Free Energy - Perpetual Motion Machines (pt 1)

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by moebius

 

Amazingly you geniuses really believe perpetual could only mean forever which science does not even recognize as a scientific term yet your whole model is based on this unscientific term that it can only be perpetual if it last forever LOL! Clueless fanatical believers in irrationality indeed! And yet here you are 2 or 3 of you trying to ridicule the majority who does not "believe" your ridiculous non-sense... Oh please come on now and tell us one more time how perpetual can only mean forever and anything else is blasphemy and maybe we will all shut off our brains and believe as you do

Gotta love the academia cult worshipers...

Poor hawkiye, living in his little paranoid fantasy world with perpetual waterfalls and evil academia supressing the majority by spreading knowledge.

I am surprised that you are using a computer and posting online at all. Don't you see that these are tools created by the evil science fanatics to supress the perpetual motion religion!?

Ignorance must be bliss.

You guys are using all the tools of disinfo agents. You have moved down to name calling and belittling.

Hell, if a school kid can do it why can't you?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

P

Originally posted by pheonix358
You guys are using all the tools of disinfo agents. You have moved down to name calling and belittling.

Hell, if a school kid can do it why can't you?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

P

TITLE: perpetual motion (physics)
...those devices that purport to deliver more energy from a falling or turning body than is required to restore those devices to their original state. The most common of these, and the oldest, is the overbalanced wheel. In a typical version, flexible arms are attached to the outer rim of a vertically mounted wheel. An inclined trough is arranged to transfer rolling weights from folded arms on one...

www.britannica.com...

From the 8th century to the present time inventors have sought to achieve perpetual motion by use of wheels with shifting weights. None have worked, but that doesn't stop people from using the same idea again and again, altering mechanical details, often with incredibly complex designs. I call this "reinventing the square wheel".

Why the overbalanced wheel isn't much use to anyone besides the uneducated:

This is an outline of the reasons why physicists understand that all overbalanced wheels, no matter how ingeniously constructed, can never provide more energy than they were given initially. In fact, the situation is even worse, for the more ingenious and complex is the mechanism for maintaining the overbalance, the more poorly the wheel will perform due to mechanical inefficiency.

www.lhup.edu...

Yes Boncho, it is just more of the same. I can find huge quantity of snippets that say the opposite. They really don't have any merit on either side.

What you need, Boncho, is some quality!

I am very glad that you have not started to repeat the crap that is under every one of these things in youtube. They are amusing as people claim they can never work due to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics! I am pleased you have not sunk quite that low.

Have you tried any of them. You know, if you spent just a small part of the time you spend trying, in desperation, to debunk these ideas, into making one you would be in a much better position.

If you need some help I am more than happy to oblige.

P

When i think of free energy, i think of zero point energy. A zero point energy device is not a self powered perpetual motion machine, as it has an input; the zero point energy field.

However, i would like to argue the following point: When someone argues against this type of thing they usually bring up Newton's 1st law, The conservation of matter and energy.

This states that, to paraphrase, matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed or transformed between the two (matter into energy, vise versa).

Therefore, all matter-energy in the universe is in a state of "perpetual existence"

Now, quantum physics is showing that on the smallest level, matter cannot exist without energy. (This idea has actually been around before quantum mechanics.) Therefore energy will always be around (since niether can be destroyed)

And, when there is always energy, in a non diminishing amount, the universe as a whole IS in a state of "perpetual motion"

There is no reason why it should be impossible to get useful work from the perpetual motion of the quantum field (which, basically is the zero point energy field)

Researchers in the “free energy” field should not concern themselves with the outmoded ideas presented as the so- called "Laws of Thermodynamics".

They embody an erroneous concept of a mechanical universe that mysteriously burst forth as a fully wound spring that has been unwinding ever since.

It is a lifeless, empty vision that ignores the Source of the energy it started with and closes the minds of its adherents to the solutions at hand.

