The Atmos Clock: Perpetual Motion Machine

Mary Rose
I'm just trying to fit puzzle pieces together.

Another thing that Lindemann talked about is Tesla's work:



Talking about Linde's work, he said that when Linde compressed air, and let it out really quickly, it would cool really fast. He could liquify some of the air just by regulating a compression and decompression process.

Lindemann said that seeing what Linde found, Tesla then reconsidered known gas laws.

Lindemann talked about Joule's belief that heat and pressure were the same thing - that there's nothing to the pressure.

But Tesla saw that if you pressurize a gas, the temperature and the pressure rises as expected, but if, instead of taking the pressure out, and watching the temperature drop, he took the heat out - when the temperature returned to ambient temperature, he still had some compressed air.

So, that showed that Joule was wrong.

reply to post by Mary Rose


PV= nRT. It's not just a good idea. It's the law.

reply to post by Bedlam


Ideal gas law:

The ideal gas law is the equation of state of a hypothetical ideal gas. It is a good approximation to the behaviour of many gases under many conditions, although it has several limitations.

Has nothing to do with what Tesla found, correct?

Or Joule possibly being wrong about something?

Bedlam
Perpetual motion as a term is more about not having an energy source than forever.

Mary Rose
But the clock does have an energy source outside of itself.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The problem in a nutshell here. Bedlam says to you PM is more about NOT having an energy source than forever.
Your response? The clock DOES have an energy source outside outside of itself.
There's your answer, mystery solved. NOT PERPETUAL MOTION.

reply to post by Mary Rose


What Tesla believed he saw was an experimental error on his part. Not only has it not been borne out by thousands upon thousands of people in the time since, if you stop and consider it carefully with your Tesla colored glasses off, you might see that it can't be true based on your personal day-to-day observation.

Bedlam
What Tesla believed he saw was an experimental error on his part.

Yeah, right.

Oddball dp deleted.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Every first year physics student does this same experiment. But consider what you know - if gas kept some pressure every time it had a temperature cycle, you'd see closed containers detonating endlessly. Even things like air bubbles trapped in old glass or amber would be at insane pressures by now.

Not only does that not happen, it isn't observed in the lab. This is not an arcane bit of measurement. And your boy Tesla was not immune to error. The mental issues he had later in life might have been exacerbated by his habit of exposing his head to x-rays for their healthful benefit, or so he thought.

Mary Rose
But Tesla saw that if you pressurize a gas, the temperature and the pressure rises as expected, but if, instead of taking the pressure out, and watching the temperature drop, he took the heat out - when the temperature returned to ambient temperature, he still had some compressed air.

So, that showed that Joule was wrong.

Lindemann went on to say that this is a gigantic hole in thermodynamics. He said it is happening at every location that compresses air, which is every factory, every machine shop, you name it; over ten percent of all the electricity in the United States is used to compress air.

He said that Tesla is shown to be right, that when air is compressed and the heat is extracted first, that most of the pressure rise is still available to do additional work – by this invention:

Mary Rose

Mary Rose
But Tesla saw that if you pressurize a gas, the temperature and the pressure rises as expected, but if, instead of taking the pressure out, and watching the temperature drop, he took the heat out - when the temperature returned to ambient temperature, he still had some compressed air.

So, that showed that Joule was wrong.

Lindemann went on to say that this is a gigantic hole in thermodynamics. He said it is happening at every location that compresses air, which is every factory, every machine shop, you name it; over ten percent of all the electricity in the United States is used to compress air.

He said that Tesla is shown to be right, that when air is compressed and the heat is extracted first, that most of the pressure rise is still available to do additional work – by this invention:

Hmm. Consider all the refrigeration, heating, gas turbine and combined cycle generating plant engineers, who build and measure endlessly thousands of parameters every minute and design very expensive equipment with first-principles simulations.

Don't you think ONE of them might have noticed if there is some "gigantic hole" in thermodynamics?

And yes there is more to physics than just freshman ideal gas law. I don't know of a particular example with fluids like gases, but with ferromagnetic magnetic materials there is a well known hysteresis effect---you can start out with zero magnetization (no net spin imbalance), increase the externally applied magnetic field, then turn the external field down back to zero, and you're left with a non-zero magnetization state so there' some path dependence. [it's called a 'permanent magnet'] But that doesn't mean there's a magic and inexhaustible source of energy in there, it just means there are more internal configuration states than just the spins themselves independently.

