| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"ring_theory" |
| Date: |
09 Mar 2005 06:51:31 PM |
| Object: |
transforming energy infinite |
Mankind transforms energy from it's various forms to kinetic for the work.
I ultimately believe that we just havn't found the correct method of
transformation to be fully effective at producing renewable energy.
This is mostly because mankind has through the years taught our students
that the laws of thermodynamics under no condition can be broken. Which I
agree. But on the other hand they fully ignore the fact that the laws can be
upheld.
I feel man has come to this conclusion by observations based
on the wrong combination of transformations and using the work
(kinetic energy) prematurely.
Some of the combinations mankind uses:
transformations failure
______________________________
Fuel-kinetic Uses up fuel
hydro-elec-kinetic Not a closed system
solor-elec-kinetic Not a closed system
wind-elec-kinetic Not a closed system
neuclear-elec-kinetic Not a closed system
______________________________
However there is hope for mankind yet. all you have to do is listen to me
closely.
ELEC TO KINETIC TO ELEC TO KINETIC, ECCENTRIC FOR INFINITY!!
Where do we get the work from you might ask. the work comes from the
"kinetic to elec" transformation where it is effortlessly drawn from the
system via electromagnetic induction. Elec can be used for the work in most
cases. However the added appliance is inducted to the system remaining a
closed system.
I invented a device that's sole pourpose was to transfom energy
indefinitely.
I initially pondered how we could move a perminant magnet flux field through
a induction coil infinite. It took nearly 20 years but i have perfected the
method of doing it. Creating the closed system that man has only dreamed
about till now.
It is simply a rotary transformer.
Thermodynamics and overcoming general consensus that there is no way to win
the game.
If were concidering it a game it is important that we know the rules/laws of
the game. all the rules are referring to a "closed system" To date mankind
hasn't created a closed system. So were not even in the game. We can't even
begin to play we make one transformation and greedily use the energy for the
work. However the game punishes us via heat. "end game".
However man hasn't met the qualifiers of the second law of thermodynamics.
Most often the first and second laws of thermodynamics are discussed however
there is 2 more laws related to thermodynamics. that we can't even begin to
explore as we aren't even in the game at this point.
Third law of thermodynamics
For changes involving only perfect crystalline solids at absolute zero, the
change of the total entropy is zero.
Zero or rather the result = 0. Is true unity. which mankind hasn't achieved
yet.
However it is possible via kinetic energy in a closed system bieng a
constant
providing the right form is used and that form is the ring. If I'm correct a
rare earth magnet is a crystalline solid. That's what the core is made of in
my rotary transformer.
Zeroth law of thermodynamics
If two bodies are each in thermal equilibrium with a third body, then all
three bodies are in thermal equilibrium with each other.
Many things come in 3's. My transformer has 3 functional transformations via
3 main componants. The first (drive) componant is the only componant that
will produce heat on initial startup till the core gets up to speed than it
will reach an equilibrium rotating the core, and will require very little
energy to maintain it's rotation achieving the thermal equilibrium once at
operating rotation. the third body is the induction and last transformation.
Theory or not it is an observation i have made through conception, research
and developement of the next generation transformer.
This device is the device that is going to get mankind in the game and solve
the energy crisis. It is the renewable energy that has been so elusive till
now.
However I need help in developing this highly innovative technology.
I have an highly innovative invention that I would be willing to give
research rights to any US research facility excluding alaska, hawaii,
(unless your paying for the flight there and housing and transportation once
I get there) that would be willing to dedicate $100,000 and a years worth
of research and developement at their facilities. I didn't say give *me*
$100,000 the money would be for the componants and controlled by the
research facility. I'm not concerned with money at this point, but I am
concerned that this innovative technology gets some real research time at
proper research facilities. My wealth is going to come once the technology
is released as I'm not giving up rights and royalties of the device. However
I would be willing to share the profits with that US research facility that
steps up and is willing to take a chance.
The first form of research would be to create a computer model of the
functionality of the device. to confirm that it will work before proceding
to the manufacturing of the device. I'm not capable of inputing the required
peramiters for the software so I do need to confer with qualified
professionals on the specifics of the device.
Ring
.
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: transforming energy infinite |
09 Mar 2005 10:55:30 PM |
|
|
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:mSMXd.50550$r55.3760@attbi_s52:
Many things come in 3's. My transformer has 3 functional transformations
via 3 main componants. The first (drive) componant is the only componant
that will produce heat on initial startup till the core gets up to speed
than it will reach an equilibrium rotating the core, and will require
very little energy to maintain it's rotation achieving the thermal
equilibrium once at operating rotation. the third body is the induction
and last transformation.
so you have a motor/generator. They were used a lot in WWII to give high
tension (200VDC) to operate vacuum tubes and 6 volts to heat the filaments
from the aircrafts 24VDC system. (I may miss remember the exact voltages
involved, but the point is the same).
