| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
28 Feb 2007 01:30:56 AM |
| Object: |
perpetual motion |
From my research I have derived a far less complicated magnet motor
design.
DISCLAIMER
1.1 - The principal is based on Over-unity ( more energy OUT as IN) I
consider closing the loop a cosmetic engineering task, it has nothing
to do with the physics of the phenomenon.
2.1 - To display a physical phenomenon all nonsense needs to be
removed from the setup. We don't make constriction drawings of a
pendulum as you know perfectly what it boils down to.
3.1 - Education should put you in a position to create a rational
comment. Education does not mean you are right about anything if you
fail to produce EVIDENCE. You effectively fail to interpretate your
education making it a waist of your time.
3.2 - This does not justify waisting my time talking about your
education. The subject of this discussion is not your skoolings or
lack there of.
3.3 - If your education disagrees with my direct observations. This
means one of the 2 is wrong. We are not going to assume this is me for
the simple reason as observation is an authority of theory. I made
enough effort to supply you with the details how to reproduce the
effect FOR FREE, displaying your ignorance is inferior to both theory
and observation.
4.1 - The author is not the subject. You are CLEARLY in no position to
make ANY unmotivated assumptions about me of any kind. Insults are not
factual evidence for the workings of my invention.
4.2 - Kelvin, Albert, Sam or Eric are in no position to forbid me from
building anything.
THE WEBSITE
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor
REPRODUCTION OF PHENOMENON
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-it-cant-be
DISCUSSION
For those skilled in the art it should be obvious that I would love to
establish some exact math on this.
Thanks in advance!.
NOTES
Galileo Galilei invented a rudimentary water thermometer in 1593.
In 1714, Gabriel Fahrenheit invented the first mercury thermometer,
the modern thermometer. Swedish astronomer Anders Celsius devised the
centigrade thermometer in 1742. Holy nobility William Thomson, 1st
Baron Kelvin (aka - you can call me Lord) is NOW widely known from the
scale of absolute temperature measurement he claimed to have invented.
A Stirling engine will run on a temperature difference of only 4 C.
You can place it on a small heat source and safely run it for weeks or
months or years. 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.
CLEARLY measuring the impossible in units of doubt.
Joseph and Jacques de Montgolfier, the two French brothers who -- on
April 4, 1783 -- gave the first public demonstration of a hot-air
balloon in their home town. "Heavier-than-air flying machines are
impossible." sad Lord Kelvin - president of the Royal Society - 1895.
Nonexistence speculations are never factual, the description of
perpetual motion is not to be taken seriously in any way. JUST LIKE
THE REST OF HIS ROYAL *****.
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. There was no math to support it.
So, I'm CLEARLY not the one doing the incredulous speculation here.
Thanks for your time, good luck and have fun. :-)
Gaby de Wilde
--------------------------------
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress
http://fototour.blogspot.com
http://categories.blogspot.com
.
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: perpetual motion |
28 Feb 2007 01:46:33 AM |
|
|
There is a reason perpetual motion machines can't work. Learn
thermodynamics...
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: perpetual motion |
28 Feb 2007 02:11:27 AM |
|
|
On Feb 28, 8:46 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
There is a reason perpetual motion machines can't work. Learn
thermodynamics...
The reason they cant work is: "learn thermodynamics", how extremely
irrational. If you repeat this statement perpetually it doesn't become
more rational.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: perpetual motion |
28 Feb 2007 08:51:27 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Feb 28, 8:46 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
There is a reason perpetual motion machines can't work. Learn
thermodynamics...
The reason they cant work is: "learn thermodynamics", how extremely
irrational. If you repeat this statement perpetually it doesn't become
more rational.
You, Gaby, can look up the historical papers, data, and all
the evidence you need in the area of conservation of energy
and thermodynamics. The record is clear... and the experiments
are repeatable... many done routinely in classrooms of colleges,
universities and even in high schools.
OK--Given that there IS friction and that there IS radiation
from accelerating magnets, your "device" loses energy in the form
of radiation and is, therefore, slowing down, eventually to stop
its rotational motion. You're just another loser... you'll never
build anything.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: perpetual motion |
28 Feb 2007 01:41:02 PM |
|
|
On Feb 28, 3:51 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
[snip]
blablabla????