Potentially there are things with non-ideal gases though I am not familiar with this. Certainly with polymers you have non-reversible reactions.

Personally I have a hypothesis about the observations you discuss: in the initial state there was some liquid water or lubricant adhering to some of the surfaces. The experiment heated it up, and it gasified and mixed in with the air. Upon cooling back down, the vapor remained dissolved in the air and contributed to extra pressure (as there are now more gas molecules in the same volume).


And think about Bedlam's experiment.

Are you starting to get the hang of how science works: if you think somebody's understanding is wrong, consider what OTHER experimental results and consequences you would see if their understanding were wrong. You have to account for everything, all the phenomena which are already explained, not just the set of phenomena you want to explain.

Mary Rose
Lindemann went on to say that this is a gigantic hole in thermodynamics.

Of course he does, he's trying to sell you stuff, and that's his MacGuffin.

Mary Rose

He said that Tesla is shown to be right, that when air is compressed and the heat is extracted first, that most of the pressure rise is still available to do additional work – by this invention:

If there's anything in the world that's NOT a proof of some aspect of physics, it's a patent filing. Pretty much anyone who tells you "This revolutionary idea is true, my proof is this patent filing from 80 years ago" is a huckster.

Did Lindemann ever say if this was built and put into common use? Hm? Didn't, did he?

Furthermore, if it WAS the sort of thing that was so easily demonstrable...why didn't he? How hard could it be, right? It happens everywhere they compress air! What a wonderful proof he could throw in the face of modern physics, right there on the stage! And all you need is a closed heatable container, a very accurate pressure gauge and thermometer, and a hot plate! PROOF! Right there in front of everyone!

Only...he didn't, did he?

Bedlam
If there's anything in the world that's NOT a proof of some aspect of physics, it's a patent filing.

I know that.

People in the free energy movement study history using all the resources they have and come to their own conclusions about devices invented in the past, rather than accept the official story put out by mainstream academia and media as fact.

Bedlam

Did Lindemann ever say if this was built and put into common use? Hm? Didn't, did he?

Furthermore, if it WAS the sort of thing that was so easily demonstrable...why didn't he? How hard could it be, right? It happens everywhere they compress air! What a wonderful proof he could throw in the face of modern physics, right there on the stage! And all you need is a closed heatable container, a very accurate pressure gauge and thermometer, and a hot plate! PROOF! Right there in front of everyone!

Only...he didn't, did he?

Your series of questions indicate your belief that if he had something, we would be using it. There's no such thing as suppression.

I haven't researched the story of John Houston's Thermal Plant from 1930 yet, but in general, I know from research that suppression has been a very real thing in the free energy movement.

But you don't believe that, do you? No one has been threatened, had their lab ransacked, had their loved ones threatened, and no one has been killed over it. That's your belief?

If there is anything even remotely close to achieving perpetual motion, it's this thread's topic, as it seems it won't die.

Sadly, not even the topic is truly perpetual, as it requires the energy input from a multitude of others in order to retain its perpetuation.

reply to post by Mary Rose


If one of them has been threatened it's probably by a pissed off investor.

So, "they" allow Lindeman to "reveal the truth " but are stopping him from putting together a simple yet definitive demo? Really? Or is it more likely he's wrong and knows it?


eta: "the dog ate my homework" has a long and honored place in the free energy crowd. It would be far more likely that if someone wanted you "suppressed" they 'd just whack you no threat no bs just bam the end and burn your domicile and lab. It's going to cost just as much to send people to your place to posture as it does to end the problem definitively.

Mary Rose

People in the free energy movement study history using all the resources they have

that's for sure

and come to their own conclusions about devices invented in the past, rather than accept the official story put out by mainstream academia and media as fact.

And that's why they end up being so wrong, and so stubborn.

Mary Rose
I haven't researched the story of John Houston's Thermal Plant from 1930 yet, but in general, I know from research that suppression has been a very real thing in the free energy movement.

But you don't believe that, do you? No one has been threatened, had their lab ransacked, had their loved ones threatened, and no one has been killed over it. That's your belief?

I'm not sure of the exact number, but I think there are something like 5000 patents being suppressed. They are actually being suppressed, meaning you don't have access to them, and you and other fans of Lindemann are not posting copies of them all over the internet.