You are right about one thing, once it is up to speed, it doesn't take much
power to keep it running UNLESS you start to take power from the output of
the generator section, then the input current suddenly increases.
Power in is ALWAYS greater than the power out.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
You can't win, you can't break even.
You can't be serious about peddling yet another perpetual motion scam.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
| User: "ring_theory" |
|
| Title: Re: transforming energy infinite |
10 Mar 2005 02:13:15 AM |
|
|
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns9614E93662356WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:mSMXd.50550$r55.3760@attbi_s52:
Many things come in 3's. My transformer has 3 functional transformations
via 3 main componants. The first (drive) componant is the only componant
that will produce heat on initial startup till the core gets up to speed
than it will reach an equilibrium rotating the core, and will require
very little energy to maintain it's rotation achieving the thermal
equilibrium once at operating rotation. the third body is the induction
and last transformation.
so you have a motor/generator. They were used a lot in WWII to give high
tension (200VDC) to operate vacuum tubes and 6 volts to heat the filaments
from the aircrafts 24VDC system. (I may miss remember the exact voltages
involved, but the point is the same).
This one wasn't. It's not a generator it's an inductor. Motor/inductor 1
moving part, EMF bearings. Attraction and repulsion drive and
electromagnetic induction by multiple flux fields at an rpm via the
multifield ring cores rotation. Had they had it we would have fully
functionable railguns. No this is new innovative technology.
You are right about one thing, once it is up to speed, it doesn't take
much
power to keep it running UNLESS you start to take power from the output of
the generator section, then the input current suddenly increases.
Oh I'm right on everything involving this device.
There is no back emf involved in induction with this configuration. Here
look at it this way you got 50 flux fields passing through 9 induction coils
at 30,000 rpms, your not going to attach enough appliances to it to put even
a remote drag on the core componant which is kinetic energy in a vacume. by
doing that it would violate the laws of conservation of energy.
Power in is ALWAYS greater than the power out.
I dissagree. I can wind this thing to work as a motor on as little as 6
volts and hold 30,000 rpms as long as I can hold 6v to it. without the
induction coils ie "the criticle transformation". I think you can appreciate
the concept of induction with millions of fluxuations per minute. Do you
think you could induce 6 volts out of 9 induction coils with 13,500,000
total fluxuations per minute at 30,000 rpms?
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
You can't win, you can't break even.
I agree, *if* your trying to violate the laws. However you must remember
that the laws can be upheld and utilized. Whom ever taught you that is a
moron. How dare they only teach one side of the story.
Mankind doesn't tell physics how it works. Physics tells us how it works.
Impiricism overules theory!
You can't be serious about peddling yet another perpetual motion scam.
Knowledge is what I'm peddeling, as for perpetual motion it's just one of
the byproducts of abiding the laws of physics. There wouldn't be a
conservation of energy if perpetual motion wasn't possible. There wouldn't
be a third and zeroth law of thermodynamics if we couldn't get by the first
and second law.
I never said it was perpetual however it is, here's the kicker it's a free
energy device, overunity, and antigravity with the right configurations of
coils and rings.
This is your worst nightmare a device that will accomplish everything that
your mathematics says can't be done.
Oh and why I'm at busting your bubble, Your mathematics is drawing you a
picture of unity everytime you come to "= 0" your dealing with unity or a
componant of unity. As true unity is "= 0" and it's not an additive, true
unity is 0.999999 infinite. Man likes to round things off and 1 is convient
however it is also regarded as unity. there is another form of device in the
conept stages that will use a shaft instead of a ring.
"= 0" is a depiction of my device unity in action, infinity is mearly a
twisted ring to depict motion along a continous path.
You can say I'm retarded and don't know, or call it a scam whatever trips
your trigger. I came to these conclusions via "discovery by invention"
through conception, research, and development. It doesn't matter I'm not
going away anytime soon until some US research facility helps me to produce
a computer model to confirm or disprove it. That's really all I ask. I
found that the home brewed prototype thing could be potentially fatal. The
computer model is safest and least time and money consuming method of
research.
ring
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.]
Sorry to hear that.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: transforming energy infinite |
10 Mar 2005 06:34:46 AM |
|
|
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:vkTXd.52628$r55.18179@attbi_s52:
Subject: Re: transforming energy infinite
From: "ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns9614E93662356WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:mSMXd.50550$r55.3760@attbi_s52:
Many things come in 3's. My transformer has 3 functional
transformations via 3 main componants. The first (drive) componant is
the only componant that will produce heat on initial startup till the
core gets up to speed than it will reach an equilibrium rotating the
core, and will require very little energy to maintain it's rotation
achieving the thermal equilibrium once at operating rotation. the
third body is the induction and last transformation.
so you have a motor/generator. They were used a lot in WWII to give
high tension (200VDC) to operate vacuum tubes and 6 volts to heat the
filaments from the aircrafts 24VDC system. (I may miss remember the
exact voltages involved, but the point is the same).
