>> Retard. Does it hurt?
>
> The only thing that appears to pain him is the fact that
> SR has been widely accepted in the world of physics...
> Regrettably, actual data validating SR is a little hard to
> come by, and some experiments are easily misinterpreted --
> he routinely touts Sagnac as disproving SR, for example.
> (Short answer: it doesn't, really.)
I know. I tried to explain the Sagnac effect to him about four years
ago. At least, that if c' = c + v there would be no beat frequency. He
is adamant about his beliefs.
Best, Dan.
Matt
Baaaad idiot! sit down.
>
> Baaaaad example!
>
> 1. photons are emitted (by charged particles)
> 2. photons propagate at c
> 3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles)
Dan Bloomquist
>
> If I understand your experiment, you align the shaft parallel to the
> earth's at the north pole and then spin up the rotor (let's say same
> direction as the earth for argument's sake). The reaction force of the
> spin motor will have slowed the earth a tiny amount. But the
> interesting part is if we push the top of the shaft to the right it will
> precess away from us and we can use this to turn the rotor upside down.
> Now, by simply applying a small torque to the right of the shaft, we
> have changed the direction of the rotor's momentum by 180 degrees.
>
> If we can show that the torque impulse *does* impart 2Lrotor1 momentum
> to the planet, then your issue of spinning up / inverting and braking
> the rotor is closed.
I wish I had a gyro to test. As I recall, with one axis of freedom it
takes an initial impulse to start the swing and an equal but opposite
impulse to stop the movement. So, there is no net torque to account for
the 'potential' phenomena. The precession torque to start and stop will
be in the same direction but orthonormal to both the other torques!?
There must be someone on sci.physics that can explain this.
Best, Dan.
The Ghost In The Machine
<lm%Aj.5821$7d1....@news01.roc.ny>:
And has been since about 1999.
>
> Best, Dan.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #12995733:
bool f(bool g, bool h) { if(g) h = true; else h = false; return h;}
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Androcles
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:cqoea5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
same is all frames of reference there would be no beat.
Bloomquist has his head up his arse and is adamant in his belief in
Einstein's shit. What he tries to explain he fails at miserably.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm
the counter-rotating pulse arrives at the "end" point slightly earlier than
the co-rotating pulse at exactly the same time.
Fucking idiot.
Bill Ward
At least he knows the difference between a rotating and inertial frame of
reference.
daestrom
I don't *think* it continues to swing from an initial impulse. I think it
only swings as long as you apply a tiny force (which tries to precess
against the restraint and the reaction of the restraint causes it to precess
through another 90 degree angle and that is the direction you happen to be
pushing).
But experimentation would solve the question. If I could get a nice
gyro.....
daestrom
daestrom
"oriel36" <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c31d5f0f-2af0-439b...@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 9, 3:27 pm, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkol...@comcast.net> wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:>
<snip>
>Most kids would like to know why we experience variations in daylight/
>darkness throughout the year and the answer is not a variable tilting
>Earth to the Sun,orbital plane or anything else.The cause of the
>variation is in the Earth's orbital motion as a seperate component.
Pity nobody here asked that question, nor stated anything contrary to it.
If you can't follow the thread, I suggest you go back to the beginning of it
and read the whole thing.
Nobody here has been talking about the earth's axis shifting in relation to
the orbit or any such nonsense. Your reading comprehension skills are not
as good as your 'jumping to conclusions' skills.
daestrom
Dan Bloomquist
As I recall, no force at all. The gyro is completely broken from the
ties of precession. And, the math says so. From what googling I've done,
I can't find anything definitive. But I do love a mystery.
> But experimentation would solve the question. If I could get a nice
> gyro.....
Yes. All I could find on ebay are the over priced pot metal toys. My boy
has a fab shop and machine tools. Maybe the next time I visit...
Best, Dan.
janp...@gmail.com
wrote:
...
> All you accomplish is to prove that the earth is rotating on its axis. Your
> revolving gyro is no more 'perpetual' than the earth's rotation is.
...
It is quite enough to build a perpetual motion device that at the very
beginning rotates the same as the Earth does, means one revolution per
day. After all, in such a case the device is still able to prove
illustratively, that the perpetual motion is possible and obtainable.
In turn, when we manage to overcome our psychological limitations
which suppress our search for perpetual motion phenomena, then we will
be able to find something that rotates faster than once per day, or
that produced enough energy to make it viable industrially. The reason
why our official science is NOT accomplishing perpetual motion
devices, is because of our mental limitations. We just simply believe
that it is impossible, and fail to even try to accomplish it. On the
other hand, the philosophy called "moral totalizm" (see the web page
"totalizm.htm") teaches us, and provides numerous examoples in
support, that "our universe is purposely designed in such a manner
that everything that we can think of, we also can implement; we only
need to find a way how to accomplish this." In other words the
perpetual motion devices are possible, we only need to find out ways
how to develop these. An example of such a perpetual motion device
which even produces quite a bit of free energy, is famous "thesta-
distatica" from the Swiss religious community called Methernitha - for
description of it see the web page "free_energy.htm". Of course, the
poople who close their eyes to the existence of the "thesta-
distatica", will never acknowledge that it does exist and does work
perpetually.
With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak
Anon
"Mauried" <mau...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:47ce29cd...@news.tpg.com.au...
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 08:38:42 -0800, "Bob F" <bobn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>><janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:d6e792c9-190b-4e5d...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>On Mar 4, 10:29 am, "daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com>
>>wrote:
>>...
>>> Thermodynamics explains *very well* exactly how heat pumps work. But it
>>> would appear you know *very little* about thermodynamics so you can't
>>> tell
>>> when you're wrong.
>>...
>>
>>I see that your strategy is to bit me on the terminology, not on the
>>merit. Obviously, in spite of your refusal to understand how things do
>>work, you still managed to notice that I am not a native English
>>speaker - and you take an advantage of this situation. But this write-
>>up is NOT about the terminology, but about the real possibility which
>>was just revealed, namely that in fact we can build a perpetual motion
>>flywheel.