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "arvee" |
|
| Title: Re: perpetual motion |
28 Feb 2007 03:21:19 AM |
|
|
On Feb 28, 12:11 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 28, 8:46 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
There is a reason perpetual motion machines can't work. Learn
thermodynamics...
The reason they cant work is: "learn thermodynamics", how extremely
irrational. If you repeat this statement perpetually it doesn't become
more rational.
Just build the thing. Your device does not look complicated, so what
is stopping you? If it works, you will become richer than Bill Gates
in record time.
Physics is an experimental science---so demonstrate, already!
By the way: when you build it and find it does not work, then maybe
you could consider taking some physics courses to further your
understanding.
R.G. Vickson
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: perpetual motion |
28 Feb 2007 05:44:33 AM |
|
|
On Feb 28, 10:21 am, "arvee" <C...@shaw.ca> wrote:
Just build the thing. Your device does not look complicated, so what
is stopping you? If it works, you will become richer than Bill Gates
in record time.
thanks for your comment,
Building devices is called Engineering this discussion is about the
break-true in physics. You are obviously not going to buy this device.
It looks more like I have to pay a lot of attention to the established
and widely accepted lack of logic just to be able to give the
invention away to you for free.
Physics is an experimental science---so demonstrate, already!
Is there something wrong with your hands? At what point did you give
up? Was it you who gave up or me? I even give an example where I
eliminate the pendulum from the setup in favor of a table. I don't
think I can dumb it down much more.
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-it-cant-be
How much effort on my behalf would be reasonable to compensate for
this widely accepted laziness?
If you are not going to make the observation you should assume it's
real for a moment. Do you seriously think anyone would believe you?
And they would give you money? ehmmm hahaha? that's so funny! It
barely happened to any inventor. In the free energy sector it is safe
to say it's impossible. People will laugh at you as laud as you can.
I personally don't care about the coupon system like you do.
That should be reason enough for you to be exited about this break-
true.
or not?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: perpetual motion |
28 Feb 2007 04:23:28 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Feb 28, 10:21 am, "arvee" <C...@shaw.ca> wrote:
Just build the thing. Your device does not look complicated, so what
is stopping you? If it works, you will become richer than Bill Gates
in record time.
thanks for your comment,
Building devices is called Engineering this discussion is about the
break-true in physics. You are obviously not going to buy this device.
It looks more like I have to pay a lot of attention to the established
and widely accepted lack of logic just to be able to give the
invention away to you for free.
I can guarantee you $500,000.00 (a trivial sum for such a working device)
With that money you can hire mathematicians to provide you with the math you
want.
And somebody to write for you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: perpetual motion |
28 Feb 2007 10:57:43 AM |
|
|
"gdewilde@gmail.com" wrote:
From my research I have derived a far less complicated magnet motor
design.
Cf: Robert Forward's patent on zero point fluctuation capacitors. No
cyclic perpetual motion machine that does not incorporate a manual
transmission from a 1970s Honda Civic can possibly work.
Idiot.
DISCLAIMER
1.1 - The principal is based on Over-unity ( more energy OUT as IN) I
consider closing the loop a cosmetic engineering task, it has nothing
to do with the physics of the phenomenon.
Idiot.
Go ahead, reduce to practice. We'll wait.
A penny and nickel stuck into a potato will power an LCD watch
forever, nearly, more or less. Doesn't need magnets at all. One
cannot imagine why people buy expensive button batteries and
thereafter foul the Earth with hazardous chemical waste. All the
world's energy needs can be met by not burning algae rather than by
not burning coal.
[snip 80 lines of aphysical whining]
--
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: perpetual motion |
28 Feb 2007 01:38:49 PM |
|
|
On Feb 28, 5:57 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
"gdewi...@gmail.com" wrote:
From my research I have derived a far less complicated magnet motor
design.
Cf: Robert Forward's patent on zero point fluctuation capacitors. No
cyclic perpetual motion machine that does not incorporate a manual
transmission from a 1970s Honda Civic can possibly work.
Idiot.