This one wasn't. It's not a generator it's an inductor.
Both motors and generators contain inductors.
Magnetos use permanent magnets and inductors to generate voltage/current.
If it generates current from mechanical motion via a magnetic field then it
is, by definition, a generator. There are many kinds of generators,
magnetos and alternators are both generators.
Motor/inductor 1
moving part, EMF bearings. Attraction and repulsion drive and
electromagnetic induction by multiple flux fields at an rpm via the
multifield ring cores rotation. Had they had it we would have fully
functionable railguns. No this is new innovative technology.
I still don't see anything 'different' about your concept. Storing energy
in the angular momentum of a rotating mass is not a new idea. Rotating that
mass in a vacuum, using magnetic bearings, using a motor/generator to wind
it up and to extract energy have all been done.
Google for
flywheel energy storage
If you are doing what I think you are doing, winding your coils so that the
magnetic fields 'cancel' each other, then you will find that you get zero
force and zero energy. A coil must have inductance to have a magnetic
field.
You are right about one thing, once it is up to speed, it doesn't take
much
power to keep it running UNLESS you start to take power from the output
of the generator section, then the input current suddenly increases.
Oh I'm right on everything involving this device.
If you knew that for sure, you wouldn't be asking for hundreds of thousands
of dollars to model the system.
There is no back emf involved in induction with this configuration.
Then there is no current flow. Changing current through an inductor creates
a back EMF. Have you found a way to keep the lines of magnetic force from
cutting through more than one turn of your coil of wire? Have you found a
way to keep the magnetic lines from one turn from cutting through an
adjacent turn?
Here
look at it this way you got 50 flux fields passing through 9 induction
coils at 30,000 rpms, your not going to attach enough appliances to it
to put even a remote drag on the core componant which is kinetic energy
in a vacume. by doing that it would violate the laws of conservation of
energy.
The words sound good to the ear, but words do not generate electicity.
Power in is ALWAYS greater than the power out.
I dissagree. I can wind this thing to work as a motor on as little as 6
volts and hold 30,000 rpms as long as I can hold 6v to it.
A motor with no load draws little current. It just needs enough power to
overcome friction and losses.
without the
induction coils ie "the criticle transformation". I think you can
appreciate the concept of induction with millions of fluxuations per
minute. Do you think you could induce 6 volts out of 9 induction coils
with 13,500,000 total fluxuations per minute at 30,000 rpms?
I can see how it might induce 6 volts[higher voltages would be better, less
IR losses in the output circuitry].
Once I try to take current from the coils, I see a counter EMF that will
attempt to slow the motion of the magnet(s). The driver circuit will need
to pump energy into the system. That energy will be supplied by current
drawn from the driving circuit.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
You can't win, you can't break even.
I agree, *if* your trying to violate the laws. However you must remember
that the laws can be upheld and utilized. Whom ever taught you that is a
moron.
Or ignorant, or perhaps you are the one in error. Calling others morons is
not a way to impart knowledge, only a way to engender anger.
How dare they only teach one side of the story.
Teach me the other.
Mankind doesn't tell physics how it works. Physics tells us how it
works. Impiricism overules theory!
Show me the experimental data.
Observable, Identifiable, Verifiable is the mantra.
You can't be serious about peddling yet another perpetual motion scam.
c/scam/scheme/
it smells the same.
Knowledge is what I'm peddeling, as for perpetual motion it's just one
of the byproducts of abiding the laws of physics. There wouldn't be a
conservation of energy if perpetual motion wasn't possible.
evidence?
There
wouldn't be a third and zeroth law of thermodynamics if we couldn't get
by the first and second law.
I never said it was perpetual however it is, here's the kicker it's a
free energy device, overunity, and antigravity with the right
configurations of coils and rings.
I wish it were true. I wish it were possible. Show me the evidence.
I wanted Cold Fusion to be true. But careful consideration of the evidence
showed it wasn't.
Wish in one hand, spit in the other, see which fills up first.
This is your worst nightmare a device that will accomplish everything
that your mathematics says can't be done.
Not a nightmare, an opportunity to learn.
Oh and why I'm at busting your bubble, Your mathematics is drawing you a
picture of unity everytime you come to "= 0" your dealing with unity or
a componant of unity. As true unity is "= 0" and it's not an additive,
true unity is 0.999999 infinite. Man likes to round things off and 1 is
convient however it is also regarded as unity. there is another form of
device in the conept stages that will use a shaft instead of a ring.
"= 0" is a depiction of my device unity in action, infinity is mearly a
twisted ring to depict motion along a continous path.
Show me. You may E-mail me if you like. See my address in my signature.
You can say I'm retarded and don't know, or call it a scam whatever
trips your trigger.
