permanent magnet motor
gdew...@gmail.com
perpetual motion machine "of the second kind."
There are two usual statements of this law.
Kelvin's formulation states that it is impossible for a system
operating in a cycle and in contact with one thermal reservoir to
perform positive work in the surroundings.
Clausius's formulation states that it is impossible for a system
operating in a cycle to produce positive heat flow from a colder body
to a hotter body. http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SecondLawofThermodynamics.html
Holy nobelty William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin (aka - you can call me
Lord) is widely known from the scale of absolute temperature
measurement he claimed to have re-invented, Galileo Galilei invented a
rudimentary water thermometer in 1593. In 1714, Gabriel Fahrenheit
invented the first mercury thermometer, the modern thermometer.
VIP Kelvin also mentions: the conversion of heat (or caloric) into
mechanical effect is probably impossible, certainly undiscovered - but
a footnote signalled his first doubts about the caloric theory.
Here Mr Kelvin is measuring the impossible in doubts.
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." sad Lord Kelvin -
president of the Royal Society - 1895. Later crawled back by
antagonists into "technically impossible" because it was in his days.
Ptolemy believed the planets and Sun to orbit the in the order
Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn. This system became known
as the Ptolemaic system.
nonexistence speculations are never factual, their description of
perpetual motion is not to be taken seriously in any way.
On http://www.ajayonline.us/ we can read
" Einstein did not derive it mathematically but in true sense
speculated it. "
In short he stole half then speculated the other half. (no math.)
Unlike you (the reader) I can say I've looked at every overunity
apparatus on the internet I could find. You can-not claim you did this
as it takes months of work. From this research I have derived a far
less complicated magnet motor design. I'm not the only one who build
this. The list is very long, but in contrast I do disclose the
workings.
enjoy :-)
here is my website:
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor
For those skilled in the art it should be obvious that I would love to
establish some exact math on this.
--------------------
(my footer starts here)
http://www.newebmasters.com/freeenergy/sm-text.html : "We don't
grant patents on perpetual motion machines," said the examiners at the
U.S. Patent Office. "It won't work because it violates the law of
Conservation of Energy," said one physicist after another. But
because, inventor Howard Johnson is not the sort of man to be
intimidated by such seemingly authoritative pronouncements, he now
owns U.S. Patent No. 4,151,431 which describes how it is possible to
generate motive power, as in a motor, using only the energy contained
in the atoms of permanent magnets. That's right. Johnson has
discovered how to build motors that run without an input of
electricity or any other kind of external energy!
The monumental nature of the invention is obvious, especially in a
world facing an alarming, escalating energy shortage. Yet inventor
Johnson is not rushing to peddle his creation as the end-all solution
to world- wide energy problems. He has more important work to do.
First, there's the need to refine his laboratory prototypes into
workable practical devices -in particular a 5,000-watt electric power
generator already in the building. His second and perhaps more
difficult major challenge: persuade a host of skeptics that his ideas
are indeed practical.
Johnson, who has been coping with disbelievers for decades, can be
very persuasive in a face-to-face encounter because he can not do more
than merely theorize; he can demonstrate working models that
unquestionably create motion using only permanent magnets. When this
writer was urged by the editor of SCIENCE & MECHANICS to make a
thousand mile pilgrimage to Blacksburg, Virginia, to meet with the
inventor, he went there as an "open-minded skeptic" and as a former
research Scientist determined not to be fooled. Within two days, this
former skeptic had become a believer. Here's why.
Doing the Unthinkable. Howard Johnson refuses to view the "laws"
of science as somehow sacred, so doing the unthinkable and succeeding
is second nature to him. If a particular law gets in the way, he sees
no harm in going around it for a while to see if there's something on
the other side. Johnson explains the persistent opposition he
experiences from the established scientific community this way:
"Physics is a measurement science and physicists are especially
determined to protect the 'Law' of Conservation of Energy. Thus the
physicists become game wardens who tell us what laws' we can't
violate. In this case they don't even know what the game is. But they
are so scared that I and my associates are going to violate some of
these laws, that they have to get to the pass to head us off!"
Sam Wormley
Ajay is a crank.
>
> " Einstein did not derive it mathematically but in true sense
> speculated it. "
>
> In short he stole half then speculated the other half. (no math.)
>
> Unlike you (the reader) I can say I've looked at every overunity
> apparatus on the internet I could find. You can-not claim you did this
> as it takes months of work. From this research I have derived a far
> less complicated magnet motor design. I'm not the only one who build
> this. The list is very long, but in contrast I do disclose the
> workings.
What you haven't done is understand the laws of thermodynamics.
Alternatively, you could construct your device and see first hand
than it doesn't work. In fact, you could go on for the rest of
your life trying to reduce this friction or that radiation, but
in the end, the device can't work. What you pursue is your choice.
Education is very valuable... especially the mathematics.
gdew...@gmail.com
> gdewi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The second law of thermodynamics prohibits the construction of a
> > perpetual motion machine "of the second kind."
>
> > There are two usual statements of this law.
>
> > Kelvin's formulation states that it is impossible for a system
> > operating in a cycle and in contact with one thermal reservoir to
> > perform positive work in the surroundings.
>
> > Clausius's formulation states that it is impossible for a system
> > operating in a cycle to produce positive heat flow from a colder body
>
> > Holy nobelty William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin (aka - you can call me
> > Lord) is widely known from the scale of absolute temperature
> > measurement he claimed to have re-invented, Galileo Galilei invented a
> > rudimentary water thermometer in 1593. In 1714, Gabriel Fahrenheit
> > invented the first mercury thermometer, the modern thermometer.
>
> > VIP Kelvin also mentions: the conversion of heat (or caloric) into
> > mechanical effect is probably impossible, certainly undiscovered - but
> > a footnote signalled his first doubts about the caloric theory.
>
> > Here Mr Kelvin is measuring the impossible in doubts.
>
> > "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." sad Lord Kelvin -
> > president of the Royal Society - 1895. Later crawled back by
> > antagonists into "technically impossible" because it was in his days.
>
> > Ptolemy believed the planets and Sun to orbit the in the order
> > Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn. This system became known
> > as the Ptolemaic system.
>
> > nonexistence speculations are never factual, their description of
> > perpetual motion is not to be taken seriously in any way.
>
>
> Ajay is a crank.
That's like a last resort of argumentation. The ramifications of this
posting evolve around the fact you are in no position to make a claim
which you have no evidence for. you have - no - supporting evidence.
So you are making the irrational claims here. If you disagree you
should explain in detail what you mean with "crank". If you don't I
will point you at the words of Mr Johnson.
" If a particular law gets in the way, he sees no harm in going around
it for a while to see if there's something on the other side. Johnson
explains the persistent opposition he experiences from the established
scientific community this way: "Physics is a measurement science and
physicists are especially determined to protect the 'Law' of
Conservation of Energy. Thus the physicists become game wardens who
tell us what laws' we can't
violate. " I now claim: You are into pacman not physics. Unlike your
"crank" claim I do have evidence to back this claim up.
> > " Einstein did not derive it mathematically but in true sense
> > speculated it. "
>
> > In short he stole half then speculated the other half. (no math.)
>
> > Unlike you (the reader) I can say I've looked at every overunity
> > apparatus on the Internet I could find. You can-not claim you did this
> > as it takes months of work. From this research I have derived a far
> > less complicated magnet motor design. I'm not the only one who build
> > this. The list is very long, but in contrast I do disclose the
> > workings.
>
> What you haven't done is understand the laws of thermodynamics.
> Alternatively, you could construct your device and see first hand
> than it doesn't work.
First hand would be looking at the spinning apparatus.
Second hand would be 1800 quotation
Third hand would be collective blind faith in the assumptions of
others.
> In fact, you could go on for the rest of
> your life trying to reduce this friction or that radiation, but
> in the end, the device can't work. What you pursue is your choice.
>
> Education is very valuable... especially the mathematics.
THINKING is valuable, if you can-not think knowledge is a novelty.
What you call knowledge is merely a reproduction of the thoughts of
others (Second hand)
the angular momentum is preserved on the primary and secondary wheels.
Because the net force is zero on the primary wheel
And because attraction and repulsion compliment another on the
secondary.
Now explain in the words of physics what is missing and/or why I am
wrong.
thanks in advance.
Jim Black
> On Feb 17, 10:14 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > Alternatively, you could construct your device and see first hand
> > than it doesn't work.
>
> First hand would be looking at the spinning apparatus.
I don't know if you're serious or just trolling, but you'll probably
never get the thing built at all if you spend all your time arguing
with people on Usenet.
--
Jim E. Black
Uncle Al
>
> The second law of thermodynamics prohibits the construction of a
> perpetual motion machine "of the second kind."
The First Law of thermodynamics prohibits the construction of a
perpetual motion machine "of the first kind." There are no third or
higher kinds. Quantum vacuum ZPG motors are not cyclic. Oops- fresh
out of peretual motion machines.
Unless you can rig some new founding postulates to physical theory
that when exercised do not violate empirical observation with flawed
prediction, you're thoroughly, irretrievably, irrevocably fucked.
> For those skilled in the art it should be obvious that I would love to
> establish some exact math on this.
[snip]
There is no counting number smaller than zero.
Ode to gdewilde
Somebody said it couldn't be done,
But g with a chuckle replied
That "maybe it couldn't," but he would be one
Who wouldn't say so till he'd tried.
So g buckled right in with the trace of a grin
On his face. If he worried he hid it.
g started to sing and he tackled the thing
And g never fucking could do it.
Somebody scoffed: "Oh, you'll never do that;
At least no one has ever done it";
But g took off his coat and he took off his hat,
And the first thing we knew he'd begun it.
With a lift of his chin and a bit of a grin,
Without any doubting or quiddit,
g started to sing and he tackled the thing
And g never fucking could do it.
There are thousands to tell g it cannot be done,
There are thousands to prophesy failure;
There are thousands to point out to g, one by one,
"How hopeless that task set before you."
But just buckle in with a bit of a grin,
g take off your coat and go to it;
Just start to sing as you tackle the thing
And g, you'll never fucking do it.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
gdew...@gmail.com
What I do should be irrelevant for your judgement.
You do-not need me to hold your hand, you can read my website and look
at the photographic evidence. I will not allow insults to clutter the
judgement of others. I can interpret your comment as insulting as you
haven't addressed any of my points. In the context of my invention
it's a nonsense comments.