Perpetual motion machines exists period (if its never ending or not..)
what doesn't exist is the financial aptitude.

there are snakes everywhere who wanna tell you how you should live, how much energy you should use and what doesn't work and what does work.

and every time the debate comes and goes it comes down to what the "graph tells you oO what crap is that boncho?
have you ever tested solar hm? since you have so much knowledge about it..
have you tried living off the grid?
if every one had one battery one solar panel in each home on every roof what happens then?

what happens is that your so called graph's you pull out off your arse would be moot, emty.

damn I'm getting so tired of this never ending BS, BAH! why are humans so easily adapting to BS? oh its because the freaking propaganda tube are telling the humans lies every freaking day.

meh, rant over..

kay-o?

a reply to: boncho

There is one source of 'perpetual motion' which is nearly truly perpetual and macroscopic: superconductivity.

Current will indeed persist, apparently forever. This is because superconductivity is a rare macroscopic manifestation of a completely quantum mechanical phenomenon---and is the ground state. It is roughly, the large scale analogue of electrons in ground state of an atom.

Does this give magic free energy? No. But superconductivity is cool, literally and figuratively, as it provides a rare connection between practical, manipulatable macroscopic world, and the bizarre world of quantum mechanics. It's one of the truly lucky accidents of Nature, that a tiny number of elements, compounds and systems do this strange thing. Like a five leaf clover or something. The only other parallel I know is the fission of uranium nuclei---just this few (and in practice only one naturally occurring) nucleus can do this thing which is immensely powerful (and dangerous).

Both were complete gobsmacking, unpredicted, unexpected luck out of the blue. Nobody ever expected either one, at all, and there was no indication that either one was remotely feasible. Even a year or two before discovering fission, almost all physicists would say that there was no remotely feasible and practical way of exploiting binding energy of a nucleus.

a reply to: mbkennel
So can you make a superconducting "loop" or how would you build it?
And if it's a loop, does the current or electron energy have to be low enough to avoid something like synchrotron radiation or is there a threshold of electron energy for that and if so what is it? I know you get synchrotron radiation from high energy electrons being accelerated in a loop or curve, but I don't know if it stops completely at lower energies.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: mbkennel
So can you make a superconducting "loop" or how would you build it?
And if it's a loop, does the current or electron energy have to be low enough to avoid something like synchrotron radiation or is there a threshold of electron energy for that and if so what is it? I know you get synchrotron radiation from high energy electrons being accelerated in a loop or curve, but I don't know if it stops completely at lower energies.

I don't know all the details, but in such a superconductor, the energies of the electrons are much lower than in a synchrotron, and most importantly they are combined in quantum Cooper pairs or some other mystical arrangement (in non classical superconductors) so that they effectively become bosons.

Then they are really in the lowest quantum state of collective (bulk) motion, and no they would not radiate.

Why doesn't an electron in the ground state of hydrogen radiate?

a reply to: mbkennel
Let's say there's a rogue planet between galaxies such that any tidal forces are negligible, and it's rotating. Let's also say that the surrounding vacuum contains about 1 hydrogen atom per cubic meter, so it provides an amount of friction that is not zero, but so low that the amount of slowing of the planet's rotation might not be measurable within a human lifetime. Maybe that's not exactly perpetual motion, but it's pretty darn close. Of course most planets are probably not in such a void and any we can observe are probably going to be subject to tidal forces from at least from the Milky Way and maybe a nearby star or two.

I used to think a superconductor might make a better perpetual motion machine than the rotating rogue planet with negligible tidal forces, but now I'm not so sure. I think it too might lose part of its energy in amounts that might be difficult to measure but are non-zero. I'm no expert on this topic and I don't know if these authors are correct but if they turn out to be right it wouldn't surprise me:

Probing the limits of superconductivity

Our data on YBCO films, and other data that we have analyzed, are more consistent with the occurrence of small but non-zero resistance at low temperature.

Why doesn't an electron in the ground state of hydrogen radiate?

The electron doesn't really orbit the nucleus, it forms something like a standing wave.

But the electrons really have to move in the superconductor or else there's no current and hence no claim that we can have a current forever.

Hi Boncho, i'm back

I will first read everything here, then i will deliver some comments, one i left here a few hours ago on another thread.

It is simply this: In current quantum theory, the eternal and law defying spin of the electron is required, yet when taken to the macro level of a so-called free energy machine it is called 'impossible' by the same scientists that suport QT, Einstein, and all that other rubbish.