Or perhaps you are sincere. I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
I came to these conclusions via "discovery by
invention" through conception, research, and development. It doesn't
matter I'm not going away anytime soon until some US research facility
helps me to produce a computer model to confirm or disprove it.
A model should be easy to construct. Perhaps we[tinw] can do it for free.
That's
really all I ask. I found that the home brewed prototype thing could be
potentially fatal.
It doesn't have to run 'at speed' to test the idea.
It doesn't need to move at all. Use electronics to 'simulate' the physical
motion. In otherwords use an electromagnet or a set of electro magnets
rather than a physical magnet in motion. This removes the mechanical aspect
and the hazard associated with a mass in motion.
The computer model is safest and least time and money
consuming method of research.
I will build a computer model for free.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is
an infinite set.]
Sorry to hear that.
Why? It gives me an unlimited opportunity to learn, which is one of the
greatest pleasures in life. Besides, we(tinw) are ALL infinitely ignorant.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: transforming energy infinite |
10 Mar 2005 11:48:20 AM |
|
|
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns961542F0E4A4EWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
You can't win, you can't break even.
I agree, *if* your trying to violate the laws. However you must remember
that the laws can be upheld and utilized. Whom ever taught you that is a
moron.
Or ignorant, or perhaps you are the one in error. Calling others morons is
not a way to impart knowledge, only a way to engender anger.
Hah! But don't you see, you fool? He doesn't VIOLATE any laws as long as
he keeps making up new laws to explain away the stuff that is wrong! Hah!
In your face universe!
8 )
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JRoberts" |
|
| Title: Re: transforming energy infinite |
10 Mar 2005 10:35:45 AM |
|
|
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vkTXd.52628$r55.18179@attbi_s52...
Power in is ALWAYS greater than the power out.
I dissagree. I can wind this thing to work as a motor on as little as 6
volts and hold 30,000 rpms as long as I can hold 6v to it. without the
induction coils ie "the criticle transformation". I think you can
appreciate
the concept of induction with millions of fluxuations per minute. Do you
think you could induce 6 volts out of 9 induction coils with 13,500,000
total fluxuations per minute at 30,000 rpms?
I have a circuit that manages between 800,000,000 to 900,000,000
"fluxations" per min. It fit's in the palm of my hand and runs off a small
Lithium Ion Battery. No moving parts at all so zero rpm! It's output is so
powerful it can be detected a mile away easy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ring_theory" |
|
| Title: Re: transforming energy infinite |
10 Mar 2005 11:53:53 AM |
|
|
"JRoberts" <jroberts@notmyaddress.com> wrote in message
news:BH_Xd.34488$rl5.3355711@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vkTXd.52628$r55.18179@attbi_s52...
Power in is ALWAYS greater than the power out.
I dissagree. I can wind this thing to work as a motor on as little as 6
volts and hold 30,000 rpms as long as I can hold 6v to it. without the
induction coils ie "the criticle transformation". I think you can
appreciate
the concept of induction with millions of fluxuations per minute. Do you
think you could induce 6 volts out of 9 induction coils with 13,500,000
total fluxuations per minute at 30,000 rpms?
I have a circuit that manages between 800,000,000 to 900,000,000
"fluxations" per min. It fit's in the palm of my hand and runs off a small
Lithium Ion Battery. No moving parts at all so zero rpm! It's output is so
powerful it can be detected a mile away easy.
Put it in an induction coil, what's the result?
.
|
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: transforming energy infinite |
10 Mar 2005 03:52:33 PM |
|
|
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:NQ%Xd.114041$4q6.58468@attbi_s01...
I have a circuit that manages between 800,000,000 to 900,000,000
"fluxations" per min. It fit's in the palm of my hand and runs off a
small
Lithium Ion Battery. No moving parts at all so zero rpm! It's output is
so
powerful it can be detected a mile away easy.
Put it in an induction coil, what's the result?
No calls get through.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: transforming energy infinite |
10 Mar 2005 11:55:27 AM |
|
|
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vkTXd.52628$r55.18179@attbi_s52...
I agree, *if* your trying to violate the laws. However you must remember
that the laws can be upheld and utilized. Whom ever taught you that is a
moron. How dare they only teach one side of the story.
Mankind doesn't tell physics how it works. Physics tells us how it works.
Impiricism overules theory!
You can't be serious about peddling yet another perpetual motion scam.
You're not going to get a lot of money from investors if you call them
morons for asking why you think your invention violates all the basic
physics that they depend on to secure their potential investment.
If you really want to impress us, let us know who DOES invest in your doodad
when they start pouring money into your revolutionary invention. IF what
you describe is accurate then you should have hundreds of investors in no
time flat and we'll all be seeing 24-hour news coverage all over the world
of it. Plus we'll be seeing planes that don't need fuel, power plants going
out of business overnight, etc. etc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ring_theory" |
|
| Title: Re: transforming energy infinite |
10 Mar 2005 08:24:01 PM |
|
|
"Morituri-|-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message
news:jS%Xd.65424$SQ4.24400@fe1.texas.rr.com...