I claim that a wheel can only rotate in 2 directions. Forces in other
directions either bend of or disappear entirely. Pushing a wheel
sidewards does-not influence it's spin. Push it under 90 degrees and
the energy is entirely destroyed, 180 degrees and it spins in the
other direction. DOH!!
I have explained the theory in great detail. But what I do find
interesting is that you think you have a point. You have not. Barely
any of the other posters did. I should feel very insulted by this, not
you.
But feel free to start explaining how my invention works. Then (if you
grasp the point) you are fully obligated to yourself to build such
device by your own statement. I hope you will report this back to
me. :-)
If you think it cant work, then you are kindly requested to explain
why.
Æther way,
Thanks in advance.
Sam Wormley
Anything to keep from building it, I see!
The Ghost In The Machine
<gdew...@gmail.com>
wrote
on 17 Feb 2007 12:39:12 -0800
<1171744752....@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
> The second law of thermodynamics prohibits the construction of a
> perpetual motion machine "of the second kind."
>
> There are two usual statements of this law.
[snip for brevity]
> here is my website:
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor
>
> For those skilled in the art it should be obvious that I would love to
> establish some exact math on this.
Patent #9395487 does not give sufficient information as to the size or
strength of the magnets, current flows, or number of turns.
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT3935487
>
> --------------------
> (my footer starts here)
[snippage]
Dash dash space newline.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows. When it absolutely, positively, has to crash.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
gdew...@gmail.com
> There are thousands to tell g it cannot be done,
yes, don't you just love it?
I've just made this page for the " it cant be community "
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-it-cant-be
The evidence is in refutable.
You can expect me to share what ever crazy research I do. But don't
assume something about me.
Because you are wrong.
All of you.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
here are your ramifications:
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-theory
and here is your work page:
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-it-cant-be
Do you think this is a democracy and you get to vote on something?
I totally disagree. you are all wrong and I am all right.
as always.
gdew...@gmail.com
<e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> Patent #9395487 does not give sufficient information as to the size or
> strength of the magnets, current flows, or number of turns.
>
> http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT3935487
nr 9395487 does not exist.
as for 3935487, the values are not important as he displayed a working
device. There are hundreds, it's far to silly to pretend this is the
one.
You are not backing up your claim up with evidence
You assume lies.
next:
Gamma Manager
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress?p=5743
confirmation 1
http://www.gammamanager.com/pic/sdcan.jpg
confirmation 2
http://www.gammamanager.com/pic/stexhcan.jpg
confirmation 3
http://www.gammamanager.com/pic/sdhun.jpg
confirmation 4
http://www.gammamanager.com/pic/sdhunex.jpg
confirmation 5
http://www.gammamanager.com/pic/sdhunexb.jpg
Conclusion: You lie
I'm working at the "it cant be" website now.
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-it-cant-be
this is where you reproduce the effect I described in 2 minutes.
so why don't you?
here is the main page again.
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor
gdew...@gmail.com
Sam Wormley
>> Anything to keep from building it, I see!
>
> Then why haven[']t you build it?
>
There is a reason perpetual motion machines can't work. Learn
thermodynamics...
Sam Wormley
>
> If you think it can[']t work, then you are kindly requested to explain
> why.
>
>
There is a reason perpetual motion machines can't work. Learn
thermodynamics...
Eric Gisse
[snip idiocy]
>
> For those skilled in the art it should be obvious that I would love to
> establish some exact math on this.
Why don't you tell us how much math and physics you have had?
The Ghost In The Machine
<swor...@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Sun, 18 Feb 2007 03:28:35 GMT
<DJPBh.1308$PD2.1188@attbi_s22>:
Pedant Point:
Erm...no. That's not the reason PPMs don't work.
Thermo is a model of the Universe.
It's a darned *good* model, to be sure...but it doesn't
explain why PPMs can't work. As phrased, he asked why
we think it can't work; thermodynamics is in that case a
perfectly good answer. But one could also say "we think
satellites can't work because the Earth is flat".
Fortunately, we know the Earth is an oblate spheroid
(and satellites have helped determine its oblateness).
We also have quite a bit of evidence that the theory of
thermodynamics works.
But it doesn't really explain why.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Warning: This encrypted signature is a dangerous
munition. Please notify the US government
immediately upon reception.
0000 0000 0000 0000 0001 0000 0000 0000 ...
Sam Wormley
> In sci.physics, Sam Wormley
> <swor...@mchsi.com>
> wrote
> on Sun, 18 Feb 2007 03:28:35 GMT
> <DJPBh.1308$PD2.1188@attbi_s22>:
>> gdew...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> If you think it can[']t work, then you are kindly requested to explain
>>> why.
>>>
>>>
>> There is a reason perpetual motion machines can't work. Learn
>> thermodynamics...
>>
>
> Pedant Point:
>
> Erm...no. That's not the reason PPMs don't work.
> Thermo is a model of the Universe.
>
> It's a darned *good* model, to be sure...but it doesn't
> explain why PPMs can't work. As phrased, he asked why
> we think it can't work; thermodynamics is in that case a
> perfectly good answer. But one could also say "we think
> satellites can't work because the Earth is flat".
>
> Fortunately, we know the Earth is an oblate spheroid
> (and satellites have helped determine its oblateness).
> We also have quite a bit of evidence that the theory of
> thermodynamics works.
>
> But it doesn't really explain why.
>
"Perpetual motion machines violate one or both of the following two
laws of physics: the first law of thermodynamics and the second law
of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics is essentially a
statement of conservation of energy".
"The second law has several statements, the most intuitive of which
is that heat flows spontaneously from hotter to colder places; the
most well known is that entropy tends to increase, or at the least
stays the same; another statement is that no heat engine (an engine
which produces work while moving heat between two places) can be more
efficient than a Carnot heat engine. As a special case of this, any
machine operating in a closed cycle cannot only transform thermal
energy to work in a region of constant temperature".
Sam Wormley
Gaby's PPM involves accelerated magnetic fields generating EM
radiation loss and suffers from internal friction due to changing
stressed in the substrates holding the magnets, resulting in thermal
radiation losses. Even if there were frictionless bearings, either
loss brings the device to a halt, let along produce and free work!
The Ghost In The Machine
<v7RBh.1633$PD2.283@attbi_s22>:
That's assuming it even *starts*. Stevin's Principle
makes short work of that. :-)
But again, "laws" here aren't what make the Universe work;
it's what we observe of the Universe's workings. That was
my point, and a nitpick it was, at that.
At best, the patent describes a novel sort of motor
(since it includes power leads, the USPTO might have let
it go by). At worst, it's a PPM and should not have been
patented at all. As it is, the patent expired years back;
it was issued in 1976.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #8830129:
std::set<...> v; for(..:iterator i = v.begin(); i != v.end(); i++)
if(*i == thing) {...}
gdew...@gmail.com
> wrote
> on Sun, 18 Feb 2007 05:04:27 GMT
> <v7RBh.1633$PD2.283@attbi_s22>:
>
>
>
> > Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >>> In sci.physics, Sam Wormley
> >>> wrote
> >>> on Sun, 18 Feb 2007 03:28:35 GMT
> >>> <DJPBh.1308$PD2.1188@attbi_s22>:
Yes, so I request your observation of this phenomenon. Not
unreasonable I would think?
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-theory
> At best, the patent describes a novel sort of motor
There is no "the patent", there are hundreds.
I have made this page so that you can reproduce the effect I'm talking
about in less then 5 minutes.
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-it-cant-be
Don't you agree that if the pendulum doesn't swing this machine does
make free energy?
if you claim there is friction, what does it attach itself to?
gdew...@gmail.com
So far you guys quoted me the laws of physics over and over again.
This is the physics I know on this subject.
Now you and your establishment have promoted his assumption to a law
but it was just that. "An assumption" and nothing else.
Don't you know the laws of physics?
gdew...@gmail.com
look my work is a classic. There really is no one on the world who can
make websites like this.
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-it-cant-be
The invention is just as fantastic. You are so defeated I've upset
you. I understand, I'm sorry. It's hard to be cool like me. :-) I also
have a picture blog, maybe you can appreciate that?
http://fototour.blogspot.com/
here is my futuristic science weblog.
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress
Damn this guy is original, (ye, I should know) Now back to the theory
of my invention.
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-theory
What is the correct wordings? Should I call the magneto force curl F
or E? what is good for you idiots?
You physics people are pretty unforgiving so I need the right values.
I know it sounds gay but that's the way you are.
Why don't you reproduce my experiment?
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-it-cant-be
it should take 2 min.
After that you can explain what happens.
You really don't need to ask me anything. It's all up to you.
Your excuses to avoid the 2 min work merely describe your own
laziness.
Are you that much of a failure?
It cant be?
Eric Gisse
[...]
The Lorentz Force law absolutely denies magnetic forces doing work. I
have told you this over and over - the force is perpendicular to the
direction of movement so work is not done. Yet you refuse to
understand, and instead quote things that are irrelevant.
Nobody gives a shit about Lord Kelvin. He was wrong, and nearly a
century dead. However, that does NOT mean every crackpot idea is
possible.
Nobody gives a shit about Ajay Sharma. Period. I was surprised that
you managed to get stupider, but you did as soon as you started using
Ajay Sharma in your arguments.
You have no counter to my argument from actual physics. You have no
working model to prove me wrong. You have no understanding of what you
are arguing against. You have no clue.
>
> Don't you know the laws of physics?
To a level you will never achieve.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>On Feb 17, 9:31 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>The Lorentz Force law absolutely denies magnetic forces doing work. I
>have told you this over and over - the force is perpendicular to the
>direction of movement so work is not done. Yet you refuse to
>understand, and instead quote things that are irrelevant.
>
>Nobody gives a shit about Lord Kelvin. He was wrong,
In what way he was wrong?
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Eric Gisse
> In article <1171789243.402497.271...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >On Feb 17, 9:31 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >[...]
>
> >The Lorentz Force law absolutely denies magnetic forces doing work. I
> >have told you this over and over - the force is perpendicular to the
> >direction of movement so work is not done. Yet you refuse to
> >understand, and instead quote things that are irrelevant.
>
> >Nobody gives a shit about Lord Kelvin. He was wrong,
>
> In what way he was wrong?
