| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
17 Feb 2007 02:39:12 PM |
| Object: |
permanent magnet motor |
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.
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!"
.
|
|
| User: "Wayne Dobson" |
|
| Title: Re: permanent magnet motor |
23 Feb 2007 07:13:15 AM |
|
|
<gdewilde@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171744752.581313.46120@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"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: permanent magnet motor |
23 Feb 2007 07:27:50 AM |
|
|
"Wayne Dobson" <nospam@noaddress.com> wrote in message =
news:LLBDh.5934$I46.2346@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
<gdewilde@gmail.com> wrote in message=20
news:1171744752.581313.46120@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
=20
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." sad Lord Kelvin -
president of the Royal Society - 1895. Later crawled back by
antagonists into "technically impossible" because it was in his days.
=20
Obviously, he hadn't seen a pigeon. Flying vermin, they are.
=20
--=20
AKA "Dobbie The House Elf"=20
A bee cannot fly, its body mass to wing area ratio is too high.=20
True or false?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne Dobson" |
|
| Title: Re: permanent magnet motor |
25 Feb 2007 06:15:51 PM |
|
|
"Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qZBDh.368428$MO2.92154@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"?
--
AKA "Dobbie The House Elf"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: permanent magnet motor |
26 Feb 2007 01:30:33 AM |
|
|
"Wayne Dobson" <nospam@noaddress.com> wrote in message =
news:XEpEh.7670$I46.7114@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> wrote in message=20
news:qZBDh.368428$MO2.92154@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
=20
"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?
=20
What is your definition of "fly"?
The everyday one, what we see birds and planes do. I've never
seen a bee fly, but I have seen a horsefly.
http://www.worth1000.com/entries/99500/99648FkNJ_w.jpg
If pigs could fly they'd be pigeons.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: permanent magnet motor |
23 Feb 2007 07:31:25 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
"Wayne Dobson" <nospam@noaddress.com> wrote in message
news:LLBDh.5934$I46.2346@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
<gdewilde@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171744752.581313.46120@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.
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: permanent magnet motor |
24 Feb 2007 01:44:32 AM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message =
news:NzMDh.976$8x.226@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
Androcles wrote:
"Wayne Dobson" <nospam@noaddress.com> wrote in message
news:LLBDh.5934$I46.2346@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
<gdewilde@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171744752.581313.46120@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?
=20
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.=20
There may have been a theory that was Falsified but that is what =
science is=20
about.
You haven't falsified anything. A bee cannot fly, its body mass to wing=20
area ratio is too high. What you did was used your definition of =
"flight"=20
(hover, buzzzzz) which differed from my definition (glide with fixed =
wing).=20
=20
Kelvin was wrong and we may be wrong about "permanent magnet motors",=20
however I suspect that octorine will be added to the spectrum before =
anyone=20
builds a working model.
Until then I'll stick with big wheels in front driven by little wheels =
in=20
the back charging a generator.=20
=20
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=20
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=20
low gear, pedalling furiously.=20
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=20
the high gear, perhaps it had a purpose. It was much harder to pedal,=20
but boy-o-boy, was I going fast.=20
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.=20
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=20
outrace Goodearl, turning a generator is hard work and gear ratios
do not help.=20
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: permanent magnet motor |
24 Feb 2007 06:24:08 PM |
|
|
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.
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: permanent magnet motor |
25 Feb 2007 03:39:06 AM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message =
news:IG4Eh.838$LF6.566@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.
=20
The definition of hover <snip to arrogantly ignore what you say>.
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"?=20
=20
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=20
cannot fly, it has no wings, but it certainly moves "forward".=20
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=20
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 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=20
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=20
low gear, pedalling furiously.=20
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=20
the high gear, perhaps it had a purpose. It was much harder to pedal,=20
but boy-o-boy, was I going fast.=20
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.=20
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=20
outrace Goodearl, turning a generator is hard work and gear ratios
do not help.=20
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.=20
=20
"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.