Forget conventional & mainstream science, it holds about as much truth as the mainstream media

Now i know there IS a lot of pseudo-science out there, and part of my life's work has been proving the possible from the impossible, or even the unlikely, and separating the real science from the BS; and i am good at that.

Global warming fact; all the planets are getting warmer, probably because of excess rotational energy from the sun, which in turn is being influenced by forces beyond the limit of our telescopes. Unless you assume that we are also driving our SUV's around on all the other planets?

It didn't take the world gubmint long before they could see they could cash in on the carbon credit scam, implementing the whole 'carbon footprint' BS and generally having a laugh at our expense.

Yet you seem to support them.
In the words of Arnie Shwanzenlekker..."Ahhrl be baaak"
PS i preferred your 'ghadaffi' avatar, it kinda suited you, no offense mate but it gave me a pic i could relate to, lol

Yes it is always a good idea to define the terms first, and yes there are a lot of scam artists who use vague terms to describe the (supposed) source of extra energy in their invention.
Rossi,Steorn and others make money by lying about the supposed energy gains and lying about the operation of the machine. A little research is enough to spot the mistakes.

However, there are flaws in 'established' science too. Some of these were discovered by accident by inventors who simply ignored the physics books, or who never read any to start with.
Other flaws are simply the mathematical ones in theory, which are then taken for fact.
Example;

Perpetual motion is kind of like a thought exercise in the scientific world, because the
very description is describing something that can't exist because of very well tested scientific laws.
Perpetual motion in science is usually referring to some kind of isolated system that is doing
work (or capable of) forever without an external input of energy, which therefore cannot exist.

However, some people who argue for the validity of "free energy" will use the idea of perpetually
moving objects to justify the possibility of "free energy".

An electron is a perpetual motion machine, try to stop one from spinning. More to the point, where is the energy coming from?

One could argue that this is a form of perpetual motion as the electrons are not really
staying in the same place, but at the same time, one could also argue that electrons aren't really
"moving" as in the way we know it.

In what way are they moving then? That's a bit vague, i'll get back to their movement later..

All too often, theoretical science (and especially math) has taken the place of classical science
i.e. observation, experimentation, more observation etc, rather, they rely on the obfuscation of mathematics to try & patch up the holes in the theory.

In some ways you kind of, sort of, could argue that it's perpetual motion, or that the
subatomic layers are perpetual changing their positions. But the point of this argument is kind of moot because it doesn't relate to the macro world we live in. And, QM is still governed by the second law of thermodynamics. So any real push past the simple notion that they are always moving, which would lend weight to something in the macro world moving the same way (macro
objects acting as waves? Can you point some out to me?) is kind of pointless.

A gyroscope hanging on a string and orbiting a fixed point, will change it's orbit to match Bohr's model of the atom, precession and the eccentric changing orbit also showing a wave function of some sort. Rotation is the common factor of course, but are we just seeing the interplay of 2 rotating bodies, gyroscope and planet?

Ok thermodynamics, if you earth an electron it will be in it's lowest energy state,
close to the nucleus of say a copper or iron atom in the ground. If you then freeze that to
absolute zero, you should be able to 'time freeze' them so they stop moving.only they don't.

The coulomb (charge carrying capacity of an electron) is for some reason based on it's surface
area, that's assuming it is a solid object. It isn't, i remember reading that they managed to track electron orbits (how i have no idea, they probably used some smart mathematical models, uh-oh) and they discovered they were tear shaped, like droplets of fluid or maybe even a cloud.

So what's the surface area of a cloud of pico-particles the same size as an electron?
Big, very big.

A lab in New Mexico fired 2 protons directly at each other, each having oposite spin.
They passed right through each other instead of deviating off course or colliding.

As you know, the passage of 'charge' from electron to electron travels very fast, maybe even
exceeding C since charge has no mass.

I see no reason why such observations, even if they break the so-called 'laws', cannot be
applied in some way on the macro scale.