About heavier-than-air flying machines being an impossibility.
I'm just tired of that idiotic quote being drug out every time as if
it somehow vindicates his ideas.
>
> Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
> m...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>On Feb 18, 12:06 am, mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>> In article <1171789243.402497.271...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> >On Feb 17, 9:31 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >[...]
>>
>> >The Lorentz Force law absolutely denies magnetic forces doing work. I
>> >have told you this over and over - the force is perpendicular to the
>> >direction of movement so work is not done. Yet you refuse to
>> >understand, and instead quote things that are irrelevant.
>>
>> >Nobody gives a shit about Lord Kelvin. He was wrong,
>>
>> In what way he was wrong?
>
>About heavier-than-air flying machines being an impossibility.
>
of power plants and materials to make heavier than air flyin machines
possible". This is a statement about technology, ***not*** scientific
limitations and was pretty much true (give or take couple years of
development) at the time it was uttered. Anybody who is not a *total
moron* should realize that Lord Kelvin (and other scientists of his
time) knew that birds are flying and are heavier than air, thus
heavier than air flight is not impossible in principle. Now, when the
statement was picked on by the fucking morons of the news media and
trancribed for the benefit of the general population, the fine
distinction between scientific and technological impossibility was
dropped (we don't expect the fucking morons of the news media to
comprehend such, now do we?). But the distinction was there.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
jmfb...@aol.com
Sam Wormley
>
> What is the correct wordings? Should I call the magneto force curl F
> or E? what is good for you idiots?
>
"Perpetual motion machines violate one or both of the following two
Sam Wormley
> So far you guys quoted me the laws of physics over and over again.
>
>
> Don't you know the laws of physics?
>
State the laws mathematically as they apply to your device, Gaby!
Wethinks you can't.
gdew...@gmail.com
> On Feb 17, 9:31 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> The Lorentz Force law absolutely denies magnetic forces doing work. I
> have told you this over and over - the force is perpendicular to the
> direction of movement so work is not done.
quote:
"Dr. Simanek's argument is that either the Cavorite motor, or its
electrostatic counterpart, do not actually change in any way as they
rotate. Therefore, he reasons, by Stevin's principle of virtual work,
no energy is gained during the rotation and either motor, once
started, will eventually stop because of friction, or, if we neglect
friction, neither motor provides useful output work." http://www.kilty.com/pmredux.htm
In the context of my invention this claim doesn't hold at all. I
explain here:
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-it-cant-be
what word should use for accelerating mass as the result of
magnetism. I'm using magneto-interaction now but that sounds very
strange on an axle. Should I call it "virtual work"?... really?? Do
you think anyone will buy that? I'm trying not to laugh.....
> You have no understanding of what you are arguing against.
You have no idea of what I do or do not understand. You could only
guess and a guess is just that. Your opinion is not factual because
you say it is. In the end David kills Goliath. That's how it goes.
LOL - I will use mind control and use my army of zombie scientists to
conquer the world. - easy - no evidence needed.
As soon as I can accomplish a decent mathematical analysis of my
apparatus I will have it evaluated by other physicians.
> > Don't you know the laws of physics?
>
> To a level you will never achieve.
I appreciate your effort, thanks.
Then you should have no problem understanding Dr. Simanek's is wrong.
I claim that Friction = work
My evidence is very simple:
EBM makes free electricity by running an efficient electomotor that
(apparently) also has a lot of friction. They use the (apparently
free) heat to (apparently) push it over 100% efficiency.
Q18: How long does it take from ordering to commissioning a 5 MWe
Unit?
A18: Approximately 15 months for the 1st unit, and 12 months for
additional units.
They sell 5 megawatt units? huh?
You cant just dismiss this, it's very good physics by understatement.
Q19: What is the probability that the Technology will be
commercially useful?
A19: It is already "useful", the probability is 100 %.
Q21. What are the expected profits in USD over the life time of the
new technology?
A21: The pay-back of capital is less than 4 years for small units
(less than 10 MWe) and less than 3 years for larger units. The pay-
back period is expected to be shorter yet, after the automated
"robotic manufacturing" begins.
humm, yes? [Friction = Work] or No?
-.-
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor
----------
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress?tag=energy&list=1
Simple Simon
news:1171795023....@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
He is saying that since someone was once wrong about something then everyone
who has proven him wrong must also be wrong. It is a logical necessity. QED.
gdew...@gmail.com
> In article <1171789243.402497.271...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >On Feb 17, 9:31 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >[...]
>
> >The Lorentz Force law absolutely denies magnetic forces doing work. I
> >have told you this over and over - the force is perpendicular to the
> >direction of movement so work is not done. Yet you refuse to
> >understand, and instead quote things that are irrelevant.
>
> >Nobody gives a shit about Lord Kelvin. He was wrong,
>
> In what way he was wrong?
>
In lots of ways.
VIP Kelvin mentions: the conversion of heat (or caloric) into
mechanical effect is probably impossible, certainly undiscovered - but
a footnote signalled his first doubts about the caloric theory.
Here Mr Kelvin is measuring the impossible in doubts. It's cute but
it's wrong. Undiscovered is not equal to impossible. The impossibility
of perpetual motion is merely another assumption on his behalf. Seems
like a rather lazy and insulting thing to say about peoples research.
Not very noble at all. He most probably means perpetual motion is
technically impossible in 1800, he sure was right about this, people
are still not ready for it it appears. This page looks like good
physics to me. It's hard to tell.
http://www.kilty.com/pmredux.htm
in "Figure 3. No matter how we arrange the point charges there may be
a lateral force on the rotor axle, but never a force couple to turn
the rotor. In this static situation the curl of E is always zero."
So, in my opinion this should explain why there is no drag on the
primary wheel of my apparatus.
Can you confirm I'm not quoting any wild assumptions here?
Or at least explain why I am wrong if you disagree?
That would be cool.
Thanks.
The Ghost In The Machine
<jmfb...@aol.com>
wrote
on Sun, 18 Feb 07 14:06:38 GMT
<er9mhe$8qk...@s1005.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>:
Ask and ye shall receive... :-)
http://paperplane.org/History/history.html
suggests Chinese kites. The American variant, however,
may have waited until 1930 with Jack Northrup producing
paper models, though others suggest that they predate even
the Wrights. I'll admit to some curiosity as to what the
early Egyptians (?) used for trash cans; unfortunately
Google wasn't quite as cooperative in answering questions
regarding such. (One envisions something akin to a clay
chamber pot, which could later burn the paper waste.
However, that's just a guess on my part.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_airplanes
also suggests Chinese kites, and suggests 1909, though
also mentions George Cayley in the early 1800s, though
he used linen.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of
elderberries!" - Monty Python and the Holy Grail
The Ghost In The Machine
<1171779457.8...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>:
Insufficient information. However, either way, your theory's stuck in
neutral.
If the two disks are geared the unit falls under Stevin's Principle,
which basically means it won't do diddlysquat. If they are not geared
the green disk will simply rotate sufficiently so that the red pole is
facing the black pole of the blue disk, and then wiggle a bit to
dissipate energy.
>
>> At best, the patent describes a novel sort of motor
>
> There is no "the patent", there are hundreds.
>
> I have made this page so that you can reproduce the effect I'm talking
> about in less then 5 minutes.
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-it-cant-be
>
> Don't you agree that if the pendulum doesn't swing this machine does
> make free energy?
You are imparting energy by moving the other magnet.
Doesn't work! In any event it would appear that the
hanging magnet will both swing and rotate, in a
rather complex motion.
>
> if you claim there is friction, what does it attach itself to?
>
What does what attach itself to? Any working motor has friction.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of
elderberries!" - Monty Python and the Holy Grail
--
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>In article <lpWBh.1$25....@news.uchicago.edu>,
> mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
gdew...@gmail.com
<e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> In sci.physics, gdewi...@gmail.com
> <gdewi...@gmail.com>
> wrote
> > I have made this page so that you can reproduce the effect I'm talking
> > about in less then 5 minutes.
>
> >http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-it-cant-be
>
> > Don't you agree that if the pendulum doesn't swing this machine does
> > make free energy?
>
> You are imparting energy by moving the other magnet.
> Doesn't work!
This comment makes sense! But my example does work. I will explain...
> In any event it would appear that the hanging magnet will both swing and rotate, in a rather complex motion.
please do-do the experiment? It's an awfully simple one. You can not
use assumed measurements against the real thing. I'm disallowing
it. :-) This doesn't seem unreasonable. Or does it compare to expect
me to build and display an engine? I'm pretty sure I can make
everything spin on video. The idiot club will visit and kill me if the
video is good enough. I think I can ask you to do the 2 min
reproduction? no?
> > if you claim there is friction, what does it attach itself to?
> What does what attach itself to? Any working motor has friction.
As the pendulum can be made to rotate without swinging what is the
attachment point of this friction? You need something physical to
create this friction with. If you have no mass to support friction you
can't have it. Friction takes 2 masses moving in different directions.
But I ask you,
1) if the magnet is causing friction, then why doesn't the pendulum
swing?
2) If we combine just as much repulsion as attraction What do we have
left? Attraction? Repulsion? Both??
When we combine those + and - do they add up or subtract?
There you have it, gaby wins and physics lost. :-)
hehehe
The Ghost In The Machine
on Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:23:26 GMT
<yjZBh.2164$PD2.1866@attbi_s22>:
It would help if he more completely specified his device.
I see two discs and 5 magnets thereon; there's no
indications as to whether they are geared or not (it's dead
either way so it doesn't matter all that much). Nor is
it clear whether the one wheel is positioned exactly in
the plane of the other's axis, or if there's an offset.
None of this matters, though; Stevin's Principle applies
throughout if they're 1:1 geared, no matter what the
positioning. If they're geared to some other ratio
it probably won't work even in gdewilde's thinking.
If they're not geared at all the moment in the one wheel
will be smaller than the other (a *lot* smaller if the
actual wheels are thin and lightweight, relative to the
magnets) and it will spin to an equilibrium position,
producing a tiny amount of work until everything gets stuck
in an attract-attract position. If the discs are carefully
weighted so that they have exactly the same moment (by
using identically-weighted lumps of non-magnetized metal
in the appropriate places on both discs), it might stand
a chance of working -- for a very short while.