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vkTXd.52628$r55.18179@attbi_s52...
I agree, *if* your trying to violate the laws. However you must remember
that the laws can be upheld and utilized. Whom ever taught you that is a
moron. How dare they only teach one side of the story.
Mankind doesn't tell physics how it works. Physics tells us how it
works.
Impiricism overules theory!
You can't be serious about peddling yet another perpetual motion scam.
You're not going to get a lot of money from investors if you call them
morons for asking why you think your invention violates all the basic
physics that they depend on to secure their potential investment.
If you really want to impress us, let us know who DOES invest in your
doodad
when they start pouring money into your revolutionary invention. IF what
you describe is accurate then you should have hundreds of investors in no
time flat and we'll all be seeing 24-hour news coverage all over the world
of it. Plus we'll be seeing planes that don't need fuel, power plants
going
out of business overnight, etc. etc.
Well that's the plan. So when you see it coming go out and buy all available
stock in that company.
.
|
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: transforming energy infinite |
11 Mar 2005 02:08:32 AM |
|
|
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5j7Yd.53257$Ze3.41684@attbi_s51...
Well that's the plan. So when you see it coming go out and buy all
available
stock in that company.
Presumably you own the patent rights? You are unlikely to attract investors
otherwise. It's important for two reasons:
a) To be sure the results of their research won't just be ripped off.
b) To be sure another company won't take them to court for infringing an
existing patent.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: transforming energy infinite |
10 Mar 2005 11:42:52 PM |
|
|
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5j7Yd.53257$Ze3.41684@attbi_s51...
Well that's the plan. So when you see it coming go out and buy all
available
stock in that company.
From what we have seen of your competence so far, one doesn't believe
holding ones breath to be healthy in this case.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: transforming energy infinite |
10 Mar 2005 02:25:48 AM |
|
|
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mSMXd.50550$r55.3760@attbi_s52...
Mankind transforms energy from it's various forms to kinetic for the work.
I ultimately believe that we just havn't found the correct method of
transformation to be fully effective at producing renewable energy.
and what lossless transformation have you discovered?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: transforming energy infinite |
10 Mar 2005 02:23:48 AM |
|
|
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mSMXd.50550$r55.3760@attbi_s52...
I think I've spotted the key technical problems.....
However there is hope for mankind yet. all you have to do is listen to me
closely.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: transforming energy infinite |
10 Mar 2005 12:46:18 AM |
|
|
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mSMXd.50550$r55.3760@attbi_s52...
Zeroth law of thermodynamics
If two bodies are each in thermal equilibrium with a third body, then all
three bodies are in thermal equilibrium with each other.
Why? Why not four or five or six or seven-hundred? Why not two? What is
the big magic thing about three?
.
|
|
|
| User: "ring_theory" |
|
| Title: Re: transforming energy infinite |
10 Mar 2005 02:23:10 AM |
|
|
"Morituri-|-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message
news:_2SXd.58133$Qz1.45818@fe2.texas.rr.com...
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mSMXd.50550$r55.3760@attbi_s52...
Zeroth law of thermodynamics
If two bodies are each in thermal equilibrium with a third body, then
all
three bodies are in thermal equilibrium with each other.
Why? Why not four or five or six or seven-hundred? Why not two? What is
the big magic thing about three?
I don't write the laws I just abide them. In most cases I find that I was
abiding them through design before I even knew they existed.
ring
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: transforming energy infinite |
10 Mar 2005 11:43:45 AM |
|
|
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OtTXd.52635$r55.16878@attbi_s52...
"Morituri-|-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message
news:_2SXd.58133$Qz1.45818@fe2.texas.rr.com...
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mSMXd.50550$r55.3760@attbi_s52...
Zeroth law of thermodynamics
If two bodies are each in thermal equilibrium with a third body, then
all
three bodies are in thermal equilibrium with each other.
Why? Why not four or five or six or seven-hundred? Why not two? What
is
the big magic thing about three?
I don't write the laws I just abide them. In most cases I find that I was
abiding them through design before I even knew they existed.
Of COURSE you write them.. you just invented the "Zeroth" law... come on,
try a little harder when you make stuff up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ring_theory" |
|
| Title: Re: transforming energy infinite |
10 Mar 2005 11:51:21 AM |
|
|
"Morituri-|-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message
news:lH%Xd.65422$SQ4.23565@fe1.texas.rr.com...
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OtTXd.52635$r55.16878@attbi_s52...
"Morituri-|-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message
news:_2SXd.58133$Qz1.45818@fe2.texas.rr.com...
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mSMXd.50550$r55.3760@attbi_s52...
Zeroth law of thermodynamics
If two bodies are each in thermal equilibrium with a third body, then
all
three bodies are in thermal equilibrium with each other.