DISCLAIMER
1.1 - The principal is based on Over-unity ( more energy OUT as IN) I
consider closing the loop a cosmetic engineering task, it has nothing
to do with the physics of the phenomenon.
Idiot.
Go ahead, reduce to practice. We'll wait.
A penny and nickel stuck into a potato will power an LCD watch
forever, nearly, more or less. Doesn't need magnets at all. One
cannot imagine why people buy expensive button batteries and
thereafter foul the Earth with hazardous chemical waste. All the
world's energy needs can be met by not burning algae rather than by
not burning coal.
[snip 80 lines of aphysical whining]
--
Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
cheap
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: perpetual motion |
28 Feb 2007 01:39:50 PM |
|
|
On Feb 28, 5:57 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
[snip]
blabla??
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Snyder" |
|
| Title: Re: perpetual motion |
28 Feb 2007 02:30:03 PM |
|
|
On 28 Feb 2007 11:39:50 -0800, "gdewilde@gmail.com"
<gdewilde@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 28, 5:57 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
[snip]
blabla??
We already know you have reading comprehension problems; it's not
necessary to keep emphasizing it.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: perpetual motion |
01 Mar 2007 09:08:21 AM |
|
|
On Feb 28, 8:57 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
Idiot.
Go ahead, reduce to practice. We'll wait.
....
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Ironic.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: perpetual motion |
28 Feb 2007 06:49:45 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al of Irvine Perpetual motion is always being invented in the
mind's eye,and yet no machine ever worked Magnetizim is aways used in
man's thinking.and osmoses is the best used by nature . Feynman did say
"for every drop of water held back by the Hover dam an electron will
flow". Al is that huge tank of water at the U of Irvine still tying to
detect a hydrogen atom decay. I was there the day it went into
operation. Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: perpetual motion |
28 Feb 2007 08:33:12 PM |
|
|
On Mar 1, 1:49 am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
Uncle Al of Irvine Perpetual motion is always being invented in the
mind's eye,
So why eliminate the discussion about it? The elimination seems
redundant and a waist of time.
and yet no machine ever worked
This is an assumption. You can never deliver the evidence for this
claim. You claim error but fail to point out where and why.
It really doesn't matter what you think before you look at something.
Your comment has nothing to do with my invention. It is merely a
reflection of prejudgement of it's author.
I think you can do much-much better as this.
Don't you agree?
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-it-cant-be
.
|
|
|
| User: "doug doug@doug" |
|
| Title: Re: perpetual motion |
01 Mar 2007 02:57:36 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Mar 1, 1:49 am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
Uncle Al of Irvine Perpetual motion is always being invented in the
mind's eye,
So why eliminate the discussion about it? The elimination seems
redundant and a waist of time.
and yet no machine ever worked
This is an assumption. You can never deliver the evidence for this
claim. You claim error but fail to point out where and why.
It really doesn't matter what you think before you look at something.
Your comment has nothing to do with my invention. It is merely a
reflection of prejudgement of it's author.
I think you can do much-much better as this.
Don't you agree?
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-it-cant-be
You made the claim, it is up to you to prove it.
If you are too lazy, go away.
Real scientists, engineers, etc go out and do things.
You want to be declared God for a wrong idea. Sorry, wrong
newsgroup. Go to one of the philosophy or logic groups.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: perpetual motion |
01 Mar 2007 08:19:32 AM |
|
|
I agree I think in every direction,and like to invent stuff. All my
inventions are to make life easier. Many years ago a machine was
invented that when you put a dollar in a 5 came out. Money is
energy,and I like that better than a perpetual motion machine. Have a
large spring driven clock 40 years old,and have never had to wind the
spring. Keeps excellent time Bert
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Snyder" |
|
| Title: Re: perpetual motion |
28 Feb 2007 08:41:38 PM |
|
|
On 28 Feb 2007 18:33:12 -0800, "gdewilde@gmail.com"
<gdewilde@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 1, 1:49 am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
Uncle Al of Irvine Perpetual motion is always being invented in the
mind's eye,
So why eliminate the discussion about it? The elimination seems
redundant and a waist of time.
and yet no machine ever worked
This is an assumption. You can never deliver the evidence for this
claim. You claim error but fail to point out where and why.