>>
>>Well, if we forget about the terminology, and get into the merit of
>>this matter, then whatever name you attach to what the heat pump does,
>>it still turns out that e.g. a heat pump consumes electrical energy
>>worth e.g. one dollar, and produces the amount of heat which would be
>>worth of let say 3 dollars of electrical energy - if the same heat is
>>produced by a heater working on electrical resistance. So whether you
>>give to the the outcome of heat pumps work the term "efficiency", or
>>any other term, still their outpur is over 100% of their imput. Thus,
>>if we could master the way of propelling such heat pumps with the
>>thermal energy, instead of electricty, these pumps would not only work
>>for free, but would also generate for free an excess of thermal
>>energy. And this is the merit of the entire matter. There are
>>phenomena, which according to principles that I outlined at the other
>>thread (
>>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f43b7ee2d9d8e837/ecabc492dd893a64#ecabc492dd893a64
>>) someone intensely tries to hide, but which (the phenomena) are able
>>to provide basis for constructing perpetual motion devices. The effect
>>which I am describiong on this web page, and which you try to
>>misleadingly name with other terms than the "Coriolis effect", is just
>>one mongst such processes that are able to yield over 100% efficiency.
>>So human civilisatioon should do everything in its capabilities to
>>research these phenomena, instead of discouraging everyone from
>>looking at them more carefuly. So let us ask again the question which
>>I already asked at the thread "
>>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f43b7ee2d9d8e837/ecabc492dd893a64#ecabc492dd893a64
>>", namely: who pays you guys for making water out of brains of these
>>ones who participate in this discussion group?
>>
>>
>>Your misunderstanding of basic physics is monumental. Please feel free to
>>throw
>>your life savings into these ideas. You will never see your money again.
>>
>>Things just don't work the way you think they will.
>>
>>
>
> Indded they dont.
> For a good laugh go here.
> http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm
>
> Its somewhat sad the amount of effort that people put in to trying to
> build things that simply havnt no chance of working.
>
> Im somewhat surprised though that no one has yet suggested using giant
>
> Crookes Radiometers to generate electricity.
>
>
>
So I shouldn't count on the development of materials with variable mass for
the rotor assembly and adjustable gravity to reduce friction? Construction
on the 40 foot diameter glass sphere was complete, and I've spray coated the
8 foot cardboard fins black and white. I was in the process of fitting the
pinpoint bearing with a gear to fit the 10,000,000,042:1 gearbox. Alas,
maybe I should build a submersible?
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics>
wrote
on Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:42:00 GMT
<In7Bj.14269$nw4....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
OK; once you and Wilson work out your discrepancies both of you can
disprove SR using Sagnac.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
fortune: not found
janp...@gmail.com
...
> So I shouldn't count on the development of materials with variable mass for
> the rotor assembly and adjustable gravity to reduce friction? Construction
> on the 40 foot diameter glass sphere was complete, and I've spray coated the
> 8 foot cardboard fins black and white. I was in the process of fitting the
> pinpoint bearing with a gear to fit the 10,000,000,042:1 gearbox. Alas,
...
All the above sounds like trying to clean a spark plug in a car engine
through dismantling the engine and getting to the spark plug from
below, means from the direction of cyliner and piston.
Why to do as complicated things since there are phenomena that
generate perpetual motion and that can be tapped in a simple manner.
Some examples of technical solutions which allow to harvest these
phenomena are provided on the totaliztic web pages named
"free_energy.htm", "boiler.htm" and "fe_cell.htm". (All these web
pages can be viewed at internet addressses listed at the beginning of
this thread, just by replacing the page-name "wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm"
with name of the web page that one wishes to view.)
oriel36
wrote:
> "oriel36" <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I do not draw conclusions,I work from known principles and
unfortunately you do not.As an example,take a look at this basic
staement -
> All you accomplish is to prove that the earth is rotating on its axis.
The correct working principles is that the Earth has a rotational
orientation due to axial rotation keeping the planet pointed in
roughly one direction inspace over the course of an annual orbit -
http://media.skyandtelescope.com/images/elaibj_circompolar2_wide_m.jpg
It is important to know the difference between axial tilt and
rotational orientation,the latter is the more accurate principle while
the former gets you into an awful lot of trouble.Copernicus used
variable axial/equatorial inclination to explain the seasons -
"the equator and the earth's axis must be understood to have a
variable inclination. For if they stayed
at a constant angle, and were affected exclusively by the motion of
the center, no inequality of days
and nights would be observed " Copernicus ,De revolutionibus
The variations in daylight/darkness come as a result of four
components - axial rotation and orientation and orbital motion and
orientation,the four components can be seen in action via the
fortunate and unique properties of Uranus -
http://www.astro.psu.edu/users/niel/astro1/slideshows/class39/023-uranus-seasons.jpg
http://space.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn12529/dn12529-1_800.jpg
I will make it as easy as possible for you to understand what is going
on.When orbital motion is isolated,a location will not remain fixed to
the Sun over the course of an annual orbit,a location will turn
through 360 degrees with respect to the central Sun ,this motion
strictly a property of the orbital motion of a planet -
http://asymptotia.com/wp-images/2007/08/uranus_rings.jpg
To give dynamicists a chance,all bets are off in the matter of
'gravitational theories' going all the way back to the one that became
dominant in the late 17th century.On the positive side,it becomes
possible to disengage axial rotation from orbital motion and treat
orbital motion as a seperate motion rather than tying it to the awful
Ra/Dec system created by Flamsteed in referencing all celestial
motions off an equidistant celestial sphere framework.
The real positive of the new orbital component is that it explains
where variations in the natural noon cycles come from as an
affirmation of Kepler's orbital geometry,as you can see from those
sequence of images,it is the first time Kepler's orbits can be
confirmed observationally as a direct perception rather than a
hypothesis.I am absolutely astonished that such a clear and observed
observation of a new motion,as a location chasnges it orientation with
respect to the Sun,is left to drift but such is this era.