Why? Why not four or five or six or seven-hundred? Why not two? What
is
the big magic thing about three?
I don't write the laws I just abide them. In most cases I find that I
was
abiding them through design before I even knew they existed.
Of COURSE you write them.. you just invented the "Zeroth" law... come on,
try a little harder when you make stuff up.
Whatever. I didn't make nothing up. I have seen it on several websites.
http://www.alcyone.com/max/physics/laws/index.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: transforming energy infinite |
10 Mar 2005 03:54:40 PM |
|
|
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tO%Xd.113758$tl3.24737@attbi_s02...
Of COURSE you write them.. you just invented the "Zeroth" law... come
on,
try a little harder when you make stuff up.
Whatever. I didn't make nothing up. I have seen it on several websites.
Well if you saw it on a website it must be true then.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ring_theory" |
|
| Title: Re: transforming energy infinite |
10 Mar 2005 08:27:59 PM |
|
|
"CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote in message
news:Am3Yd.34721$dK.3374206@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tO%Xd.113758$tl3.24737@attbi_s02...
Of COURSE you write them.. you just invented the "Zeroth" law... come
on,
try a little harder when you make stuff up.
Whatever. I didn't make nothing up. I have seen it on several websites.
Well if you saw it on a website it must be true then.
Well no, not entirely correct.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: transforming energy infinite |
10 Mar 2005 12:56:43 AM |
|
|
In article <_2SXd.58133$Qz1.45818@fe2.texas.rr.com>, "Morituri-|-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> writes:
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mSMXd.50550$r55.3760@attbi_s52...
Zeroth law of thermodynamics
If two bodies are each in thermal equilibrium with a third body, then all
three bodies are in thermal equilibrium with each other.
Why? Why not four or five or six or seven-hundred? Why not two? What is
the big magic thing about three?
Oh, the three is important since it allows for transitivity. Think
about it as a purely mathematical statement, replacing "are in thermal
equilibrium by plain "are equal". So, the statement "if a = b then a = b"
is obviously true (it is a tautology) but it leads nowhere. On the
other hand the statement "if a = b and b = c then a = c" is infinitely
extensible, since if it is true then now you can take a fourth number,
d, and if it is equal to any of a, b, c then it is equal to all of
them. And then you can take a next number, e, and repeat the same
process.
So, if it is three then it is "four or five or six or seven-hundred"
and anything else all the way to infinity. But if it is two, then all
you know is that it is two, and it ends there.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick Rouse" |
|
| Title: Re: transforming energy infinite |
11 Mar 2005 07:48:47 AM |
|
|
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<mSMXd.50550$r55.3760@attbi_s52>...
snip.
The first form of research would be to create a computer model of the
functionality of the device. to confirm that it will work before proceding
to the manufacturing of the device. I'm not capable of inputing the required
peramiters for the software so I do need to confer with qualified
professionals on the specifics of the device.
Ring
You are hoping to get someone to do a computer simulation of your device.
This at least is bound to predict your device will fail. This is because
every bit of the physics that that would be built into that simulation has
conservation of energy built into it. Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell's
electromagnetism and all other physics applicable to your
device are all energy conservative The reason I can state the simulation
will predict failure without knowing the details of your machine is the same
reason that I can state that in a legal game of chess, if pawn promotion to
bishop has not occurred then at the end of the game you will not find two
bishops of the same side on the same coloured square. If is not necessary
to examine every possible game of chess to reach this conclusion. It is only
necessary to know the initial state, that every legal single move
leaves each bishop on the same colour square it started on and that the
end state of each move is the starting state of the next move.
No concatenation of elements of the simulation, each of which conserves
energy will give other than an overall conservation of energy.
If this simple conclusion has not come to you in 20 years of thinking about
the subject I do not think it unfairly pejorative to say that you are not
the most perceptive of investigators.
This conclusion and a little humility might guide you were you to ask
yourself the question 'could it be that the many thousands of investigators
over the last century who have included some of the most perceptive (and
some very iconoclastic) investigators and whose recorded investigations
have filled many hundreds of metres of shelf space have all have missed a
gapping hole in the theory of electromagnetic systems or could it be that
I have in some way misunderstood how my system will work?'
Note that conservation of energy does not rule out
perpetual motion as such. Persistent circulating
super conducting currents and quantised vortices
in superfluid helium come remarkably close to
perpetual motion. What is ruled out is continually
extracting energy from a system without feeding in
energy or depleting a finite internal store of energy
and this is apparently what you propose to do. The laws
of thermodynamics are not needed for this conclusion.
Nick Rouse
.
|
|
|
| User: "ring_theory" |
|
| Title: Re: transforming energy infinite |
11 Mar 2005 04:48:33 PM |
|
|
"Nick Rouse" <nick@rouse.123isp.co.uk> wrote in message
news:43d7173f.0503110548.1b744c56@posting.google.com...