It really doesn't matter what you think before you look at something.
Your comment has nothing to do with my invention. It is merely a
reflection of prejudgement of it's author.
I think you can do much-much better as this.
Don't you agree?
Of course not, retard. One is not obliged to seek out and disprove
every claim to cast stunningly accurate horoscopes, or bend spoons by
eldritch powers, or build perpetual motion machines. It suffices to
observe that it's always been ***** so far; so that if you want to
claim it isn't ***** this time, the burden of proof is on you.
But of course you can't. And you know it. That's why you'll never
actually build your miracle motor -- that way you never have to admit
out loud that you're a crap artist.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: perpetual motion |
28 Feb 2007 09:36:35 PM |
|
|
On Mar 1, 3:41 am, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
On 28 Feb 2007 18:33:12 -0800, "gdewi...@gmail.com"
<gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 1, 1:49 am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
Uncle Al of Irvine Perpetual motion is always being invented in the
mind's eye,
So why eliminate the discussion about it? The elimination seems
redundant and a waist of time.
and yet no machine ever worked
This is an assumption. You can never deliver the evidence for this
claim. You claim error but fail to point out where and why.
It really doesn't matter what you think before you look at something.
Your comment has nothing to do with my invention. It is merely a
reflection of prejudgement of it's author.
I think you can do much-much better as this.
Don't you agree?
Of course not, retard. One is not obliged to seek out and disprove
every claim.[.....]
Exactly, but if one does one should. And as you did but didn't it's
clear there is something wrong with your logic.
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Snyder" |
|
| Title: Re: perpetual motion |
01 Mar 2007 03:57:46 AM |
|
|
On 28 Feb 2007 19:36:35 -0800, "gdewilde@gmail.com"
<gdewilde@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 1, 3:41 am, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
On 28 Feb 2007 18:33:12 -0800, "gdewi...@gmail.com"
<gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 1, 1:49 am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
Uncle Al of Irvine Perpetual motion is always being invented in the
mind's eye,
So why eliminate the discussion about it? The elimination seems
redundant and a waist of time.
and yet no machine ever worked
This is an assumption. You can never deliver the evidence for this
claim. You claim error but fail to point out where and why.
It really doesn't matter what you think before you look at something.
Your comment has nothing to do with my invention. It is merely a
reflection of prejudgement of it's author.
I think you can do much-much better as this.
Don't you agree?
Of course not, retard. One is not obliged to seek out and disprove
every claim.[.....]
Exactly, but if one does one should. And as you did but didn't it's
clear there is something wrong with your logic.
Huh? What exactly would that say if you hadn't been on drugs when you
wrote it?
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: perpetual motion |
28 Feb 2007 06:54:28 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al of Irvine Here in Florida we use a lemon. Lemon acid battery.
Potato alkaline battery. If grown to great size they would have enough
juice to kill. Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: perpetual motion |
28 Feb 2007 07:56:32 PM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Uncle Al of Irvine Here in Florida we use a lemon. Lemon acid battery.
Potato alkaline battery. If grown to great size they would have enough
juice to kill. Bert
What a waste of a lemon!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: perpetual motion |
28 Feb 2007 02:11:22 AM |
|
|
On Feb 27, 10:30 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
From my research I have derived a far less complicated magnet motor
design.
DISCLAIMER
....the author has no education in either physics or engineering...
1.1 - The principal is based on Over-unity ( more energy OUT as IN) I
consider closing the loop a cosmetic engineering task, it has nothing
to do with the physics of the phenomenon.
Mostly because physics says this type of device is impossible, and
partly because you are too stupid to know what physics actually says.
2.1 - To display a physical phenomenon all nonsense needs to be
removed from the setup. We don't make constriction drawings of a
pendulum as you know perfectly what it boils down to.
Interestingly enough, this is consistent with having exactly nothing
at all as one would expect if all nonsense was truly removed from the
setup.
Were you being ironic? Or did you simply not think through the
consequences of what you wrote - as usual?
3.1 - Education should put you in a position to create a rational
comment. Education does not mean you are right about anything if you
fail to produce EVIDENCE. You effectively fail to interpretate your
education making it a waist of your time.