=20
I never got
<snip to arrogantly ignore what you say>
Very good. The language of science is mathematics, not English.
English is vague.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: permanent magnet motor |
24 Feb 2007 07:20:55 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Mike Painter
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net>
wrote
on Sun, 25 Feb 2007 00:24:08 GMT
<IG4Eh.838$LF6.566@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,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #40490127:
for(;;) ;
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: permanent magnet motor |
24 Feb 2007 07:12:10 AM |
|
|
On Feb 24, 8:44 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in messagenews:NzMDh.976$8x.226@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
Androcles wrote:
"Wayne Dobson" <nos...@noaddress.com> wrote in message
news:LLBDh.5934$I46.2346@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
<gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171744752.581313.46120@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.
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....
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: permanent magnet motor |
17 Feb 2007 05:20:29 PM |
|
|
"gdewilde@gmail.com" wrote:
The second law of thermodynamics prohibits the construction of a
perpetual motion machine "of the second kind."
[snip]
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: permanent magnet motor |
17 Feb 2007 08:01:04 PM |
|
|
On Feb 18, 12:20 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
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.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: permanent magnet motor |
17 Feb 2007 03:14:50 PM |
|
|
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
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
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: permanent magnet motor |
17 Feb 2007 03:40:15 PM |
|
|
On Feb 17, 10:14 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
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
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
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.
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: permanent magnet motor |
17 Feb 2007 05:58:53 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Feb 17, 10:14 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
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
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
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.
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress
Anything to keep from building it, I see!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: permanent magnet motor |
07 Mar 2007 01:39:04 AM |
|
|
ss
Anything to keep from building it, I see!
Hey Sam
I built the linear permanent magnet motor of Johnson's (See it in the
HJ group archives on Yahoo). The flux gating he is able to produce is
far less magical when you have 'hands on'. It does not violate any
principles. It creates a situation where the equalibrium conditions
are met when the cart is in motion, that's all. It's not terribly
powerful, but it does work everytime in both directions. My friend,
Tom Foster, in Texas was able to replicate it in a full 6 foot length.
Right now, a preliminary version (still linear) of the famous rotary
motor also works without question. We had to have specialty magnets
made for it and are in the process of making the rotary one.
I found it interesting that, rather than believe what he saw, one of
Tom's engineers thought I had put the track at a downward angle to get
the device to move. That poor skeptic lost $100 bucks when Tom
finished his 6 foot model.
This stuff needs more experimentation and less thought projects or
naysaying. If we had been working on these patents for the last 20-30
years, maybe there would be no need for oil to run our cars. Like I
said before, the magic is gone when you get your hands on an
experiment and you can start thinking of ways to improve the device.
Funding won't come anytime soon, though. Oil has far too much to lose.
That's the real problem with zero-point energy.
Norm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: permanent magnet motor |
17 Feb 2007 09:11:42 PM |
|
|
On Feb 18, 12:58 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
gdewi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 17, 10:14 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
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
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/wecan read
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.
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress
Anything to keep from building it, I see!
Then why havent you build it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: permanent magnet motor |
17 Feb 2007 09:27:07 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Feb 18, 12:58 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
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...
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: permanent magnet motor |
18 Feb 2007 02:05:41 AM |
|
|
On Feb 18, 4:27 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
gdewi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 18, 12:58 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
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...
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?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: permanent magnet motor |
18 Feb 2007 08:20:38 AM |
|
|
wrote:
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
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".
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!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Black" |
|
| Title: Re: permanent magnet motor |
17 Feb 2007 04:13:41 PM |
|
|
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.
--
Jim E. Black
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: permanent magnet motor |
17 Feb 2007 05:35:09 PM |
|
|
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.
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.
=C6ther way,
Thanks in advance.
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor
----
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: permanent magnet motor |
17 Feb 2007 09:28:35 PM |
|
|
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...