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<mSMXd.50550$r55.3760@attbi_s52>...
snip.
The first form of research would be to create a computer model of the
functionality of the device. to confirm that it will work before
proceding
to the manufacturing of the device. I'm not capable of inputing the
required
peramiters for the software so I do need to confer with qualified
professionals on the specifics of the device.
Ring
You are hoping to get someone to do a computer simulation of your device.
This at least is bound to predict your device will fail. This is because
every bit of the physics that that would be built into that simulation has
conservation of energy built into it.
I'm counting on it. The core has has 4 forms of conservation in it's very
function.
1. conservation of mass-energy
2. conservation of magnetic charge-force
3. conservation of linear momentum (viewed across event horison)
4. conservation of angular momentum
In short the core is conservation of energy in form and function.
Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell's
electromagnetism and all other physics applicable to your
device are all energy conservative The reason I can state the simulation
will predict failure without knowing the details
However the devil is in the details. you cannot predict anything if you
don't know the details.
of your machine is the same
reason that I can state that in a legal game of chess, if pawn promotion
to
bishop has not occurred then at the end of the game you will not find two
bishops of the same side on the same coloured square. If is not necessary
to examine every possible game of chess to reach this conclusion. It is
only
necessary to know the initial state, that every legal single move
leaves each bishop on the same colour square it started on and that the
end state of each move is the starting state of the next move.
No concatenation of elements of the simulation, each of which conserves
energy will give other than an overall conservation of energy.
Once again I'm counting on it.
If this simple conclusion has not come to you in 20 years of thinking
about
the subject I do not think it unfairly pejorative to say that you are not
the most perceptive of investigators.
You have a right to your opinion and I honor that. However it should be
based on facts and fully knowing how this device works.
This conclusion and a little humility might guide you were you to ask
yourself the question 'could it be that the many thousands of
investigators
over the last century who have included some of the most perceptive (and
some very iconoclastic) investigators and whose recorded investigations
have filled many hundreds of metres of shelf space have all have missed a
gapping hole in the theory of electromagnetic systems or could it be that
I have in some way misunderstood how my system will work?'
I have pondered this multiple times, I even play devils advocate everytime
someone introduces a new problem. I'm fully aware that it could only take
one very small error in my understanding of any of the principles of physics
that involve this device. that's why it has taken 20 years of conception,
research and development. I've been very meticulous.
Note that conservation of energy does not rule out
perpetual motion as such. Persistent circulating
super conducting currents and quantised vortices
in superfluid helium come remarkably close to
perpetual motion. What is ruled out is continually
extracting energy from a system without feeding in
energy or depleting a finite internal store of energy
and this is apparently what you propose to do. The laws
of thermodynamics are not needed for this conclusion.
Nick Rouse
conservation of energy is the force that guarantees that thermodynamics
won't effect this device as it cannot possibly destroy an existing energy in
an isolated system.
ring
.
|
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: transforming energy infinite |
11 Mar 2005 05:50:51 PM |
|
|
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:5fpYd.57422$r55.22056@attbi_s52:
conservation of energy is the force that guarantees that thermodynamics
won't effect this device as it cannot possibly destroy an existing
energy in an isolated system.
You can not extract energy from an isolated system. Once you take energy from
the system, it is not isolated.
If it is isolated, it is useless except perhaps as a storage system for
energy.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: transforming energy infinite |
12 Mar 2005 05:48:58 AM |
|
|
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5fpYd.57422$r55.22056@attbi_s52...
I'm counting on it. The core has has 4 forms of conservation in it's very
function.
1. conservation of mass-energy
2. conservation of magnetic charge-force
3. conservation of linear momentum (viewed across event horison)
4. conservation of angular momentum
In short the core is conservation of energy in form and function.
Doesn't it get warm?
.
|
|
|
| User: "ring_theory" |
|
| Title: Re: transforming energy infinite |
12 Mar 2005 03:52:12 PM |
|
|
"CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote in message
news:KGAYd.35841$bH5.3431526@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5fpYd.57422$r55.22056@attbi_s52...
I'm counting on it. The core has has 4 forms of conservation in it's
very
function.
1. conservation of mass-energy
2. conservation of magnetic charge-force
3. conservation of linear momentum (viewed across event horison)
4. conservation of angular momentum
In short the core is conservation of energy in form and function.
Doesn't it get warm?
No. But I'm sure the overall system will have a normal operating
temperature. The core componant is simply "kinetic energy" via spinning
mass, eccentric. The core is suspended and driven by the harmonic
interaction of 2 magnetic fields. The drive coils are electromagnetic, and
the cores fields permanent. No physical interaction is present this allows
the core to float free, devoid of physical contact resulting in friction.
This also allows the ring chamber to be vacume sealed adding the final
requirement of "absolute conservation of energy."