A bold comment for someone with no education in physics.
You have already been given rational comments. Since you ignored
those, all that remains are irrational comments [The unicorn stole my
dam to create farts] and insults [you are a fucking moron].
3.2 - This does not justify waisting my time talking about your
education. The subject of this discussion is not your skoolings or
lack there of.
Was the 'skoolings' typo intentional or the manifestation of the
universe's intense love for irony? The world may never know.
3.3 - If your education disagrees with my direct observations. This
means one of the 2 is wrong. We are not going to assume this is me for
the simple reason as observation is an authority of theory. I made
enough effort to supply you with the details how to reproduce the
effect FOR FREE, displaying your ignorance is inferior to both theory
and observation.
The natural question, at this point, would be 'what observations?'
Every example you have come up with so far have been devices that
operate off of well known principles, mostly electromagnetic
induction. None of which violate theory or come even close to
'perpetual motion'.
4.1 - The author is not the subject. You are CLEARLY in no position to
make ANY unmotivated assumptions about me of any kind. Insults are not
factual evidence for the workings of my invention.
Even though the author has demonstrated an incredible lack of
knowledge regarding induction of current, apparently the author feels
his ignorance is not worth discussing.
4.2 - Kelvin, Albert, Sam or Eric are in no position to forbid me from
building anything.
Of course. The universe is the one that forbids it.
I, however, love to encourage fools to waste time and money on
something that cannot possibly work. I want you to try to build it. I
have asked you where your working device is many times, and apparently
you interpret that into meaning something exactly opposite from what I
said.
No, really. Build it. I dare you.
THE WEBSITEhttp://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor
REPRODUCTION OF PHENOMENONhttp://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-it-cant-be
DISCUSSION
For those skilled in the art it should be obvious that I would love to
establish some exact math on this.
....the math you are wholly incapable of understanding?
Work = integral force dot dr, where the path of integration is the
path of which the relevant object travels. The magnetic force,
integrated over any closed loop, is always zero. Like I told you
before. Look in any electrodynamics textbook.
Thanks in advance!.
Thanks for giving me something to waste 10 minutes on. I was getting
bored with my electrodynamics homework.
NOTES
Galileo Galilei invented a rudimentary water thermometer in 1593.
In 1714, Gabriel Fahrenheit invented the first mercury thermometer,
the modern thermometer. Swedish astronomer Anders Celsius devised the
centigrade thermometer in 1742. Holy nobility William Thomson, 1st
Baron Kelvin (aka - you can call me Lord) is NOW widely known from the
scale of absolute temperature measurement he claimed to have invented.
Neat! A paragraph about something completely irrelevant.
A Stirling engine will run on a temperature difference of only 4 C.
You can place it on a small heat source and safely run it for weeks or
months or years. 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.
CLEARLY measuring the impossible in units of doubt.
What is not quite as clear is why you think this is relevant to your
'perpetual motion machine'.
Joseph and Jacques de Montgolfier, the two French brothers who -- on
April 4, 1783 -- gave the first public demonstration of a hot-air
balloon in their home town. "Heavier-than-air flying machines are
impossible." sad Lord Kelvin - president of the Royal Society - 1895.
Ahhh, this 'argument' again.
Seriously...why the hell do you think this is a valid argument? Your
strawman is transparent and uninteresting. Go beat it in the privacy
of your own home.
Do you think every crackpot idea, no matter how stupid, is valid if
they use this argument? If not, why is your idea so damn special?
Nonexistence speculations are never factual, the description of
perpetual motion is not to be taken seriously in any way. JUST LIKE
THE REST OF HIS ROYAL *****.
Who gives a *****? Science doesn't rest on the validity of Lord Kelvin.
It never has and it never will.
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. There was no math to support it.
So, I'm CLEARLY not the one doing the incredulous speculation here.
I have *got* to hear why you think Ajay Sharma is an authority on
anything.
No, really. Why are you quoting a known crank?
Thanks for your time, good luck and have fun. :-)
Gaby de Wilde
--------------------------------http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotorhttp://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpresshttp://fototour.blogspot.comhttp://categories.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