Hero's toy engine might have looked sillier but at least it
worked, and had a very readily identifiable power source --
namely, the fire underneath it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile
(The modern classrom variant looks even sillier. :-) )
It is barely possible that this is not a PPM but a
transference problem; the green disc might be spun by an
external power source, and the blue disc would extract
power therefrom. Such would be a rather odd form of
magnetic clutch; better coupling would probably be had
by simply using two wheels, one smaller than the other,
both with four magnets pointing north-south (from axis
to circumference).
It might even work better with electromagnets, where the
current can be cut off to allow the device to freespin
to a stop.
Whether these are more practical than the current
mechanical or fluid clutch designs is far from clear; since
we're using fluid clutches now (in automatic transmissions)
I'd say no.
It's worth noting that strong but tiny magnets are
easily available, at least from the pages Google
coughs up. The tiny spheres can easily lift a 15 inch
metal spanner/wrench, plus an assortment of other tools.
The author then gets into a (apparently rather messy but)
interesting description of ferrofluid and ferrofilm.
http://www.dansdata.com/magnets.htm
Building a model would not be a problem, though I don't
know what kind of glue would be required to keep the
magnets from flying off what presumably would be
a wooden disc.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows. When it absolutely, positively, has to crash.
nons...@unsettled.com
The Ghost In The Machine
<1171822429....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> On Feb 18, 6:09 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
> <e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>> In sci.physics, gdewi...@gmail.com
>> <gdewi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote
>> > I have made this page so that you can reproduce the effect I'm talking
>> > about in less then 5 minutes.
>>
>> >http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-it-cant-be
>>
>> > Don't you agree that if the pendulum doesn't swing this machine does
>> > make free energy?
>>
>> You are imparting energy by moving the other magnet.
>> Doesn't work!
>
> This comment makes sense! But my example does work. I will explain...
>
>> In any event it would appear that the hanging magnet will both swing and rotate, in a rather complex motion.
>
> please do-do the experiment? It's an awfully simple one. You can not
> use assumed measurements against the real thing. I'm disallowing
> it. :-) This doesn't seem unreasonable. Or does it compare to expect
> me to build and display an engine? I'm pretty sure I can make
> everything spin on video. The idiot club will visit and kill me if the
> video is good enough. I think I can ask you to do the 2 min
> reproduction? no?
I'd have to find some appropriate magnets. I've a bunch on my fridge.
As it is, where are you getting the energy from to spin your motor?
>
>> > if you claim there is friction, what does it attach itself to?
>> What does what attach itself to? Any working motor has friction.
>
> As the pendulum can be made to rotate without swinging what is the
> attachment point of this friction? You need something physical to
> create this friction with. If you have no mass to support friction you
> can't have it. Friction takes 2 masses moving in different directions.
>
> But I ask you,
>
> 1) if the magnet is causing friction, then why doesn't the pendulum
> swing?
>
> 2) If we combine just as much repulsion as attraction What do we have
> left? Attraction? Repulsion? Both??
>
> When we combine those + and - do they add up or subtract?
>
> There you have it, gaby wins and physics lost. :-)
You're right. Now all you have to do is scale up. I'd suggest discs
of about 10m in radius attached to a shaft, driving a 200 kW generator
and a few dozen light bulbs....
:-)
>
> hehehe
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
People think that libraries are safe. They're wrong. They have ideas.
(Also occasionally ectoplasmic slime and cute librarians.)
Sam Wormley
>
> You're right. Now all you have to do is scale up. I'd suggest discs
> of about 10m in radius attached to a shaft, driving a 200 kW generator
> and a few dozen light bulbs....
>
A steam engine 200 kW generator!
The Ghost In The Machine
on Sun, 18 Feb 2007 20:45:10 GMT
<qV2Ch.297303$aJ.88919@attbi_s21>:
Eh? The turbine is unnecessary if he truly has a PPM. But yes,
something along those lines.
http://www.utilitywarehouse.com/vnd/200kwhydrogenset.html
suggests that the size of such a unit would be around 9 3/4" ID,
with rated speed 900 rpm. In a hydroelectric application
one would require a depth of at least 158 m, but this is not
an issue for a PPM magnet motor.
(No doubt tj might be interested as well. :-) )
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows. Because it's not a question of if.
It's a question of when.
gdew...@gmail.com
> on Sun, 18 Feb 2007 20:45:10 GMT
> <qV2Ch.297303$aJ.88919@attbi_s21>:
>
> > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> >> You're right. Now all you have to do is scale up. I'd suggest discs
> >> of about 10m in radius attached to a shaft, driving a 200 kW generator
> >> and a few dozen light bulbs....
>
> > A steam engine 200 kW generator!
>
> Eh? The turbine is unnecessary if he truly has a PPM. But yes,
> something along those lines.
>
> http://www.utilitywarehouse.com/vnd/200kwhydrogenset.html
>
> suggests that the size of such a unit would be around 9 3/4" ID,
> with rated speed 900 rpm. In a hydroelectric application
> one would require a depth of at least 158 m, but this is not
> an issue for a PPM magnet motor.
>
> (No doubt tj might be interested as well. :-) )
hehehe, imagine all the money you could pump out of that machine.
You could start your own city with that. .... on the moon if you like.
hahahaha
this version may be more fit to generate electricity. It's also 2
times as efficient as the previous design. ^_^
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-coil
I do have better of course hahahaha
:-)
gdew...@gmail.com
Imagine driving a hydrosonic-pump with it and draw hot watter straight
from the magnets.
That would be fun.
Sam Wormley
>
> hehehe, imagine all the money you could pump out of that machine.
>
> You could start your own city with that. .... on the moon if you like.
>
> hahahaha
>
> this version may be more fit to generate electricity. It's also 2
> times as efficient as the previous design. ^_^
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-coil
>
> I do have better of course hahahaha
> :-)
>
>
Gaby reminds me of an untutored kid who tried to learn physics
at one time, but, for whatever reason, *failed*--and now goes around
trolling physics newsgroups trying to look important.
They use USENET and WWW pulpit, and could care less about other
people, where they spew their spew without suffering a bloody nose.
Kind of pathetic really.
Jim Black
> On Feb 17, 11:13 pm, "Jim Black" <trams...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 3:40 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 17, 10:14 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > > > Alternatively, you could construct your device and see first hand
> > > > than it doesn't work.
> >
> > > First hand would be looking at the spinning apparatus.
> >
> > I don't know if you're serious or just trolling, but you'll probably
> > never get the thing built at all if you spend all your time arguing
> > with people on Usenet.
>
> What I do should be irrelevant for your judgement.
>
> You do-not need me to hold your hand, you can read my website and look
> at the photographic evidence. I will not allow insults to clutter the
> judgement of others. I can interpret your comment as insulting as you
> haven't addressed any of my points. In the context of my invention
> it's a nonsense comments.
>
> I claim that a wheel can only rotate in 2 directions. Forces in other
> directions either bend of or disappear entirely. Pushing a wheel
> sidewards does-not influence it's spin. Push it under 90 degrees and
> the energy is entirely destroyed, 180 degrees and it spins in the
> other direction. DOH!!
>
> I have explained the theory in great detail. But what I do find
> interesting is that you think you have a point. You have not. Barely
> any of the other posters did. I should feel very insulted by this, not
> you.
That was not a point about your design, nor was it intended to be.
That was me advising you that I have found arguing on Usenet to be a
major time-suck. Consider whether you want to build the machine or
argue with people about whether it will work, because you may not be
able to do both.
> But feel free to start explaining how my invention works. Then (if you
> grasp the point) you are fully obligated to yourself to build such
> device by your own statement.
No, I wouldn't be. The Fundamental Law of Usenet Arguments applies:
No response is necessary.
Perhaps you misinterpreted my advice as a demand for you to build the
machine. It wasn't. I was giving my two cents of advice under the
assumption that you were interested in building this machine --
otherwise, why are you telling us about it?
> I hope you will report this back to
> me. :-)
>
> If you think it cant work, then you are kindly requested to explain
> why.
I did take a further look at your page because some of your statements
seemed to imply you had built something already, and obviously, if you
had build a perpetual motion machine, we would all want to know about
it. I didn't find any mention of you having built this machine, but I
did see some suggested experiments. Your experiments seem to be
trying to prove that when you have magnets in a certain position,
they'll cause a torque on each other, but no force. I agree, but I
don't think this proves your statement that:
"Load applied to the secondary wheel will not translate back onto the
primary wheels."
In the diagram at
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/disks.jpg,
I agree that in that position, there will be no net force on the
magnet on the blue wheel that is closest to the green wheel -- just as
your experiments demonstrate. But the other magnets will have forces
on them:
http://www.student.missouristate.edu/b/black3/m-forces.gif
You could try to reduce those forces in comparison to the torque on
the green wheel by making the blue wheel much larger than the green
wheel, so that the forces on the other magnets on the blue wheel are
made negligible. But you'd still have the problem that Greg Hansen
pointed out. Once the green wheel has rotated a little, the magnets
are no longer in the position for which you showed the force to be
zero, and there is again a force on the passing magnet which slows
down the blue wheel:
http://www.student.missouristate.edu/b/black3/m-passing.gif
I know that magnets obey conservation of energy, so as long as theory
is correct, magnet-based perpetual motion machines won't work. Of
course, there's always the possibility the theory is wrong, and if you
have done an experiment that shows it's wrong, I'd be interested. But
it doesn't look like your experiments have demonstrated this.
--
Jim E. Black
gdew...@gmail.com
I was looking at the previous "free" energy generators and I noticed
they all end where big money comes in. Some get a patent most do-not,
non of them ever made any money it seems. If you compare the "claimed
to be working" devices, for example low-voltage-electrolysis the
similarities are easy to see. Magnet motors is the same, there are
also a few people who build a working vortex engine as well as very
similar solid state generators.
Then it struck me how they all basically died trying to convince
people like you. Some where even helped dieing. The denial without
looking is working like a guillotine on them. It's efficiently
destroying their life.
How long do you think we have to obtain the building plans from John
Searl? How long do you think we have to obtain those from Joseph
Newman? How long do you think we have to start taking Veljko milkovic
seriously?
I can't imagine you would wish anyone trying to sell his invention
spend his whole life in a bubble of extensive arrogance. They do not
seem up for the task of talking to idiots? How long does it take you
to reinvent their invention? Build me a Papp noble gass engine? ow,
you cant because he is dead? If it wasn't interesting while there
where alive, how much more interesting does it get after that? Without
the plans? It's gone then isn't it? yes, exactly.