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: permanent magnet motor |
17 Feb 2007 10:09:07 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Sun, 18 Feb 2007 03:28:35 GMT
<DJPBh.1308$PD2.1188@attbi_s22>:
gdewilde@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.
--
#191,
Warning: This encrypted signature is a dangerous
munition. Please notify the US government
immediately upon reception.
0000 0000 0000 0000 0001 0000 0000 0000 ...
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: permanent magnet motor |
17 Feb 2007 10:43:13 PM |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Sun, 18 Feb 2007 03:28:35 GMT
<DJPBh.1308$PD2.1188@attbi_s22>:
gdewilde@gmail.com wrote:
If you think it can[']t work, then you are kindly requested to explain
why.
There is a reason perpetual motion machines can't work. Learn
thermodynamics...
Pedant Point:
Erm...no. That's not the reason PPMs don't work.
Thermo is a model of the Universe.
It's a darned *good* model, to be sure...but it doesn't
explain why PPMs can't work. As phrased, he asked why
we think it can't work; thermodynamics is in that case a
perfectly good answer. But one could also say "we think
satellites can't work because the Earth is flat".
Fortunately, we know the Earth is an oblate spheroid
(and satellites have helped determine its oblateness).
We also have quite a bit of evidence that the theory of
thermodynamics works.
But it doesn't really explain why.
"Perpetual motion machines violate one or both of the following two
laws of physics: the first law of thermodynamics and the second law
of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics is essentially a
statement of conservation of energy".
"The second law has several statements, the most intuitive of which
is that heat flows spontaneously from hotter to colder places; the
most well known is that entropy tends to increase, or at the least
stays the same; another statement is that no heat engine (an engine
which produces work while moving heat between two places) can be more
efficient than a Carnot heat engine. As a special case of this, any
machine operating in a closed cycle cannot only transform thermal
energy to work in a region of constant temperature".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: permanent magnet motor |
17 Feb 2007 11:04:27 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Sun, 18 Feb 2007 03:28:35 GMT
<DJPBh.1308$PD2.1188@attbi_s22>:
gdewilde@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".
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!
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: permanent magnet motor |
17 Feb 2007 11:57:40 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Sun, 18 Feb 2007 05:04:27 GMT
<v7RBh.1633$PD2.283@attbi_s22>:
Sam Wormley wrote:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Sun, 18 Feb 2007 03:28:35 GMT
<DJPBh.1308$PD2.1188@attbi_s22>:
gdewilde@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".
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!
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,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #8830129:
std::set<...> v; for(..:iterator i = v.begin(); i != v.end(); i++)
if(*i == thing) {...}
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: permanent magnet motor |
18 Feb 2007 12:17:37 AM |
|
|
On Feb 18, 6:57 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 05:04:27 GMT
<v7RBh.1633$PD2.283@attbi_s22>:
Sam Wormley wrote:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, Sam Wormley
<sworml...@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Sun, 18 Feb 2007 03:28:35 GMT
<DJPBh.1308$PD2.1188@attbi_s22>:
gdewi...@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".
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!
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.
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?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: permanent magnet motor |
18 Feb 2007 11:09:49 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics,
<>
wrote
on 17 Feb 2007 22:17:37 -0800
<1171779457.880829.276400@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>:
On Feb 18, 6:57 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 05:04:27 GMT
<v7RBh.1633$PD2.283@attbi_s22>:
Sam Wormley wrote:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, Sam Wormley
<sworml...@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Sun, 18 Feb 2007 03:28:35 GMT
<DJPBh.1308$PD2.1188@attbi_s22>:
gdewi...@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".
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!
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.
Yes, so I request your observation of this phenomenon. Not
unreasonable I would think?
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-theory
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,
"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of
elderberries!" - Monty Python and the Holy Grail
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: permanent magnet motor |
18 Feb 2007 12:13:49 PM |
|
|
On Feb 18, 6:09 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
<e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
In sci.physics,
<>
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?
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