Ring
.
|
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: transforming energy infinite |
12 Mar 2005 05:21:31 PM |
|
|
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gwJYd.62266$r55.32040@attbi_s52...
The core is suspended and driven by the harmonic
interaction of 2 magnetic fields.
What about eddy currents in the cores? What material are you using to
prevent these losses?
.
|
|
|
| User: "ring_theory" |
|
| Title: Re: transforming energy infinite |
13 Mar 2005 01:47:41 AM |
|
|
"CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote in message
news:%PKYd.36254$Zk5.3342454@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gwJYd.62266$r55.32040@attbi_s52...
The core is suspended and driven by the harmonic
interaction of 2 magnetic fields.
What about eddy currents in the cores? What material are you using to
prevent these losses?
There is only one core in this application. (rare earth) mass and
permeability are a key issue. There isn't a eddy current involved in the
core however there are flux points.
.
|
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: transforming energy infinite |
13 Mar 2005 02:42:34 AM |
|
|
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:xeSYd.64098$r55.19116@attbi_s52...
There is only one core in this application. (rare earth) mass and
permeability are a key issue. There isn't a eddy current involved in the
core however there are flux points.
Well if you've managed to elimitate eddy currents perhaps you could sell
that technology aalone to raise funds for the energy machine?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: transforming energy infinite |
13 Mar 2005 03:10:13 AM |
|
|
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:xeSYd.64098$r55.19116@attbi_s52...
"CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote in message
news:%PKYd.36254$Zk5.3342454@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gwJYd.62266$r55.32040@attbi_s52...
The core is suspended and driven by the harmonic
interaction of 2 magnetic fields.
What about eddy currents in the cores? What material are you using to
prevent these losses?
There is only one core in this application. (rare earth) mass and
permeability are a key issue. There isn't a eddy current involved in the
core however there are flux points.
How do you know there are flxu points? You said there was no way to measure
outputs.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick Rouse" |
|
| Title: Re: transforming energy infinite |
13 Mar 2005 08:42:15 AM |
|
|
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<xeSYd.64098$r55.19116@attbi_s52>...
"CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote in message
news:%PKYd.36254$Zk5.3342454@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gwJYd.62266$r55.32040@attbi_s52...
The core is suspended and driven by the harmonic
interaction of 2 magnetic fields.
What about eddy currents in the cores? What material are you using to
prevent these losses?
There is only one core in this application. (rare earth) mass and
permeability are a key issue. There isn't a eddy current involved in the
core however there are flux points.
Rare earth permanent magnets have an incremental permeability of about 1.2
They are also conductive and hence if the flux pattern changes there will
be eddy currents and losses. If you have not understood this it bodes
ill for your ability to analyse the rest of your system.
However this is likely to be a minor defect. From your description
so far it looks like you have joined the long line of people that
have thought that they can get free energy from a motor generator
set.
In your case it looks like your motor is a levitated armature
permanent magnet AC motor driven by coils that combine to have some
component that is a rotating field. You then presumably expect
to be able to extract some energy by using the field from the rotating
armature passing through some coil arrangement (either the drive coils
or separate ones) I suspect that like all your predecessors you have
either ignored or fooled yourself into believing that you can in some
way negate the back emf. If your system uses the rotation of the core
to generate a voltage and you use that voltage to cause current to flow
in an external load, that current will cause a torque that will oppose
the motion of the ring. If some other source of energy is not fed into the
core it will slow down giving up kinetic energy. The kinetic energy given
up will be equal to the electrical energy fed to the load plus some
extra to make up any losses. To stop the ring slowing down you will need
to feed energy into the drive coils. That energy will be equal to the kinetic
energy lost by the core plus some extra to make up any losses.
If you have applied standard electromagnetic and mechanical theory to your
device and come up with free energy you have made a mistake. It is not the
case as someone said in the thread about the floating log perpetual motion
machine that 'Nature conspires against perpetual motion'. This would imply
that it is a coincidence that each arrangement that we try finishes up
not working . Laws such as those of electromagnetism and Newtonian
mechanics have been shown to be rigorously self consistant and rigorously
conservative. Any particular arrangement of coils magnets cogs springs etc.
is just a special case. It may be difficult to work out where the energy
is going in complex cases but the end result is a mathematical certainty.
It is mathematical not physical because the physics was to say that these
fundamental equations represent how the world behaves. The derivation from
those laws that each and every proposed free energy machine will not work is
pure mathematics.
If your machine were to work it would only be by breaking these laws.
That your machine will work is improbable in the extreme. That an analysis
of it using standard physics will predict its failure is certain.
You can no more set up a special case of electromechanical components
acting under standard physical laws that will contravene the general
universal law than you can set up a special case of a game of chess
played to the standard rules that finishes up with two black bishops
on black squares (pawn promotion excepted) in contravention of the
universal law that says you can't
In neither case do you need to examine the details of the case to
be able to make that statement.
Nick Rouse
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