So, I drew up that page and engaged the discussion.
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor
At least do the experiment and produce the evidence. No amount of
videos photoshopping on my behalf can beat that.
1) do the experiment (you are here)
2) confirm it's real
3) build a motor
4) build/buy a factory
5) live happily ever after
The Ghost In The Machine
<1171852341.7...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> On Feb 19, 12:53 am, The Ghost In The Machine
> <e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>> In sci.physics, Sam Wormley
>> <sworml...@mchsi.com>
>> wrote
>> on Sun, 18 Feb 2007 20:45:10 GMT
>> <qV2Ch.297303$aJ.88919@attbi_s21>:
>>
>> > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
>> >> You're right. Now all you have to do is scale up. I'd suggest discs
>> >> of about 10m in radius attached to a shaft, driving a 200 kW generator
>> >> and a few dozen light bulbs....
>>
>> > A steam engine 200 kW generator!
>>
>> Eh? The turbine is unnecessary if he truly has a PPM. But yes,
>> something along those lines.
>>
>> http://www.utilitywarehouse.com/vnd/200kwhydrogenset.html
>>
>> suggests that the size of such a unit would be around 9 3/4" ID,
>> with rated speed 900 rpm. In a hydroelectric application
>> one would require a depth of at least 158 m, but this is not
>> an issue for a PPM magnet motor.
>>
>> (No doubt tj might be interested as well. :-) )
>
> hehehe, imagine all the money you could pump out of that machine.
200 kW would be worth roughly $480/day.
>
> You could start your own city with that. .... on the moon if you like.
Depends on how many generators you can get. I only know of one 200 kW
generator, and that's apparently because the outfit which originally
ordered it went belly-up prior to delivery. It's yours for a song --
and for about $100K.
ROI is therefore about 7 months.
>
> hahahaha
>
> this version may be more fit to generate electricity. It's also 2
> times as efficient as the previous design. ^_^
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-coil
>
> I do have better of course hahahaha
>:-)
>
Of course you do -- working models and everything.
Right?
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #11823822:
signal(SIGKILL, catchkill);
gdew...@gmail.com
<e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> In sci.physics, gdewi...@gmail.com
> <gdewi...@gmail.com>
> wrote
> on 18 Feb 2007 18:32:21 -0800
For the coil based design I haven't build anything jet. Remember it's
research, it's not suppose to be finished.
The coil design is looking a remarkable lot like Joseph Newman's
earlier designs. (when he didn't put a cover over the device jet)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3484490731703421398#1m27s
(starts at 1 min 27 sec)
Richard Tobin
gdew...@gmail.com <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I was looking at the previous "free" energy generators and I noticed
>they all end where big money comes in.
Well yes. People investing big money probably want to see it working.
The only area where you get big money invested in vapourware is the
internet.
-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.
Sam Wormley
There is probably a lesson there--people obsessed with claiming
something that can't be. I hope you get yourself and education,
Gaby.
jmfb...@aol.com
Oh, MUTTER. I've read several books about ancient technology.
I had missed the absence of any talk about weapons. Thanks.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
Heh. Kites never crossed my mind when I asked :-). Thanks.
> The American variant, however,
>may have waited until 1930 with Jack Northrup producing
>paper models, though others suggest that they predate even
>the Wrights. I'll admit to some curiosity as to what the
>early Egyptians (?) used for trash cans; unfortunately
>Google wasn't quite as cooperative in answering questions
>regarding such. (One envisions something akin to a clay
>chamber pot, which could later burn the paper waste.
Have you tried looking for their toilets?
>However, that's just a guess on my part.)
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_airplanes
>
>also suggests Chinese kites, and suggests 1909, though
>also mentions George Cayley in the early 1800s, though
>he used linen.
Oh, cloth. I hadn't thought of that either.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
Would say that flying has a force continuously applied by
the human on an object to make it go? Unsettled's pointer to
an arrow implies gliding. Right?
/BAH
The Ghost In The Machine
<erce31$8qk...@s942.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>:
The main distinction I see between flying and gliding is that gliding
has no thrust in the thrust-drag-lift-weight force quartet. A paper
airplane is therefore a glider, at least after initial launch
(though balsa rubberband affairs were common enough in my youth,
and possibly my father's youth as well -- I'd have to look).
An arrow could be construed as a glider though its lift is miniscule;
the fletching's primary purpose presumably is to keep it from tumbling.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Been there, done that, didn't get the T-shirt.
The Ghost In The Machine
<ercduo$8qk...@s942.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>:
Ditto here, although it's logical in retrospect.
>
>> The American variant, however,
>>may have waited until 1930 with Jack Northrup producing
>>paper models, though others suggest that they predate even
>>the Wrights. I'll admit to some curiosity as to what the
>>early Egyptians (?) used for trash cans; unfortunately
>>Google wasn't quite as cooperative in answering questions
>>regarding such. (One envisions something akin to a clay
>>chamber pot, which could later burn the paper waste.
>
> Have you tried looking for their toilets?
A quick Google coughed up
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/egypt/dailylife/housing.htm
which suggests limestone toilets, with sewage disposed in pits in the
streets, for the wealthy; presumably the poor had cruder means.
(The article doesn't mention what happens with the stuff in the pits.)
The modern flush toilet, of course, has a rather tangled
history, but wasn't popular until the late 18th century
(though John Harington lived in the mid-16th to early
17th and designed a device for the Queen, said device did
not become popular until Alexander Cummings patented his
device in 1775).
>
>
>>However, that's just a guess on my part.)
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_airplanes
>>
>>also suggests Chinese kites, and suggests 1909, though
>>also mentions George Cayley in the early 1800s, though
>>he used linen.
>
> Oh, cloth. I hadn't thought of that either.
>
> /BAH
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
New Technology? Not There. No Thanks.
gdew...@gmail.com
> In article <1171860242.650122.183...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
>
> gdewi...@gmail.com <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I was looking at the previous "free" energy generators and I noticed
> >they all end where big money comes in.
>
> Well yes. People investing big money probably want to see it working.
>
> The only area where you get big money invested in vapourware is the
> internet.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes
gdew...@gmail.com
This claim of yours is just as much a claim as any.
You are claiming something without any evidence.
So what have you done to back up this nonsense claim?
NOTHING?
Then you are a liar.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>In article <GA0Ch.2$25....@news.uchicago.edu>,
>the human on an object to make it go? Unsettled's pointer to
>an arrow implies gliding. Right?
>
"flight" is used in a narrow sense, referring to a state which can be
sustained indefinitely (as long as the energy supply lasts). In this
sense, neither a glider, not an arrow or a thrown rock are flying.
An airplane is flying.
Richard Tobin
gdew...@gmail.com <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Only a Sith deals in absolutes
I'm afraid I have no idea what a Sith is.
But the fact is, your machine doesn't work.
Eric Gisse
Except his has the benefit of an actual education in physics.
>
> You are claiming something without any evidence.
Just like you.
>
> So what have you done to back up this nonsense claim?
More than you - he actually has arguments that stand the 'roll your
eyes' test.
>
> NOTHING?
>
> Then you are a liar.
Where is a working model of a perpetual motion machine? Oh that's
right, you don't have one. All you have are youtube and yahoo videos
of ELECTROMAGNETS and a fantastically bad understanding of how
electromagnetism works.
nons...@unsettled.com
The V2 flew for a while, then completed a ballistic
journey.
Modern variations are powered all the way to impact.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>journey.
Yep.
>
>Modern variations are powered all the way to impact.
>
Some, not all. Both balistic and cruise missiles are deployed.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> In article <1171923879.7...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> gdew...@gmail.com <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Only a Sith deals in absolutes
> I'm afraid I have no idea what a Sith is.
> But the fact is, your machine doesn't work.
A Star Wars movie character, which is the only place the machine would
work.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
gdew...@gmail.com
I know you would love to lie about me behind my back but I'm
disallowing it. You now make a fool of yourself over and over again.
It's quite funny.
here you go boy.
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/scope.png
not good enough again huh?
"A modified Bedini Cole Window motor which he can run without
batteries for
hours and can charge up empty capacitors ! Here is his video which is
really amazing !"
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1988.0.html
You do have to log in, are you going to whine about this?
"It's not true because I have to log in, booo booo"
like that?
Here is some more context for your precious ignorance.
http://www.gammamanager.com
http://www.terawatt.com
http://www.perendev-power.com
http://www.knfp.net
http://www.steorn.com
my page again.
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor
Claims "it cant be", are actual claims, why not reproduce my evidence
before you make your own claims?
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-it-cant-be
Build your evidence before you claim something will you. You lie and
you lie then you lie some more? Then you claim I would be the one that
has no evidence? That would be your best lie so far. Even this post is
littered with links all pointing at hard and factual evidence.
Do you even know what empirical observation means? Does it have
anything to do with evidence or observation? Maybe it has something to
do with experience? or the role there of?
It's as if you claim I should study ufology to be able to see UFO's.
I then point you to my invention and you gaze at my finger? Then you
mumble something about heavy objects dropping faster and earth being
the center of the universe?
I'm trying not to laugh, please don't make this so difficult for me.
Sam Wormley
>
> You are claiming something without any evidence.
>
If your asking me for evidence that perpetual motion machines
can't work, there is a tremendous body of empirical data to
draw upon. In fact there have never been an observation that
has contradicted the predictions of the laws of thermodynamics.
Sam Wormley
>
> Build your evidence before you claim something will you. You lie and
> you lie then you lie some more? Then you claim I would be the one that
> has no evidence? That would be your best lie so far. Even this post is
> littered with links all pointing at hard and factual evidence.
>
> Do you even know what empirical observation means? Does it have
> anything to do with evidence or observation? Maybe it has something to
> do with experience? or the role there of?
>
> It's as if you claim I should study ufology to be able to see UFO's.
>
> I then point you to my invention and you gaze at my finger? Then you
> mumble something about heavy objects dropping faster and earth being
> the center of the universe?
>
> I'm trying not to laugh, please don't make this so difficult for me.
>
The untutored Kid
http://66.160.139.197/untutoredkid.jpg
Sam Wormley
>
> Do you even know what empirical observation means? Does it have
> anything to do with evidence or observation? Maybe it has something to
> do with experience? or the role there of?