Sevenhundred Elves
I remember reading something about this too, but I don't remember it in
exactly the same way: As I recall it, if the gyroscope is cardanically
suspended and the suspension axis passes through the center of gravity
for the gyroscope, then yes, the gyroscope will lose its power to
withstand turning forces. For this reason, care must be taken that those
large gyroscopes that were used to counteract the rolling motions of
large ships were suspended on an axis a little bit below the center of
mass for the gyroscope disc. The same free rotation would happen if the
axis of the gyroscope itself was totally stiff, without elasticity, but
this of course never happens in the real world.
S.
daestrom
"oriel36" <geraldk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dbbadf80-5524-4c7e...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
You obviously are some kind of arrogant BS artist with rather poor reading
comprehension. Nobody here said anything about the axis of the earth
changing it's orientation in space. Yet you repeatedly try to make a
straw-man argument that people here *are* claiming such things when they are
not. I suppose it's just so you can trot out your references and boost your
obviously very fragile ego by asserting some rather obvious facts that the
rest of us learned in grade school. And have not disputed.
Again, show us where anyone has claimed that the orientation of rotation of
the earth changes in space (except that it *does* precess with a period of
about 26,000 years). You're ranting is totally off-topic and non-sequitor.
If the subject were what causes the seasons, or what changes the number of
hours of daylight throughout the year, yes your information is correct. But
you can't seem to grasp what the real subject of the discussion is
apparently. So take your references about unrelated topics and go away.
<plonk>
daestrom
oriel36
wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Go ahead,tell me what mechanism,based on the Earth's motions,causes
daylight/darkness to vary over the course of the year.
If you ever discover what the actual mechanism is,specifically
attached to the orbital and only orbital motion of the Earth then
maybe I will discuss with you why your late 17th century
'gravitational' notions never worked.Until then you make a nuisance of
yourselves with variable axial/Equatorial inclination.
Apart from axial rotation,a location will turn through 360 degrees
with respect to the Sun over the course of an annual orbit.Allied with
axial rotation,it causes not only day night and variations is daylight/
darkness but also variations in the natural noon cycle.I do not need
to shove this down anybody's throat but if you can't handle this 100%
geometric certainty,I would not care what you believe about
me,astronomy or anything else.
You never learned the change in orbital orientation in grade
school,what you learned was variable axial ' tilt ' a pseudo-dynamic
that is unsuitable for 21st century concerns .If you can't interpret
it from the images oif Uranus and what is occuring then perhaps you
should find another interest that is not so intellectually and
intutively challenging -
http://www.apl.ucl.ac.uk/iopw/uranus_keck_rings.gif
> Again, show us where anyone has claimed that the orientation of rotation of
> the earth changes in space (except that it *does* precess with a period of
> about 26,000 years). You're ranting is totally off-topic and non-sequitor.
>
Yeah,yeah,yeah,you dither around with obliquity and learned as a child
that the Northern hemisphere 'tilts' towards the Sun in summer and
'tilts' away in winter giving variable axial/equatorial inclination -
"As a result, when the Earth is at a certain place in its orbit, the
northern hemisphere is tilted toward the Sun and experiences summer.
Six months later, when the Earth is on the opposite side of the Sun,
the northern hemisphere is tilted away from the Sun and experiences
winter"
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/seasons_orbit.php
No doubt you have no problem keeping the axis fixed to Polaris over
the course of the year while having the Equator tilt up and down to
the Sun,like so -
http://www.astronomy.org/programs/seasons/pictures/09reasons-for-seasons-general.gif
It is when you try to explain axial tilt from Solstice to Equinox that
you get into trouble and the resolution is the application of an
additional component to the orbital motion of the Earth just as I have
described.
> If the subject were what causes the seasons, or what changes the number of
> hours of daylight throughout the year, yes your information is correct. But
> you can't seem to grasp what the real subject of the discussion is
> apparently. So take your references about unrelated topics and go away.
>
Naw,you missed what is in front of you as the fragile rings of Uranus
change with respect to the Sun as an orbital component -
http://www.apl.ucl.ac.uk/iopw/uranus_keck_rings.gif
You are used to applying terrestrial ballistics to planetary motion to
account for Keplerian orbital geometries ,specifically Newton's agenda
but it appears that Keplerian geometries,on account of the existence
of those fragile rings may be due to a combination of planetary
heliocentric motion and the Sun's galactic orbital motion,in short,it
is the Sun's forward motion which produces the orbital geometries
rather than something intrisic to planetary heliopcentric motion.
It is a whole different ball game,you can't budge from your antiquated
jargon and I am certainly not going to try to change your grade school
views,too dull and dismal to be anything productive and besides,there
is an astrological core at the heart of all your pretensious nonsense.
> <plonk>
>
> daestrom- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bill Ward
<snip prior>
>
> You are used to applying terrestrial ballistics to planetary motion to
> account for Keplerian orbital geometries ,specifically Newton's agenda but
> it appears that Keplerian geometries,on account of the existence of those
> fragile rings may be due to a combination of planetary heliocentric motion
> and the Sun's galactic orbital motion,in short,it is the Sun's forward
> motion which produces the orbital geometries rather than something
> intrisic to planetary heliopcentric motion.
>
> It is a whole different ball game,you can't budge from your antiquated
> jargon and I am certainly not going to try to change your grade school
> views,too dull and dismal to be anything productive and besides,there is
> an astrological core at the heart of all your pretensious nonsense.
Get back to us when you can calculate interplanetary trajectories better
than present theory.
Dan Bloomquist
Gerald is a nut case, he will never change.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/msg/8a6600f0f1579161?amp;oe=UTF-8
Best, Dan.
oriel36
Under close scrutiny,there is no possible means to link terrestrial
ballistics with planetary orbital motion using the framework which
Newton worked off -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
That graphical representation represents a framework of 3 years of 365
days and 1 year of 366 days rather than the astronomically accurate
365 days 5 hours 49 minutes for the annual orbital motion of the
Earth.