National Security Classified [Patents] Law & Legal Definition

According to 37 CFR 1.9 (i) [Title 37 -- Patents, Trademarks, And Copyrights; Chapter I -- United States Patent And Trademark Office, Department Of Commerce; Subchapter A – General; Part 1 -- Rules Of Practice In Patent Cases; Subpart A -- General Provisions; Patents; General Information And Correspondence], the term national security classified means “specifically authorized under criteria established by an Act of Congress or Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and, in fact, properly classified pursuant to such Act of Congress or Executive Order.”

So yes there is suppression of national defense patents. I don't know if the paint used on stealth aircraft to reduce their radar reflection is covered by any patents but if it is they might not be made public, because you wouldn't want to give such a defensive edge of yours to your enemies to use against you.

But I think it's laughable that you plaster an old patent all over the internet and use suppression in the same breath like you did. That is not what suppression looks like. The suppression is happening on the patents you DON'T see, probably to stop you from making/selling super-stealth planes or other military/defense applications.

I can't say free energy patents are not among the thousands suppressed, but I've never seen any reason to suspect that, and especially guys like Lindemann don't convince me that's the case. If there was any conspiracy it would be that the government is paying Lindemann to sound like a kook by saying idiotic things that are obviously not true in an attempt to deflect attention from something else. But unfortunately, I don't believe that conspiracy and believe that Lindemann is making idiotic untrue statements about converting watt-seconds to BTUs having something to do with a machine, as opposed to what it is which is a simple calculation that has nothing to do with any machine, completely on his own incompetence without getting paid by government conspirators to do so.

reply to post by mbkennel


Are you claiming that a mainstream university education is reliable, and the only, reliable education?

Arbitrageur
But I think it's laughable that you plaster an old patent all over the internet and use suppression in the same breath like you did.

The old patent I posted has nothing to do with my question to Bedlam about suppression.

I didn’t post the old patent to say that the patent was suppressed. I posted it in reference to a discussion about thermodynamics.

Again, patent suppression was not part of what I had in mind when I asked the question to Bedlam.

I was talking about harassment and threats of physical violence or actual physical violence carried out against inventors.

One case in point is physicist and inventor Adam Trombly. Here is a video of him being interviewed talking about political, not violent, suppression:



And here he is talking about being poisoned:

Mary Rose
One case in point is physicist and inventor Adam Trombly. Here is a video of him being interviewed talking about political, not violent, suppression:

Is he really a physicist? I could find no evidence that he is.

And don't you see the logical inconsistency of his claim? He claims the media was contacted and told it would be a violation of national security if they broadcast the interviews of him, and yet what are we watching? An interview of him. How do you rationalize that he's doing the very thing he said was being suppressed, an interview? It doesn't look suppressed to me since it's on youtube with thousands of views.

If you used only half the skepticism you used for claims like these as the skepticism you have against mainstream science, you would find that none of these claims hold up under even the slightest amount of scrutiny. Here's another hole in that story which I can't see how any logical person can miss:

Who is Adam Trombly?

There is another clue that the suppression is not taking place. At 36:24 of the film, Trombly claims that he was invited to demonstrate his generator in front of the U.N. and the United States Senate. Why, if the “powers that be” are so afraid of his machine, would they invite him to present it in front of them?

Apparently someone actually built his device, and it didn't work:

Trombly’s web site contains a review of his “Homopolar Generator” by a Bruce E. DePalma:

projectearth.com...

As one might expect, DePalma is also a well-known “free energy” researcher, whose research never produced a device that produced excess energy.

That leaves us without any credible verification of Trombly’s free energy homopolar generator, except Trombly’s claims that an Indian scientist named Paramahamsa Tewari had taken up the research.

projectearth.com...

Thankfully Gary Posner has some fact-checking here:..

So Trombly’s device was indeed the basis of a design for a free energy device that was actually built and…surprise…never worked.

Back to the question if he is really a physicist:

[Muertos comment: I searched at some length for information on Adam Trombly’s academic credentials. I couldn’t find anything. This doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a Ph.D. in physics or any of the other fields he claims to be an expert in, but it seems unusual that, if he did, he and the Thrive movie would not mention that fact. Every other expert in the film who does have a Ph.D. in a relevant field is identified as being a Ph.D. Trombly is not.

Once again, try to use half the skepticism here that you use against mainstream science.