>
> It's as if you claim I should study ufology to be able to see UFO's.
>
> I then point you to my invention and you gaze at my finger? Then you
> mumble something about heavy objects dropping faster and earth being
> the center of the universe?
>
> I'm trying not to laugh, please don't make this so difficult for me.
>
There is a reason perpetual motion machines can't work. Learn
thermodynamics...
gdew...@gmail.com
You say "never"
I feel this 5 should be enough for you:
http://www.gammamanager.com
http://www.terawatt.com
http://www.perendev-power.com
http://www.knfp.net
http://www.steorn.com
This imaginary body of yours doesn't exist.
gdew...@gmail.com
"The sage points at the moon. The fool looks at his finger."
- Lao Tsu
Sam Wormley
He is a fool that lovers prove,
And leaves to sing to lives in pain.
Autymn D. C.
>
> > Don't you know the laws of physics?
>
> State the laws mathematically as they apply to your device, Gaby!
> Wethinks you can't.
That's "Usthinks", the reflexive agglutination of "It thinks tom us".
-Aut
The Ghost In The Machine
<1171949313....@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>:
The knowledgable man also knows what needs to be brought along,
and the tools required.
_A Trip To The Moon_ is laughably silly today (and probably
was even back then), but was a pioneering work in the
realm of cinema, mostly because it *was* early cinema.
The plot involved among other things a gigantic cannon
and a shell landing on the Moon, with people inside.
It's a trivial calculation today to work up the escape
velocity of 11.186 km/s, given a 200 N/kg acceleration
(most fighter pilots black out at 100 N/kg -- or 10 'g's --
but let's be optimistic).
d = 1/2 * a * t^2
v = a * t
therefore
d = 1/2 * v^2 / a
or
d = 1/2 * (11186)^2 / 200 = 313 km.
If one uses the more comfortable 20 N/kg -- 2 g's --
one gets a 3130 km barrel.
This is far larger than the Schwerer Gustav, the largest
gun ever made (and with a 80 cm aperature would have been
a bit too small to hold any astronauts) with a barrel length
of about 32.48 m. In fact, it's probably longer than the
distance the Gustav had to travel!
This is probably why rockets are used today. :-)
But I digress.
As for UFO's, I see them routinely. Doesn't mean they're
little green men, it just means that something's up there
blinking, probably a pilot in a plane trying to land at
a nearby airport (I get a choice of at least three).
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #110309238:
item * f(item *p) { if(p = NULL) return new item; else return p; }
Autymn D. C.
<e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> This is far larger than the Schwerer Gustav, the largest
> gun ever made (and with a 80 cm aperature would have been
> a bit too small to hold any astronauts) with a barrel length
> of about 32.48 m. In fact, it's probably longer than the
> distance the Gustav had to travel!
>
> This is probably why rockets are used today. :-)
Rockets are usede because NASA's engineers are chumps who can't see
the implications of the drag formula. I said here to use a blimp,
anget? Look at English's staffcreaft; the letters wray up and down;
English kicks all other speakkas' arses.
-Aut
gdew...@gmail.com
bla bla bla
Eric Gisse
Why do you continue posting to this newsgroup?
Do I need to harass you more?
The Ghost In The Machine
<lysd...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote
on 20 Feb 2007 01:09:41 -0800
<1171962580.9...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>:
A blimp to the moon? Highly unlikely. :-) However, one
might use blimps in place of "White Knight"-style aircraft,
which use more or less conventional engines to lift the
rocket ship, which then fires, and because the plane has
lifted the spacecraft above most of the atmosphere it can
be engineered more efficiently and worry less about drag.
IIRC some original blimp designs had hooks for 10 small
monoplane or biplane aircraft. Since they didn't need
to land they were lighter than more conventional planes
(at the time).
A modern variant might very well be the space station.
While not quite the wheel-like affair postulated in Arthur
C. Clarke's work, the ISS could conceivably be used as
a way station, with the shuttle ferrying parts and fuel
thereto, and the assembly done in space of a moon rocket.
Whether that's better than assembling the entire mess
on the ground, I'm not sure. It may depend on how much
stress the completed rocket undergoes as it lifts through the
Earth's atmosphere, compared to the space shuttle/ferry.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Insert random misquote here.
gdew...@gmail.com
The_Man
> On Feb 19, 5:54 am, The Ghost In The Machine
>
>
>
>
>
> <e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> > In sci.physics, gdewi...@gmail.com
> > <gdewi...@gmail.com>
> > wrote
> > on 18 Feb 2007 18:32:21 -0800
> > <1171852341.782390.114...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > > On Feb 19, 12:53 am, The Ghost In The Machine
> > > <e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> > >> In sci.physics, Sam Wormley
> > >> <sworml...@mchsi.com>
> > >> wrote
> > >> on Sun, 18 Feb 2007 20:45:10 GMT
> > >> <qV2Ch.297303$aJ.88919@attbi_s21>:
>
> > >> > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> > >> >> You're right. Now all you have to do is scale up. I'd suggest discs
> > >> >> of about 10m in radius attached to a shaft, driving a 200 kW generator
> > >> >> and a few dozen light bulbs....
>
> > >> > A steam engine 200 kW generator!
>
> > >> Eh? The turbine is unnecessary if he truly has a PPM. But yes,
> > >> something along those lines.
>
> > >>http://www.utilitywarehouse.com/vnd/200kwhydrogenset.html
>
> > >> suggests that the size of such a unit would be around 9 3/4" ID,
> > >> with rated speed 900 rpm. In a hydroelectric application
> > >> one would require a depth of at least 158 m, but this is not
> > >> an issue for a PPM magnet motor.
>
> > >> (No doubt tj might be interested as well. :-) )
>
> > > hehehe, imagine all the money you could pump out of that machine.
>
>
> > > You could start your own city with that. .... on the moon if you like.
>
> > generator, and that's apparently because the outfit which originally
> > ordered it went belly-up prior to delivery. It's yours for a song --
> > and for about $100K.
>
> > ROI is therefore about 7 months.
>
> > > hahahaha
>
> > > this version may be more fit to generate electricity. It's also 2
> > > times as efficient as the previous design. ^_^
>
> > >http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-coil
>
> > > I do have better of course hahahaha
> > >:-)
>
>
> > Right?
>
> For the coil based design I haven't build anything jet. Remember it's
> research, it's not suppose to be finished.
>
> The coil design is looking a remarkable lot like Joseph Newman's
> earlier designs. (when he didn't put a cover over the device jet)
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3484490731703421398#1m27s
> (starts at 1 min 27 sec)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yawn. If you can build a perpetual motion machine, it seems strange
that the only perpetual motion you've exhibited is the running of your
mouth.
Put up or shut up.
If I had a perpetual motion machine, I would spend every waking moment
building them, selling them, taking the money, and then "dating" the
hottest women in the world.
Since I don't, I waste my time on Usenet, kinda like you.
Wayne Dobson
news:1171744752....@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." sad Lord Kelvin -
> president of the Royal Society - 1895. Later crawled back by
> antagonists into "technically impossible" because it was in his days.
Obviously, he hadn't seen a pigeon. Flying vermin, they are.
--
AKA "Dobbie The House Elf"
Androcles
"Wayne Dobson" <nos...@noaddress.com> wrote in message news:LLBDh.5934$I46....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
True or false?
Mike Painter
False since bees do fly and false since science never made such a claim.
There may have been a theory that was Falsified but that is what science is
about.
Kelvin was wrong and we may be wrong about "permanent magnet motors",
however I suspect that octorine will be added to the spectrum before anyone
builds a working model.
Until then I'll stick with big wheels in front driven by little wheels in
the back charging a generator.
Androcles
"Mike Painter" <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:NzMDh.976$8x....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
> Androcles wrote:
>> "Wayne Dobson" <nos...@noaddress.com> wrote in message
>> news:LLBDh.5934$I46....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>> <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1171744752....@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." sad Lord Kelvin -
>>>> president of the Royal Society - 1895. Later crawled back by
>>>> antagonists into "technically impossible" because it was in his
>>>> days.
>>>
>>> Obviously, he hadn't seen a pigeon. Flying vermin, they are.
>>>
>>> --
>>> AKA "Dobbie The House Elf"
>>>
>> A bee cannot fly, its body mass to wing area ratio is too high.
>> True or false?
>
> False since bees do fly and false since science never made such a claim.
Bees cannot fly anymore than a helicopter or a parachute can fly. Bees hover.
> There may have been a theory that was Falsified but that is what science is
> about.
You haven't falsified anything. A bee cannot fly, its body mass to wing
area ratio is too high. What you did was used your definition of "flight"
(hover, buzzzzz) which differed from my definition (glide with fixed wing).
> Kelvin was wrong and we may be wrong about "permanent magnet motors",
> however I suspect that octorine will be added to the spectrum before anyone
> builds a working model.
> Until then I'll stick with big wheels in front driven by little wheels in
> the back charging a generator.
>
When I was 10-years-old I got my first bicycle and it had 3 gears.
On the second day of owning this glorious machine, experience had
quickly taught me that it was easier to pedal in low gear, so when I
saw Goodearl riding home from the shops one day I decided to race
him (without telling him, he had a head start) so I tore after him in
low gear, pedalling furiously.
Goodearl won, I couldn't catch him and Goodearl didn't have any gears.
So... on my way back to my home, crestfallen, I thought I'd try out
the high gear, perhaps it had a purpose. It was much harder to pedal,
but boy-o-boy, was I going fast.
I decided not to race Goodearl again. I'd learned my lesson, I could
go faster than he could, but I'd have to work for it.
Five years later I dated his sister Janet. That was more fun than racing
bicycles.
Then I got to 13-years-old and needed a bigger bicycle. With 10 gears
and lights. My dad had a generator on his, I wanted one.
By then I knew all about electric motors, I'd taken my trainset apart.
So, thought I, why not drive a motor from the generator?
Perpetual motion doesn't work for the same reason I couldn't
outrace Goodearl, turning a generator is hard work and gear ratios
do not help.
But don't take my word for it. Experience is the best teacher, go ahead
and bolt a car starter motor and a generator on your bicycle. I'm sure
there are plenty to be found in junk yards. You can even leave out
the bicycle, couple the motor directly to the generator, give it a spin
to start with and have free light in your home. If that doesn't work,
put a gear between them and spin the generator twice as fast as the
motor. If that doesn't work, try outracing Goodearl, he has no gears.