If you can fit the Earth's motions into the calendar system,or more
precisely the particular Ra/Dec conception devised by Flamsteed then
good for you but it runs off an astrological framework and not fit for
human consumption.Not only can I graphically show you what you believe
via Newton's agenda,I can actually show you how it plays out
observationally -
http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/02.motion_stars_sun/celestial_sphere_anim.gif
http://www.belugalakeobservatory.com/photos/thumbnails/polaris-stasr-trails%20copy_700x700.jpg
That is what happens when you try to justify the motions of ther Earth
by using a framework based on equidistant stars returning in 23 hours
56 minutes 04 seconds.You end upo being the most cretinous creature to
set foot on the planet,that is not an insult,that is an observational
fact.
oriel36
>
> Best, Dan.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You must be joking !,that post refers to the single copyright I have
from 1990 expressing stellar evolution and effeciency in terms of two
external rings and one smaller intersecting internal ring.Although it
is now a private work,I have the satisfaction of watching the rings
emerge from observations 4 years later in May 1994 -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/SN1987a_s.jpg
The leap from a specific geometry seen on Earth and stellar
evolutionary effeciency is not as wide as people would imagine but
over the years I have learned how quickly your kind can surround a
lively topic with diluting jargon and now the topic based at looking
at volume/density ratios from the perspective of a specific geometry
is now private and I am happy to keep it that way.
Considering that you are roughly 3 minutes 56 seconds off in regard to
the Earth's axial rotation through 360 degrees,I would say you can
call me anything you like.
janp...@gmail.com
...
> The leap from a specific geometry seen on Earth and stellar
> evolutionary effeciency is not as wide as people would imagine but
> over the years I have learned how quickly your kind can surround a
> lively topic with diluting jargon and now the topic based at looking
> at volume/density ratios from the perspective of a specific geometry
> is now private and I am happy to keep it that way.
It is also interesting how some can "plant forest around a tree to
hide this tree" - i.e. the strategy very characteristic for creatures
described in the thread
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f43b7ee2d9d8e837/ecabc492dd893a64#ecabc492dd893a64
oriel36
> On Mar 17, 10:00 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...> The leap from a specific geometry seen on Earth and stellar
> > evolutionary effeciency is not as wide as people would imagine but
> > over the years I have learned how quickly your kind can surround a
> > lively topic with diluting jargon and now the topic based at looking
> > at volume/density ratios from the perspective of a specific geometry
> > is now private and I am happy to keep it that way.
>
> ...
> It is also interesting how some can "plant forest around a tree to
> hide this tree" - i.e. the strategy very characteristic for creatures
>
> With the totaliztic salute,
> Jan Pajak
No offense but when you are off by 3 minutes 56 seconds off for the
value assigned to axial rotation through 360 degrees you can pass any
judgements you like in my direction ,as far as I am concerned you
insult yourselves -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png
As for the talk.origins link,this is where creationists meet
astrologers with predictable results,having little to do with matters
of faith and terrestrial/celestial phenonena.IMen generally do not
behave like this but then again I never appealed to those who cannot
grasp the technical details of how clocks were kept in sync with
terrestrial longitudes and the daily cycle without tying the 24 hour/
360 deg value to an external reference or constant axial rotation.They
can read it with ease in Huygens work even without the explanation
where the 'average' 24 hour gets transfered to axial rotation as a
convenient 'constant'.
The lack of appreciation of the genius of my astronomical timekeeping
heritage hardly compares with the silly shortcuts taken by Flamsteed
and represented by the sidereal/solar graphic above,something that
exists only in the imagination of the weak minded.You manage to
continue on with a busted 'sidereal time' concept for axial and
orbital motion when a intelligent 21st century guy just looks at
it ,dumps it and picks up the correct working principles which
preceded the error -
http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
Considering that there is a new orbital component to look at,why
bother remaining with a useless framework which prevents any
productive work from being done.
janp...@gmail.com
> bother remaining with a useless framework which prevents any
> productive work from being done.
The reason to look at simpler solutions first is to accomplish a
success and to prove principles in a simplest possible manner. Only
when principles are proven in such a simple manner, e.g. through
employing principles of the inertial flywheel described here, more
inductrialy feasible versions of the same flywheel can be completed.
These more promising versions are outlibnes briefly at the blog from
addresses
http://www.getablog.net/totalizm
http://totalizm.wordpress.com
http://totalizm.myblog.net
http://www.newfreehost.com/weblog/?u=god
Witht he totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak
P.S. Anyway, I see and appreciate your determination to agree to
disagree. Where I can see your perfect device at work?
oriel36
> On Mar 19, 12:14 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> > Considering that there is a new orbital component to look at,why
> > bother remaining with a useless framework which prevents any
> > productive work from being done.
>
> The reason to look at simpler solutions first is to accomplish a
> success and to prove principles in a simplest possible manner. Only
> when principles are proven in such a simple manner, e.g. through
> employing principles of the inertial flywheel described here, more
> inductrialy feasible versions of the same flywheel can be completed.
> These more promising versions are outlibnes briefly at the blog from
>
I am an astronomer who deals with physical considerations of planetary
motion and occasionally use analogies of dynamics at a human level to
carry a point however there is a limit to the connection between
terrestrial ballistics and planetary motion despite the fact that most
here simply extend ballistics agenda to planetary motion as a 'law' or
ideology,Newton's 'universal law of gravitation' being an example of
this.
I have argued that the framework which Newton worked off is an
untenable one,a framework created by Flamsteed for his own agenda of
determining terrestrial longitudes via celestial sphere geometry.In
short,Newton's take on planetary motions has never worked,he ytalks
up a system of 365.25 days but tries to affirm his observations with
a 365/366 day calendrical system.In short,the clockwork solar system
of Newton is even worse,it is a calendrically driven clockwork solar
system.
addresseshttp://www.getablog.net/totalizmhttp://totalizm.wordpress.comhttp://totalizm.myblog.nethttp://www.newfreehost.com/weblog/?u=god
>
> Witht he totaliztic salute,
> Jan Pajak
>
> P.S. Anyway, I see and appreciate your determination to agree to
> disagree. Where I can see your perfect device at work?
Nowadays I have no real regard for being sucked into
contention,although it can be enjoyable to go through the ins and outs
of what is correct and what went wrong,it is much better to promote
more productive things such as the new orbital component for those who
can rise to the challenge.Only those who hoplessly subscribe to the
ideology which ties the experimental lab to the celestial arena
without any regard for astronomical methods ,insights and physical
considerations are holding up productive work ,their methods still
contain the astrological core at the heart of all their observations
and conclusions .