If our planetary system is losing energy due to emission of gravity waves, then surely the moon
should be edging a bit closer to Earth, just a tiny bit each year. Accurate laser observations have proved that the moon is slowly moving away each year....and it doesnt even have any rotational energy at all to lose, being tide locked.Maybe that's it.

Why are all the planets getting warmer? energy conservation states that nothing is gained or
lost, merely transformed or more accurately translated. I agree, the only exception being
Einsteins famous equation where mass is translated to energy which we have proven only too
well in the form of nuclear weapons!

All energy transfers are vectors, they have a size and a direction, or a mass and direction, or
potential difference betweeen 2 points, or a speed and direction. At least the 3D ones do....
If energy is not going anywhere then it's potential energy as you pointed out, and yes even
immobile particles have a rest enegy, wether it is actually equal to MC^2 remains to be seen as
we havent got to the bottom of the particle soup we've been making.

Theres more little problems, C apparently isn't constant, neither is G.
Maybe 'gravity' is only at this potential in this part of space, maybe further out it changes?

If one regarded 'gravity' as the result of an external force pushing inward rather than an attracting force between masses, one can see that the observable results are identical.
This would only theoretically be possible if there was some fluid-like medium in which the
masses are immersed, like a fish in the sea. The deeper you dive into this medium the higher
the pressure. This medium would also enable 'waves' to ripple through it, notice that the
transverse waves (sound) move many times faster than the vertical ones (ripples).

If you expanded or contracted the medium (like heating or cooling water) the speed of
propagation will also change because the density has changed.

Imagine if our sea was boiling in some places but frozen in others? What's the density then?
We fixed that by defining it's density at 20 degrees C to be 1 gram per CC but that's not
describing the ocean is it?
Getting back to 'free energy' definitions, a so-called 'overunity' device can only be proven to
work if ALL the energy in the system can be accounted for, including the extra energy.
Difficult, but not impossible.

BTW, i guess the moon would move further out if someone was mining the hell out of it, i
know Helium-3 is in great demand for some reason but being a gas & all... maybe they are
mining the metals like titanium also....

perpetual motion is not all that pseudo science. You stop time and voila, you have perpetual motion
.Though Lol NASA will not deal with you saying, we will not respond to perpetual motion, physics defying machines.
a reply to: playswithmachines

Oh sure, and i know that they know, that all of the rocket stuff is just window dressing, even Von Braun admitted his rockets were 'already outdated' during the first Apollo launches. Another strange fact is how they managed to keep the vastly inefficient electronics of the day working, some peeps have calculated they couldnt have done it without some kind of FE device to charge the batteries. There is a solid state circuit that will do this, kind of a bedini circuit without the motor, it is based on a guy called Weissmann. I built one in 92 and it works. Basically it makes the electrons in the circuit 5 times more efficient.They can run the equipment AND charge the batteries.This is a very old circuit, from the late 40's at least, but you could now make it in chip form easily.

The Work equation states basically that 'if there's no movement, there's no energy involved' and yet Mr. Newton then played a little magic trick on us all with his cradle. The energy is transferred from the first ball to the last one without the ones in between seeming to move. So if they are not moving, how is the energy going through them?

Well that's easily explained because they are moving, even just a few nanometers, with enough speed to transfer kinetic energy to the next ball & so on.
But to the naked eye, it looks like magic

According to the work equation, a fridge magnet is impossible. In most of the physics 'laws' fridge magnets are impossible, simply for the reason that they defy gravity by clnging to the fridge and yet they use no energy.

"Ah, but magnetism is a fundamental force and not a form of energy as such" they tell us.
So is gravity, yet here we have 2 forces balanced against each other, and no energy is involved?

Hmm, your own physics dictates that energy is needed to create a force, no?

"Ah, not fundamental nuclear forces no, they just are"

The backup answer: "Yes, magnets can be made to generate electricity but that comes from the effort of moving them" (you see, plug it into the Work equation & everything's fine)

Magnets do use energy clinging to the fridge, they very slowly demagnetise by doing so, along with the usual causes of randomisation of the proton monopoles like shocks temperature and cosmic ray impacts.
If you keep the magnetic field closed in a loop it will last 1000's of years, and can put out a lot more energy in toto than it took to make it. Oops that's not supposed to be true either.....