"When I was a child I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man I put away childish things." I Cor. xiii. 11.
gdew...@gmail.com
> The second law of thermodynamics prohibits the construction of a
> perpetual motion machine "of the second kind."
>
> There are two usual statements of this law.
>
> Kelvin's formulation states that it is impossible for a system
> operating in a cycle and in contact with one thermal reservoir to
> perform positive work in the surroundings.
>
> Clausius's formulation states that it is impossible for a system
> operating in a cycle to produce positive heat flow from a colder body
> to a hotter body.http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SecondLawofThermodynamics.html
>
> Holy nobelty William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin (aka - you can call me
> Lord) is widely known from the scale of absolute temperature
> measurement he claimed to have re-invented, Galileo Galilei invented a
> rudimentary water thermometer in 1593. In 1714, Gabriel Fahrenheit
> invented the first mercury thermometer, the modern thermometer.
>
> VIP Kelvin also mentions: the conversion of heat (or caloric) into
> mechanical effect is probably impossible, certainly undiscovered - but
> a footnote signalled his first doubts about the caloric theory.
>
> Here Mr Kelvin is measuring the impossible in doubts.
>
> "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." sad Lord Kelvin -
> president of the Royal Society - 1895. Later crawled back by
> antagonists into "technically impossible" because it was in his days.
>
> Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn. This system became known
> as the Ptolemaic system.
>
> nonexistence speculations are never factual, their description of
> perpetual motion is not to be taken seriously in any way.
>
> On http://www.ajayonline.us/we can read
>
> " Einstein did not derive it mathematically but in true sense
> speculated it. "
>
> In short he stole half then speculated the other half. (no math.)
>
> Unlike you (the reader) I can say I've looked at every overunity
> apparatus on the internet I could find. You can-not claim you did this
> as it takes months of work. From this research I have derived a far
> less complicated magnet motor design. I'm not the only one who build
> this. The list is very long, but in contrast I do disclose the
> workings.
>
> enjoy :-)
>
> here is my website:
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor
>
> For those skilled in the art it should be obvious that I would love to
> establish some exact math on this.
>
> --------------------
> (my footer starts here)http://www.newebmasters.com/freeenergy/sm-text.html: "We don't
> grant patents on perpetual motion machines," said the examiners at the
> U.S. Patent Office. "It won't work because it violates the law of
> Conservation of Energy," said one physicist after another. But
> because, inventor Howard Johnson is not the sort of man to be
> intimidated by such seemingly authoritative pronouncements, he now
> owns U.S. Patent No. 4,151,431 which describes how it is possible to
> generate motive power, as in a motor, using only the energy contained
> in the atoms of permanent magnets. That's right. Johnson has
> discovered how to build motors that run without an input of
> electricity or any other kind of external energy!
>
> The monumental nature of the invention is obvious, especially in a
> world facing an alarming, escalating energy shortage. Yet inventor
> Johnson is not rushing to peddle his creation as the end-all solution
> to world- wide energy problems. He has more important work to do.
> First, there's the need to refine his laboratory prototypes into
> workable practical devices -in particular a 5,000-watt electric power
> generator already in the building. His second and perhaps more
> difficult major challenge: persuade a host of skeptics that his ideas
> are indeed practical.
>
> Johnson, who has been coping with disbelievers for decades, can be
> very persuasive in a face-to-face encounter because he can not do more
> than merely theorize; he can demonstrate working models that
> unquestionably create motion using only permanent magnets. When this
> writer was urged by the editor of SCIENCE & MECHANICS to make a
> thousand mile pilgrimage to Blacksburg, Virginia, to meet with the
> inventor, he went there as an "open-minded skeptic" and as a former
> research Scientist determined not to be fooled. Within two days, this
> former skeptic had become a believer. Here's why.
>
> Doing the Unthinkable. Howard Johnson refuses to view the "laws"
> of science as somehow sacred, so doing the unthinkable and succeeding
> is second nature to him. If a particular law gets in the way, he sees
> no harm in going around it for a while to see if there's something on
> the other side. Johnson explains the persistent opposition he
> experiences from the established scientific community this way:
> "Physics is a measurement science and physicists are especially
> determined to protect the 'Law' of Conservation of Energy. Thus the
> physicists become game wardens who tell us what laws' we can't
> violate. In this case they don't even know what the game is. But they
> are so scared that I and my associates are going to violate some of
> these laws, that they have to get to the pass to head us off!"
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Helmholtz.html
Helmholtz's use of the word "force" corresponds to what later became
known as energy, so his law actually amounted to a statement of the
Law of conservation of energy.
http://rexresearch.com/barbat/barbat.htm
the overlooked exception to the energy-conservation rule that Hermann
von Helmholtz described in his 1847 doctrine on energy conservation:
"If . . . bodies possess forces which depend upon time and velocity,
or which act in directions other than lines which unite each pair of
material points, . . . then combinations of such bodies are possible
in which force may be either lost or gained ad infinitum."
---------------
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress?tag=energy&list=1
Eric Gisse
[snip junk]
Still trying to find some 'support' for your still non-existent device
from what people said in the 1800s?
When are you going to build your magic perpetual motion machine?
gdew...@gmail.com
wrote:
> "Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in messagenews:NzMDh.976$8x....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
> > Androcles wrote:
> >> "Wayne Dobson" <nos...@noaddress.com> wrote in message
> >>news:LLBDh.5934$I46....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Your definition of childish is just wrong. Childish would be to
compare million euro projects to a 3 min teenage thought experiment.
Real man are not afraid to look at something. The excuse not to think
about it prevented you from thinking about it. This error was clearly
not subjected to any further analysis.
View this video.
http://www.micropixel.biz/veljkomilkovic/videos/Veljko_Milkovic_(video-6)_Universal_oscillator-hammer.wmv
see how wrong you are. LOL Mr Milkovic is a decorated professor from
the land of the very smart, he even survived wikipedia. (That's much-
much harder as just building a perpetual motion apparatus)
You would have to do a little better as claiming he is an idiot to
qualify for the manliness test. ^_^ One would have to do the math and
build a test setup to even begin to refute it. After that it's merely
a matter of your credentials vs his. So far, his lab-coat and life's
work is much more impressive as your childhood experience.
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress?tag=veljkomilkovic
I'm not even a physician. But I can sure tie a knot and make a
pendulum. (duhh) And yep, a dramatic heap of weight is lifted with
each oscillation and the thing keeps on going. It oscillates 4 times
per cycle. When you apply more resistance or more load the thing
actually swings longer then when you don't. There ain't nothing
pseudo- about it.
You desire to see closed loops? Well... what is stopping you? Don't
tell me it's the toy-train wreck? I'm just the messenger and I'm
pretty sure that means I only have to deliver the message. I'm quite
good at it actually. ghehehe I'm sure the message doesn't involve
building anything!
Closing the loop is left entirely up to the reader.
To fully refute your insight: with an elector motor and a generator on
the bicycle you can at least use the breaking energy to charge a
capacitor.
It's also possible to put a propeller on the front of the bike and use
that to charge with, I know it sounds crazy but...
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress?p=5674
..... and the world was never quite the same again..... ghehehe....
The Ghost In The Machine
<jow...@gmail.com>
wrote
on 24 Feb 2007 04:48:29 -0800
<1172321309....@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Obviously, he has to find research funding first. :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because a BSOD is just so 20th century; why not
try our new color changing variant?
gdew...@gmail.com
<e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> In sci.physics, Eric Gisse
> <jowr...@gmail.com>
> wrote
> on 24 Feb 2007 04:48:29 -0800
>
> > On Feb 24, 3:12 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [snip junk]
>
> > Still trying to find some 'support' for your still non-existent device
> > from what people said in the 1800s?
>
> > When are you going to build your magic perpetual motion machine?
>
> Obviously, he has to find research funding first. :-)
I don't need to do anything. Your ignorance is entirely your own. It's
your magic anus-talk. This OBVIOUSLY has nothing to do with me.
I'm not responsible for your general repeated failure.
gdew...@gmail.com
you ask me questions now?
The Ghost In The Machine
<gdew...@gmail.com>
wrote
on 24 Feb 2007 13:18:25 -0800
<1172351905.4...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>:
You are postulating an engine that will generate motive
power for a vehicle or other such use without fuel.
Presumably, the simplest method to ensure that the engine
will in fact work is to model it.
The movie _The Time Machine_ (the 1960 variant; I've
not seen the newer one) in particular postulated a model
which vanished, illustrating the time traveler's point.
Internal combustion engines come in a lot of sizes, from
a small two-stroke variant suitable for model airplane
and/or copter use to the ones used in the NASA Transporter
or German mining equipment (and said equipment is *huge*).
Ditto electric motors, from the small ones in computer fans
to larger ones in washing machines to huge ones in various
electrically-powered industrial applications (the only
one coming to mind might be some sort of overhead crane).
So why not build a model for your engine?
- Lack of supplies? This doesn't appear to be especially
problematic; magnets can be bought at any "science shop"
and may also be available at craft stores. Wood can
be bought in a number of places; for small models one
might go to the aforementioned craft store. Crude gears
are makeable using a jigsaw; one doesn't need anything
horribly fancy, methinks, or one can cut up a dowel and
make two "spokewheel" arrangements. Glue, of course,
is easily obtainable.
- Clumsiness/lack of talent? Not my problem. :-)
- Precision? From the description you've thus far given,
precision is not an issue here.
- Fear that it won't work?
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
GNU and improved.
Bill Snyder
<gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sure. Nobody else wants to build it, because they figure it would be
an utter and silly waste of time, your "invention" being the silly,
unworkable fantasy of an addled buffoon.
But what's *your* excuse supposed to be? Or could it be that you
don't build it for the exact same reason as everyone else?
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Mike Painter
>>>>
>>> A bee cannot fly, its body mass to wing area ratio is too high.
>>> True or false?
>>
>> False since bees do fly and false since science never made such a
>> claim.
>
> Bees cannot fly anymore than a helicopter or a parachute can fly.
> Bees hover.
The definition of hover I grew up with does not allow forward directed
motion.
It means to stay in one position. The hawk hovered for almost a minute
before diving on it's prey.
The helicopter, took off, traveled in an upward motion then hovered before
resuming flight.