What you last sentence means,I do not know,I am an astronomer and not
an inventor.
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> "Coriolis effect" keeps a flywheel motionless in relation to the solar
> system, if the axis of rotation of this flywheel is parallel to the
> axis of the Earth's rotation.
1. It's not perpetual motion
2. A flywheel rotating parallel to the earth's rotation isn't going
to do hardly anything. It would have to be perpendicular/skew to the
earth axis.
3. It's a conservation of angular momentum issue, not the coriolis
effect.
4. The coriolis effect is a pseudo accelleration, when the distance
of a mass relative to the axis of rotation changes. A hurricane,
where a low pressure area increases the radius of the air on the
northern side from the earth's axis and decreases the radius from the
earths axis on the southern side, is an example of the corioli effect.
5. With only one revolution/day the flywheel would need to be
hundreds of miles in diameter to produce much power.
Bret Cahill
janp...@gmail.com
...
> 3. It's a conservation of angular momentum issue, not the coriolis
> effect.
I would rather argue that the principle which propells such a flywheel
still remains unnamed. Probably we can give a name to it, when the
flywheel described here is build and investigated thoroughly.
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> > effect.
> ...
> I would rather argue that the principle which propells such a flywheel
> still remains unnamed.
Take that up with Euler. This was all done centuries ago.
> Probably we can give a name to it, when the
> flywheel described here is build and investigated thoroughly.
Do the math:
One gigawatt (Al Gore's base load consumption) at 1 rpd (revolution
per day) requires 10 quadrillion, 10,000,000,000,000 ft lbs torque.
Bret Cahill
Dan Bloomquist
Coming from the same guy that doesn't know what moment of inertia is.
You really need more plonking..
Bret Cahill
> Coming from the same guy that doesn't know what moment of inertia is.
Until you show how to derive rotational KE, then no one will think you
have anything to contribute.
I just proved it won't work:
One gigawatt at 1 rpd (revolution per day) requires 10 quadrillion,
daestrom
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b2630e2c-f11b-4c08...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> > Take that up with Euler.
>
>> Coming from the same guy that doesn't know what moment of inertia is.
>
> Until you show how to derive rotational KE, then no one will think you
> have anything to contribute.
>
> I just proved it won't work:
>
No, you just proved that it's not practical to get 1 GW out of a single
unit.
You haven't proved you can't get *any* power out of the idea.
Learn to tell the difference.
daestrom
P.S. BTW, you can *not* get any power from a constrained flywheel from the
earth's rotation. I'll leave the proof as an exercise for you.
janp...@gmail.com
...
> One gigawatt at 1 rpd (revolution per day) requires 10 quadrillion,
> 10,000,000,000,000 ft lbs torque.
YES, but only if we have a single flywheel which rotates at 1 rev/day.
But if we manage to create a cascade of several flywheels, the first
of which is rotating at 1 rev/day, while each next is rotating, let
say 24x60x60 times faster, than a significant (useable) yield of
energy can be accomplished - for details see descriptions of the
cascade at the "free_energy.htm" web page, or at the totalizm bogs
from addresses:
http://www.getablog.net/totalizm
http://totalizm.wordpress.com
http://totalizm.myblog.net
http://www.newfreehost.com/weblog/?u=god
With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak
Sevenhundred Elves
> On Mar 25, 9:12 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
> ...
> > One gigawatt at 1 rpd (revolution per day) requires 10 quadrillion,
> > 10,000,000,000,000 ft lbs torque.
> ...
> YES, but only if we have a single flywheel which rotates at 1 rev/day.
> But if we manage to create a cascade of several flywheels, the first
> of which is rotating at 1 rev/day, while each next is rotating, let
> say 24x60x60 times faster, than a significant (useable) yield of
> energy can be accomplished - for details see descriptions of the
> cascade at the "free energy.htm" web page, or at the totalizm bogs
> from addresses:
> http://www.getablog.net/totalizm
> http://totalizm.wordpress.com
> http://totalizm.myblog.net
> http://www.newfreehost.com/weblog/?u=god
>
> With the totaliztic salute,
> Jan Pajak
If you use a gear ratio of 1:24x60x60 (1:86400), the friction of the
faster gear will be amlified 86400 times. Might be worth thinking about.
S.
Bret Cahill
>
> >> Coming from the same guy that doesn't know what moment of inertia is.
>
> > Until you show how to derive rotational KE, then no one will think you
> > have anything to contribute.
>
> > I just proved it won't work:
>
> No, you just proved that it's not practical to get 1 GW out of a single
> unit.
You think one watt from 10 thousand ft - lbs touque is any better?
> You haven't proved you can't get *any* power out of the idea.
Nothing that will _ever_ be cost effective.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
The friction with air will be the real killer.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> > 10,000,000,000,000 ft lbs torque.
>
> ...
> YES, but only if we have a single flywheel which rotates at 1 rev/day.
> But if we manage to create a cascade of several flywheels,
Wouldn't it be cheaper to tie some nanotubes to the moon?
Bret Cahill
janp...@gmail.com
wrote:
...
> If you use a gear ratio of 1:24x60x60 (1:86400), the friction of the
> faster gear will be amlified 86400 times. Might be worth thinking about.
YES friction does matter, but only if the gear is to accelerate 1 rev/
day into 24x60x60 rev/day. (It the gear is e.g. to reduce 24x60x60:1,
then the friction does NOT matter!) However, it is possible (and even
highly probable) that the effect which propells the flywheel described
here is going to act equally onto each of the flywheels of such a
casacde, even onto the flywheels which already rotate. In such a case
the gear would work for a reduction, not for acceleration. This in
turn would mean that the friction would be no problem any more - for
details again see descriptions of the cascade at the "free_energy.htm"
Bob F
"Sevenhundred Elves" <sevenh...@elves.invalid> wrote in message
news:fsac1b$1va$1...@aioe.org...
Thinking? That's asking a lot.
janp...@gmail.com
...
> > If you use a gear ratio of 1:24x60x60 (1:86400), the friction of the
> > faster gear will be amlified 86400 times. Might be worth thinking about.