Magnets left 'open' decay much faster, they are leaking the field away into 5D space.
ETA; of course parts of the fridge will become permanently magnetised as well, after all energy is never truly lost or gained, it will merely translate into the nearest appropriate medium, in this case iron atoms in the fridge door.
a reply to: Nochzwei

a reply to: playswithmachines

The energy is transferred from the first ball to the last one without the ones in between seeming to move. So if they are not moving, how is the energy going through them?

Elastic energy transfer. The intermediary balls cannot move much but they can transfer the mechanical energy. You would get the same result if you held the balls in a vice or used a solid steel rod instead of the balls. Kinetic energy becomes a wave of elastic energy which travels through the material until it reaches the last ball where it is converted back into kinetic energy. It's like using a steel rod to "extend" a hammer blow into a tight space.

According to the work equation, a fridge magnet is impossible. In most of the physics 'laws' fridge magnets are impossible, simply for the reason that they defy gravity by clnging to the fridge and yet they use no energy.

No. As you said, work requires motion. No movement, no work. The magnet on the fridge does not move. It is doing no work.

It is the same idea as a stone sitting on the ground. It is doing work because it is not moving, the force of gravity is being counteracted by the ground. With a magnet, the force of gravity is being counteracted by the friction between the magnet and the fridge, which is produced by the magnetic attraction between them. Removing the magnet work require work, the magnet staying where it is requires none.

To get back to Newton's cradle. The only work being done is applied to the last ball. Well, as you point out, the other balls do move a little bit. There is also some energy lost in the form of heat due to that elastic compression effect.

a reply to: Phage

Sure i would expect them to deform a tiny bit, but then where's the equal & opposite reaction?. One would expect the second ball, when springing back to it's round shape, to repel the first ball. Instead the kinetic energy goes through the rest of the balls.
Newton's laws are fine in a world where everything is moving in straight lines and G is constant, where angular momentum equals linear momentum.

The work equation doesn't, it should be updated.

Howard Johnson among others managed to get a permanent magnet motor running, no coils, no electric.

Floyd Sweet managed to treat metal strips so that the protons were set in a permanent oscillation, in other words they had an alternating magnetic field. They continued to vibrate for weeks after being treated.

A magnetic field is more than the sum of it's monopoles

a reply to: playswithmachines

Sure i would expect them to deform a tiny bit, but then where's the equal & opposite reaction?.

Stopping the motion of the first ball.

a reply to: Phage

Er, no, i meant the reaction of the second ball regaining shape, it should bounce the first ball back.

Now i know it's a compression wave going through the medium of balls just like sound in air, but the second ball's reaction should also push left since on that side there is the mass of 1 ball, on the right there ae 5 more....

Anyways i'm more electrical than mechanical, but there are analogies throughout.
What bugs me most of all is when the observed facts do not match the formula & vice versa, it always amazes me when scientists & engineers dont even question these anamolies.

Case in point; a senior electrical engineer was worried when i was laying a thick earth cable through his offshore transformer platform, it was close to his LV signal cables, but 1 foot away from the heavy power lines. He asked me to move it (all 300 feet of it) because he was worried about noise, so he asked me how many volts are on this earth line.......so i gave him a truthful answer, "íf all goes well, zero volts are on this cable"...LOL

a reply to: playswithmachines

Er, no, i meant the reaction of the second ball regaining shape, it should bounce the first ball back.

No. The kinetic energy has a vector. The elastic transfer extends that vector to the last ball which swings out then back. The energy then is transferred to the first ball and it does, indeed, bounce back.

What bugs me most of all is when the observed facts do not match the formula & vice versa, it always amazes me when scientists & engineers dont even question these anamolies.

Perhaps it's because you are not looking deeply enough into the "anomalies." In the case of Newton's cradle, there really aren't any. There is nothing strange about it. It's just a cool demonstration of the conservation of momentum.

a reply to: pheonix358

I can defy gravity and tell you where that "energy" coming from and whats the name of it that we currently have. But you'll call me insane and my words would be view as heresy. But let me wrap some thoughts around, tuesday i might have some answers.
Thank you