So please give me a definition of "hover", "fly","parachute", "glide", "bee"
and "helicopter" just to be safe.
>
>
>> There may have been a theory that was Falsified but that is what
>> science is about.
>
> You haven't falsified anything. A bee cannot fly, its body mass to
> wing
> area ratio is too high. What you did was used your definition of
> "flight"
> (hover, buzzzzz) which differed from my definition (glide with fixed
> wing).
> <snip>
> "When I was a child I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I
> thought as a child; but when I became a man I put away childish
> things." I Cor. xiii. 11.
I never got over the curiosity and desire to learn that I had as a child.
Science now tells us life long learning is one of the most crucial factors
in a long life.
The Ghost In The Machine
<mddotp...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote
on Sun, 25 Feb 2007 00:24:08 GMT
<IG4Eh.838$LF6...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>:
> Androcles wrote:
> >>>>
>>>> A bee cannot fly, its body mass to wing area ratio is too high.
>>>> True or false?
>>>
>>> False since bees do fly and false since science never made such a
>>> claim.
>>
>> Bees cannot fly anymore than a helicopter or a parachute can fly.
>> Bees hover.
>
> The definition of hover I grew up with does not allow forward directed
> motion.
> It means to stay in one position. The hawk hovered for almost a minute
> before diving on it's prey.
> The helicopter, took off, traveled in an upward motion then hovered before
> resuming flight.
Be careful. A round trip to Androcles implies a distance of zero. :-)
>
> So please give me a definition of "hover", "fly","parachute", "glide", "bee"
> and "helicopter" just to be safe.
>>
>>
>>> There may have been a theory that was Falsified but that is what
>>> science is about.
>>
>> You haven't falsified anything. A bee cannot fly, its body mass to
>> wing
>> area ratio is too high. What you did was used your definition of
>> "flight"
>> (hover, buzzzzz) which differed from my definition (glide with fixed
>> wing).
>> <snip>
>
>> "When I was a child I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I
>> thought as a child; but when I became a man I put away childish
>> things." I Cor. xiii. 11.
>
> I never got over the curiosity and desire to learn that I had as a child.
> Science now tells us life long learning is one of the most crucial factors
> in a long life.
>
As someone once said: Use it or lose it. :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #40490127:
for(;;) ;
gdew...@gmail.com
<e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net>
> You are postulating an engine that will generate motive
> power for a vehicle or other such use without fuel.
I have simplified the effect down to 2 magnets and a wire. This IS the
demonstration model. The cool part is that YOU can build it in 2 min.
(that's who)
> Presumably, the simplest method to ensure that the engine
> will in fact work is to model it.
not at all, the simple method is to make it so that the effect is
widely known. You all s* at the debate. And that's putting it mildly.
> The movie _The Time Machine_ (the 1960 variant; I've
> not seen the newer one) in particular postulated a model
> which vanished, illustrating the time traveler's point.
>
> Internal combustion engines come in a lot of sizes, from
> a small two-stroke variant suitable for model airplane
> and/or copter use to the ones used in the NASA Transporter
> or German mining equipment (and said equipment is *huge*).
>
> Ditto electric motors, from the small ones in computer fans
> to larger ones in washing machines to huge ones in various
> electrically-powered industrial applications (the only
> one coming to mind might be some sort of overhead crane).
>
> So why not build a model for your engine?
I find the prejudgement of unworkability un-objective. You can only
fail to make a point with that logic. I claim I have build a demo
model and I claim you should build it in order to be able to claim it
can not work.
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-it-cant-be
Expect me to be interested in your results. All further arguments
apply to you also.
> - Lack of supplies? This doesn't appear to be especially
> problematic; magnets can be bought at any "science shop"
> and may also be available at craft stores. Wood can
> be bought in a number of places; for small models one
> might go to the aforementioned craft store. Crude gears
> are makeable using a jigsaw; one doesn't need anything
> horribly fancy, methinks, or one can cut up a dowel and
> make two "spokewheel" arrangements. Glue, of course,
> is easily obtainable.
>
> - Clumsiness/lack of talent? Not my problem. :-)
You mean like a drawing contest? Interesting idea. I will be sure to
review your contribution.
> - Precision?
This is one of the points. The approaching primary magnet may
interact with the not-jet fully positioned target. So the primary
wheel does need to scale with the strength of the magnets. more wheel
= more mass = more drag
> From the description you've thus far given,
> precision is not an issue here.
you didn't ask :-)
> - Fear that it won't work?
ROFL, you talk of fear but where is the danger exactly?
What is there to fear exactly?
fear lower bills? fear economic growth? fear saving the world?
fear of extra mileage?
http://www.eagle-research.com/index.html
explain, I'm not getting it.
you mean fear mr danger?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3392652783578267863&q=mr+danger
hahaha
Eric Gisse
WHERE IS A WORKING MODEL?
Androcles
"Mike Painter" <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:IG4Eh.838$LF6...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
> Androcles wrote:
> >>>>
>>>> A bee cannot fly, its body mass to wing area ratio is too high.
>>>> True or false?
>>>
>>> False since bees do fly and false since science never made such a
>>> claim.
>>
>> Bees cannot fly anymore than a helicopter or a parachute can fly.
>> Bees hover.
>
Rockets fly straight forward. Bees are not rockets. Parachutists move
"forward".
<snip to arrogantly ignore what you say>
> So please give me a definition of "hover",
<snip to arrogantly ignore what you say>
Only if you give me your definition of "forward", "up", "grew up", "position",
"took off". How do you give or take an "off"?
You've made my point. One can make correct yet seemingly incorrect
statements by careful choice of words. You expect me to understand
the jargon of "took off", yet a rocket's take off is vertical, a plane's take
off is horizontal. I'm supposed to understand what you mean, but
you are not required to understand what I mean when I say a rocket
cannot fly, it has no wings, but it certainly moves "forward".
Is that how it works?
"Take off" is a cliche, jargon. In the context of a plane it
implies horizonal motion, in the context of a rocket it means
vertical motion, and we use "lift off". Yet wings lift a plane "off".
>>
>>> There may have been a theory that was Falsified but that is what
>>> science is about.
>>
>> You haven't falsified anything. A bee cannot fly, its body mass to
>> wing
>> area ratio is too high. What you did was used your definition of
>> "flight"
>> (hover, buzzzzz) which differed from my definition (glide with fixed
>> wing).
>> <snip>
<unsnip to enforce what I say>
>> "When I was a child I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I
>> thought as a child; but when I became a man I put away childish
>> things." I Cor. xiii. 11.
>
> I never got
<snip to arrogantly ignore what you say>
Very good. The language of science is mathematics, not English.
English is vague.
The Ghost In The Machine
on 24 Feb 2007 17:36:43 -0800
<1172367402....@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>:
[snippage]
> WHERE IS A WORKING MODEL?
>
He already has it (well, FSVO "working", anyway). IIRC:
[1] Suspend a magnet on a string, N/S parallel with the ground.
[2] Bring another magnet nearby, moving it with one's hand, N/S
perpendicular to the ground.
With the proper motion of the hand, the magnet on the string will rotate
but not swing.
There is, of course, the problem of imparting energy
into the dual-magnet system with the hand, so I would
propose the following simple modification, once one
has discovered the correct motion of the free magnet.
(Presumably that motion is a function of the magnet size,
magnet strength, and the moment of inertia of the lump of
magnetized material.)
[1] Suspend a magnet on a string, N/S parallel with the ground.
[2] Build a platform with a vertical dowel long enough so that it passes
by the suspended magnet. This dowel will have an adjustable subplatform
to place the spring specified in #3.
[3] Place a spring of the proper length, stiffness, and such to
reproduce the motion.
[4] Place a magnet on the spring, compressing the spring,
N/S perpendicular to the ground. This is OK, because
we are imparting "initial energy" to the system; this
"initial energy" is not unlike swinging a pendulum to
start a grandfather clock.
[5] Release, and (theoretically at least) observe perpetual motion.
Granted, there are a fair number of issues here that would
preclude it from working anyway. For starters, grandfather
clocks are powered by a rather ingenious escapement
mechanism, which transfers energy to the pendulum -- just
enough to fight friction, and keep the pendulum moving.
(The energy usually comes from suspended weights, which drop
down very slowly as the clock ticks. Smaller clocks use
mainsprings and pendulum wheels.)
And Stevin's Principle still applies.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Linux. An OS which actually, unlike certain other offerings, works.
gdew...@gmail.com
> on 24 Feb 2007 17:36:43 -0800
Eric Gisse
You fucking moron, the power is provided by the person moving the
magnets.
If you actually had an education in electrodynamics, the concept of
induction wouldn't be so amazing.
Wayne Dobson
news:qZBDh.368428$MO2....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>> "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." sad Lord Kelvin -
>>> president of the Royal Society - 1895. Later crawled back by
>>> antagonists into "technically impossible" because it was in his days.
>>
>> Obviously, he hadn't seen a pigeon. Flying vermin, they are.
>
>A bee cannot fly, its body mass to wing area ratio is too high.
>True or false?
What is your definition of "fly"?
The Ghost In The Machine
<1172441810.5...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>:
Hence my mentioned modification. Apart from the spring storing a small
amount of energy, were this truly to work it would not need any input
of energy at all after initial startup.
Surely this is a trivial variant of his already-provided
video for him to work on? After all, most conteporary
motors do not need human hands moving magnets about. :-)
I also suspect that the motion is a little more complicated than a
simple up and down affair.
>
> If you actually had an education in electrodynamics, the concept of
> induction wouldn't be so amazing.
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
"Woman? What woman?"
gdew...@gmail.com
> >> > There is, of course, the problem of imparting energy
> >> > into the dual-magnet system with the hand,
What problem?
I don't have a problem with this.
Why think in problems?
> >> > Granted, there are a fair number of issues here that would
> >> > preclude it from working anyway. For starters, grandfather
> >> > clocks are powered by a rather ingenious escapement
> >> > mechanism, which transfers energy to the pendulum -- just
> >> > enough to fight friction, and keep the pendulum moving.
The grandfather clock is your example of something that doesn't work
"for starters"? huh?
For a more complex build the task is to make an axle rotate. A
pendulum isn't going to produce any energy.
My example is just fine to show the effect. Making it more complex
will result in the usual rant about laziness.
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-it-cant-be