> Thinking? That's asking a lot.
For some is even painful. This is why so many are "against" perpetual
motion devices, as acting "pro" requires thinking.
Bret Cahill
Now _that_ would be impressive!
Bret Cahill
> ...> If you use a gear ratio of 1:24x60x60 (1:86400), the friction of the
> > faster gear will be amlified 86400 times. Might be worth thinking about.
>
> ...
>
> YES friction does matter, but only if the gear is to accelerate 1 rev/
> day into 24x60x60 rev/day. (It the gear is e.g. to reduce 24x60x60:1,
> then the friction does NOT matter!) However, it is possible (and even
> highly probable) that the effect which propells the flywheel described
> here is going to act equally onto each of the flywheels of such a
> casacde, even onto the flywheels which already rotate. In such a case
> the gear would work for a reduction, not for acceleration. This in
> turn would mean that the friction would be no problem any more - for
> details again see descriptions of the cascade at the "free_energy.htm"
> web page, or at the totalizm bogs from addresses:http://www.getablog.net/totalizmhttp://totalizm.wordpress.comhttp://totalizm.myblog.nethttp://www.newfreehost.com/weblog/?u=god
Alie...@gmail.com
> On Mar 1, 10:12 pm, Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhund...@elves.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > > Instead of bleating about this on usenet why not build one
> I personally cannot build this flywheel for the simple reason that I
> do NOT have conditions for building it. After all, in order to build
> something mechanical, one needs to have space, tools, materials,
> money, time, practical skills, and many other encouraging conditions.
> I do not have any of these.
Quit whining and get them. You have enough space to have a computer,
you have enough space to build a tabletop demonstration model. Tools
are cheap and materials are free if you know how to scrounge parts
(motors, precision bearings, optics, electronics, etc.) out of
discarded CD players, printers etc. Money is NOT needed. You have time
to harangue at length about how it will work, you have time to build
it. As for "practical skills"; go get a job in a machine shop and
LEARN something about actual mechanical devices.
Damn all fools that set themselves up in private Ivory Towers and
decry the real world for failing to live up to their wants.
Mark L. Fergerson
janp...@gmail.com
...
> Quit whining and get them. You have enough space to have a computer,
> you have enough space to build a tabletop demonstration model. Tools
> are cheap and materials are free if you know how to scrounge parts
> (motors, precision bearings, optics, electronics, etc.) out of
> discarded CD players, printers etc. Money is NOT needed. You have time
> to harangue at length about how it will work, you have time to build
> it. As for "practical skills"; go get a job in a machine shop and
> LEARN something about actual mechanical devices.
Computer modelling is NOT the same as the real thing. Even if a
computer model says that a perpetual motion device can be build, it
firstly is NOT convincing to anyone, and secondly how true it is is
dependent on the quality of model one uses. So the only proof that the
perpetual motion devices can be build is actually building one of
them. And we know that these can be build, as there is such a
perpetual motion device (in 3 copies) currently operational in
Switzerland (see famous "thesta-distatica", and two "testatica"
machines). However, the question is whether the flywheel described
here can also be build, and if so - how much energy we can harvest
from it.
Bob F
<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c0226958-bcdb-4f3d...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
************************************************8
So get to work and build it. Talk is cheap.
janp...@gmail.com
Who provides funding?
Bret Cahill
>
> Who provides funding?
Anyone you can convince it's a good idea.
Bret Cahill
Alie...@gmail.com
I did not mean that you should build a "computer model". I meant you
could remove the computer from where it is and use the resulting freed
space to build an actual working model small enough to fit in that
space (meaning of "tabletop").
So get busy and build one.
Mark L. Fergerson
NoEinstein
> janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Our scientists are so succesful in telling us that perpetual motion
> > generators cannot be build, that we are scared to even try to build
> > one.
>
> Many people build what the think or claim are perpetual motion
> machines. Some of the builders fool themselves... but most just
> try to fool others for glory or profit.
>
> Mother nature cannot be fooled... It doesn't take that much
> education to understand why.
Dear Sam: I agree 100%! (That's so rare for us!) If by "Coriolis"
you refer to the forces that cause storms to rotate differently in the
N. and the S. hemisphere, any energy advantage results from SOLAR
energy differentials which cause the winds (or the water draining from
a bathtub) to rotate in the first place. So this could never be a
perpetual motion machine, because it has outside energy input.
When I was in grammar school, one of my first "attempts" at doing
science was to design what I thought was a perpetual motion machine.
I hadn't heard of a thing called... friction, however. An uncle
explained that friction would kill my idea. That "prize" is going to
be safe for a long, long time! -- NoEinstein --
janp...@gmail.com
...
> Anyone you can convince it's a good idea.
This your answer implies that if someone manages to convince you to
the idea (e.g. by showing the prototype that works), you will provide
funding. So these are my next questions: (1) How much funds you are
prepared to provide? (2) Are you open to new ideas? (3) Have you ever
heard of "thesta-distatica" from Methernitha in Switzerland? (4) Have
you read the totaliztic web page "boiler.htm" about a device which
according to research of the most scientific institution of the
country in which it was built, had such dangerously high efficiency
(around 2000%) that it was blocked for over 60 years from production
in factories?
With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak
P.S. You should be able to find the web page "boiler.htm" at following
addresses (amongst others):
http://evil.thefreehost.biz/boiler.htm
http://fruit.sitesled.com/boiler.htm
http://memorial.awardspace.info/boiler.htm
http://newzealand.myfreewebs.net/boiler.htm
http://pigs.freehyperspace.com/boiler.htm
http://parasitism.about.tc/boiler.htm
http://rubik.hits.io/boiler.htm
http://tornado.99k.org/boiler.htm
Dan Bloomquist
> On Mar 28, 7:55 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
> ...
>>> Who provides funding?
> ...
>> Anyone you can convince it's a good idea.
> ...
Walk into any grad class with a physical demonstration that a hundred
years of observations are wrong.
You will create more chaos than has been seen for a hundred years in the
physics community.
You, nor any body you have 'claimed' about, have created this chaos.
Now you will claim a great and deep conspiracy.
It only means you have no experience on any campus anywhere in the world.
It only means you are a crank......
Guy Macon
janp...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>Bret Cahill wrote:
>...
>> > Who provides funding?
>...
>> Anyone you can convince it's a good idea.
>...
>This your answer implies that if someone manages to convince you to
>the idea (e.g. by showing the prototype that works), you will provide
>funding. So these are my next questions: (1) How much funds you are
>prepared to provide? (2) Are you open to new ideas?
I work with venture capitalists who recently invested a little
under 2 million USD in a product that, if it works, promises
to raise the efficiency of a specific electric motor from 94%
to 96%. Create a working prototype demonstrating perpetual
motion and they would be willing to invest at least that much
and perhaps far more.
And, no, I won't give you contact info until I see a working
prototype, so don't even bother asking.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/>
Bret Cahill
> >...
> >> Anyone you can convince it's a good idea.
> >...
> >This your answer implies that if someone manages to convince you to
> >the idea (e.g. by showing the prototype that works), you will provide
> >funding. So these are my next questions: (1) How much funds you are
> >prepared to provide? (2) Are you open to new ideas?
>
> I work with venture capitalists who recently invested a little
> under 2 million USD in a product that, if it works, promises
> to raise the efficiency of a specific electric motor from 94%
Venture capitalists?
An ax murderer on death row could get him the funding.
Everyone is like Tesla nowadays.
At this point a lot of billionaires will _astutely_ invest in stuff
they are 80% certain to be a scam.
> Create a working prototype demonstrating perpetual
> motion and they would be willing to invest at least that much
> and perhaps far more.
> And, no, I won't give you contact info until I see a working
> prototype, so don't even bother asking.
The Foucault pendulum would do the same thing.
It wouldn't be cost effective either.
Bret Cahill
Guy Macon
Bret Cahill wrote:
>The Foucault pendulum would do the same thing.
No it would't. A Foucault pendulum does not extract any
energy from the earth's rotation. To understand why,
imagine one at one of the poles. Now imagine stopping
the earth's rotation. From a reference frame "fixed in
space" (a point where the starfield no longer appears
to rotate is close enough), the motion of the Foucault
pendulum does not change at all, and thus is unaffected
by the earth's rotation, neither gaining energy from it
or losing energy to it.
See [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum ].
janp...@gmail.com
> > prototype, so don't even bother asking.
No worries. I believe that on our planet works something that could be
called the "curse of inventors" - for details see the web page
"boilder.htm" the addresses of which I provided before.
Bret Cahill
> > > prototype, so don't even bother asking.
>
> ...
> No worries. I believe that on our planet works something that could be
> called the "curse of inventors" -
Inventors provide _equations_ and _numbers_.
Bret Cahill
oriel36
As the unofficial peer reviewer in the sci.astro.amateur forum ,the
Wiki article is rejected as inconsistent.and unsatisfactory..
The actual experiment conducted at the South Pole was based on the
correect principles which assumes axial rotation at 4 minutes for each
degree of rotation,15 degrees per hour and 24 hours/360 degrees -
http://www.phys-astro.sonoma.edu/people/students/baker/SouthPoleFoucault.html
There is not basis for referencing axial rotation as an indepedent
motion off celestial sphere geometry via the return of a star to a
terrestrial meridian .
Bret Cahill
>
> No it would't. A Foucault pendulum does not extract any
> energy from the earth's rotation.
Neither does a gyro if you don't set it up to extract torque.
Anyway there's too much windage to get the price down below $500,000/
watt.
Bret Cahill
Eugene A. Pallat
You can't win.
You can't break even.
You can't quit the game.
Guy Macon
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
Younwon't get a single nanowatt, no matter how many billions
of dollars you spend.
BretC...@peoplepc.com
>
> >> No it would't. A Foucault pendulum does not extract any
> >> energy from the earth's rotation.
>
> >Neither does a gyro if you don't set it up to extract torque.
>
> >Anyway there's too much windage to get the price down below $500,000/
> >watt.
>
> Younwon't get a single nanowatt, no matter how many billions
> of dollars you spend.
How does a cat dropped upside down land on its feet?
Bret Cahill
Dan Bloomquist
By conserving angular momentum.
Bret Cahill
If a cat can do it then so can you!
Bret Cahill
janp...@gmail.com
> > >> of dollars you spend. �
There is also another thread that I just started. It has the address:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/20892864b7f7690e/bbdc5b3dc1aed298#bbdc5b3dc1aed298
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> By conserving angular momentum.
That's a trivial answer. Momentum is always conserved.
The real answer?
A cat rotates 2 or 4 paws in one direction and its body in the other
direction. When the paws and stomach are both pointing down the cat
stops rotating.
This way a cat can set itself up to land on its paws for any height
above a few feet.
Humans could do the same thing if they were limber and were dropped
from a high enough level.
Bret Cahill
Guy Macon
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
janp...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Apr 3, 10:35 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
>...
>> > >> You won't get a single nanowatt, no matter how many billions
>> > >> of dollars you spend. �
Please don't put "Bret Cahill wrote" above words that were written
by me, Guy Macon. A Foucault Pendulum does not extract any energy
from the earth's rotation. None. Not even a teeny tiny bit.
>There is also another thread that I just started. It has the address:
>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/20892864b7f7690e/bbdc5b3dc1aed298#bbdc5b3dc1aed298
Please stop assuming that the entire world uses Google Groups.
Please identify your posts with Newsgroup, Subject, and date.
Quadibloc
> A cat rotates 2 or 4 paws in one direction and its body in the other
> direction. When the paws and stomach are both pointing down the cat
> stops rotating.
>
> This way a cat can set itself up to land on its paws for any height
> above a few feet.
>
> Humans could do the same thing if they were limber and were dropped
> from a high enough level.
Not really. What with the square-cube ratio, if humans were dropped
from a high enough level to land on their feet and hands, they would
still go splat.
John Savard
Guy Macon
I believe that humans tend to crunch rather than splat. I am
told that if you drop a kitten from an airplane it walks away,
a small dog limps away, a larger dog breaks a leg or two, an
adult human breaks mutiple bones and dies from trauma but is
still recognizably a human, and that a large horse leaves a
rather large splash.
Morris Dovey
And yet humans /can/ fall long distances (> 1000 ft) and walk
away if they've been trained in how to land and if ground
conditions are suitable.
I understand that during WWII some German units were trained to
jump from planes at moderately low altitude _without_ parachutes.
It had to have taken considerable courage...
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Bob F
"Morris Dovey" <mrd...@iedu.com> wrote in message
news:47FE3EE1...@iedu.com...
> And yet humans /can/ fall long distances (> 1000 ft) and walk
> away if they've been trained in how to land and if ground
> conditions are suitable.
>
> I understand that during WWII some German units were trained to
> jump from planes at moderately low altitude _without_ parachutes.
> It had to have taken considerable courage...
I'd love to see some documentation of that.
Morris Dovey
I'm not sure where'd be the best place to look. I've heard of one
actual combat jump that took place in Norway. The story, as I
heard it, was that the Norwegian resistance forces baited the
Germans to jump into a snow field - actually a rocky area that
the resistance had whitewashed and scattered a bit of snow over.
BretC...@peoplepc.com
You blew your credibility by jazzing up the thread with "corioli
effect."
Bret Cahill
Quadibloc
> Considering that there is a new orbital component to look at,why
> bother remaining with a useless framework which prevents any
> productive work from being done.
That would be a good point, but of course, those who have failed to
appreciate your insights feel the framework they work with is quite
suitable to productive work - and their ability to calculate the paths
of space probes and so on seems to confirm them in that belief.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> Bret Cahill wrote:
> >The Foucault pendulum would do the same thing.
>
> No it would't. A Foucault pendulum does not extract any
> energy from the earth's rotation. To understand why,
> imagine one at one of the poles. Now imagine stopping
> the earth's rotation. From a reference frame "fixed in
> space" (a point where the starfield no longer appears
> to rotate is close enough), the motion of the Foucault
> pendulum does not change at all, and thus is unaffected
> by the earth's rotation, neither gaining energy from it
> or losing energy to it.
But the Foucault pendulum might be something we could stand on to
extract energy not from the pendulum, but from that rotating Earth.
Then again, it might not - one would need at least a good gyroscope,
and remember that it will try to go in a perpendicular direction...
John Savard
Quadibloc
> I believe that humans tend to crunch rather than splat.
That was a level of detail I was not concerned with. I think I'll
stick to changing the rules of Chess.
John Savard
Guy Macon
Quadibloc wrote:
>
>Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>
>> Bret Cahill wrote:
>
>> >The Foucault pendulum would do the same thing.
>>
>> No it wouldn't. A Foucault pendulum does not extract any
>> energy from the earth's rotation. To understand why,
>> imagine one at one of the poles. Now imagine stopping
>> the earth's rotation. From a reference frame "fixed in
>> space" (a point where the starfield no longer appears
>> to rotate is close enough), the motion of the Foucault
>> pendulum does not change at all, and thus is unaffected
>> by the earth's rotation, neither gaining energy from it
>> or losing energy to it.
>
>But the Foucault pendulum might be something we could stand on to
>extract energy not from the pendulum, but from that rotating Earth.
>Then again, it might not - one would need at least a good gyroscope,
>and remember that it will try to go in a perpendicular direction...
As I understand the physics, Zero energy can be extracted from the
rotating Earth by standing on a Foucault pendulum. Consider a
pendulum suspended above the north pole with a swing that is
aligned to the star field. Now stop the earth from rotating.
Does doing that change the swing on the pendulum? Now re-start
the earth and start extracting energy from the once-per-24-hours
apparent motion. Soon you will run out of the kinetic energy
contained in the inertial mass of the pendulum and it will have
a swing aligned with the earth. Replace the pendulum with a
gyroscope and the same argument applies. You can only get back
the energy you used to start the pendulum swinging or the gyroscope
spinning.
jerry warner
The Governor of Iowa!
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Feb 27, 11:50 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Our scientists are so succesful in telling us that perpetual motion
> > > generators cannot be build, that we are scared to even try to build
> > > one.
> >
> > Many people build what the think or claim are perpetual motion
> > machines. Some of the builders fool themselves... but most just
> > try to fool others for glory or profit.
> >
> > Mother nature cannot be fooled... It doesn't take that much
> > education to understand why.
>
> Dear Sam: I agree 100%! (That's so rare for us!) If by "Coriolis"
> you refer to the forces that cause storms to rotate differently in the
> N. and the S. hemisphere, any energy advantage results from SOLAR
> energy differentials which cause the winds (or the water draining from
> a bathtub) to rotate in the first place. So this could never be a
> perpetual motion machine, because it has outside energy input.
> When I was in grammar school, one of my first "attempts" at doing
> science was to design what I thought was a perpetual motion machine.
> I hadn't heard of a thing called... friction, however. An uncle
> explained that friction would kill my idea. That "prize" is going to
> be safe for a long, long time! -- NoEinstein --
BretC...@peoplepc.com
the magnitude of the angular momentum of the system. During most of
the swing a Foucault Pendulum has some angular momentum just like a
gyro.
The gyro idea is nonsense from a practical point of view. 1 rev/day
torque would be in the billions of N-m for even a few kilowatts not to
mention the frictional losses from such a huge disks spinning in air
or maintaining a vacuum.
I brought up the Foucault Pendulum because it's the only idea I could
think of sillier than a gyro.
Bret Cahill
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> > > So get to work and build it. Talk is cheap.
> >
> > Who provides funding?
> Anyone you can convince it's a good idea.
Exactly. If it were a good idea, a little sketch would attract funding.
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
Bret Cahill
> > > Who provides funding?
> > Anyone you can convince it's a good idea.
> Exactly. �If it were a good idea,
The torque of a 1 rev/day 1 hp power plant would be:
1 rev/ 6.28 rad X 1 day/revolution X 24hrs/day X 3600sec/hr x 550 ft-
lbs/sec = 8 million ft lbs.
> a little sketch would attract funding.
Calling it the "corioli effect" destroyed his credibility.
Bret Cahill