| Author | Message | ||
     Grumble |
Say you tied an enormous ring magnet to a string and suspended it from a hook on the ceiling in the center of a room. Then you stuck a big block of iron to two of the walls on either side of the magnet. If you kicked the magnet and set it in motion towards one of the iron blocks, it would speed up as it came closer to one of the iron blocks and it would end up in a higher peak position than it would have had if there was no iron block there. Now obviously the magnet would experience drag as it descends because it's still attracted by the iron, but if there was a way to eliminate this drag, would this become a perpetual motion machine? | ||
| Simon Quellen Field (Sfield) |
If you can eliminate drag, a regular pendulum would go forever. The magnet and iron blocks don't make it easier -- in fact, they create eddy currents that act as another source of drag. Perpetual motion is not simply something moving forever. That would not be very useful. The earth orbits the sun long enough for humans to consider it perpetual. To be useful, the moving thing must do work, and not slow down or stop as the energy is removed from it. This is why the terms "free energy" or "over-unity" are used. If you had free energy, or a device that produced more energy than you put in, you could easily make something move forever. If such a thing existed, it would increase the energy in the system in which it was found, and continue to do so without end. The system would heat up, and the temperature would rise without end. One of the many pieces of evidence that such a thing does not exist is the fact that we are all still here, and not part of a super hot plasma. Somehow people find this an easier explanation to understand than the laws of thermodynamics, which also forbid such a thing to exist. | ||
| ABCinventor |
well science textbooks says that:"Energy cannot be created or destroyed." And:"But they can be converted from one from into another,example, from light into heat.. | ||
| Simon Quellen Field (Sfield) |
That is correct. You can't get something from nothing. You can't even break-even. | ||
| ABCinventor |
thats the principle of the anime:"full metal alchemist" which explains the laws of "equality trade" that you must give an amount of something in order to recieve the same value of what you want... Well simon, that anime is really nice, you must see it too... its available in US but because of that, too bad i can't download it anymore because it's licensed.. | ||
| vocasla Unregistered guest |
I am fully aware that energy cannot be creatd or destroyed, and this goes along the facts that matter can be destroyed, releasing or converting it into energy (deriving einstein's famous equation E=mc^2). Does this mean energy can be destroyed and converted into energy? so in theory yes, energy can be created and destroyed, but only to be converted into the equivalent physical matter. i also read somewhere, (i duno if this is true) but you can split empty space into negative and positive energy :|. i guess this is a similar process when antimatter meets with matter and forms an antimatter explosion, converting all the mass into its equvilent pure energy form. so the question is: can energy be created or destroyed? My answer is no, because energy is converted either into other energy or mass. correct me if i am wrong. | ||
| Simon Quellen Field (sfield) New member Username: sfield Post Number: 155 Registered: 12-2004 |
Mass is energy. That's what the equation says. The speed of light squared is just the proportionality constant. | ||
| Isaiah Ware Unregistered guest |
Alot of what people call "perpetual motion machines" or "Over-unity" aren't actually that. Take the idea of a completely magnetic motor driving an alternator. The energy put into the motor to make it turn is the energy stored in the magnets. The energy being put out of the device is the direct result of the motor turning, which is the result of the energy stored in the magnets. Over time the energy of the magnets will be drained and the energy is converted to electricity which is then radiated out into space. Thats a bad example but that the best i could come up with | ||
| lysdexia Unregistered guest |
vocasla, where did you read this? Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but it can be created and destroyed. The same goes with momentum, which I use as a general property encapsulating mass and energy. Simon, you do not understand maths. An equals sign is not an identifies/is sign. If F=ma, does that mean that force is acceleration? If v=s/t, does that mean velocity is time? No, the equation means that both properties coexist by that relation. Isaiah, the turner makes it turn. | ||
| David Harris Unregistered guest |
I think the best generality would be to say this: The sum of energy and mass in a system cannot be created nor destroyed. In Newtonian physics, conservation was just energy, but due to relativistic principles, you can lose energy and gain mass, or vice versa. Energy and mass are not equal, but they are convertable. Comparing that relationship to that of F=ma or v=s/t is illogical, considering that those equations use variables and not constants, much less considering the physical properties. As far as what Simon claimed, Mass IS energy as far as how it interacts with our world. From our perception, there should be no difference, each can be converted to the other, and is converted in such ways all the time. If you'd like an example, I'm a nuclear engineer. We transfer mass to energy all the time.  | ||
| vocasla Unregistered guest |
lysdexia, i cant remember where i read it. All i remember was that it takes energy for nothing to be split into negative energy and positive energy, and that it occurs naturally in the universe. however this is just theory, it has not been proven. simon and davis is correct. to simplify - mass is energy but mass is lots and lots of energy. mass is basically a super compressed form of energy; it requires more energy to decompress that dense core of energy we call mass. E=mc^2 that's how much energy there is in a mass Energy does not = mass if it did, then there would probably be no such thing as mass at all, and that is just plain silly. | ||
| Jon Hutton (Jjh) New member Username: Jjh Post Number: 1 Registered: 5-2006 |
You might be interested in my work and the work of many others at the site below, mathmatically proven, a pendulum can, when linked to another provide Over Unity www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1253&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=75 | ||
| Simon Quellen Field (Sfield) Senior Member Username: Sfield Post Number: 1208 Registered: 12-2004 |
So you have mathematically proven what thousands of others have mathematically proven to be impossible. I wonder which proof has the error... How much power are you producing? Do you run your house on it? Do you sell it back to the power company, like I do with my solar panels? If it is producing more power than it uses, why isn't it in thermal runaway, producing more and more power until the planet melts again? If all of you people who claim to have invented devices that generate more power than they use really have the solution to all of our energy problems, why aren't each of you richer than Exxon Mobile? Why are you still buying electricity and gasoline? | ||
| MadScientist (Madscientist) Senior Member Username: Madscientist Post Number: 182 Registered: 4-2005 |
LMAO Luvya Simon! | ||
| Jon Hutton (Jjh) New member Username: Jjh Post Number: 2 Registered: 5-2006 |
Sorry to get you so upset...."If all of you people who claim" I simply said "a pendulum can, when linked to another provide Over Unity" I didn't say I was running my house on it.....The most reliable software, run by formulas that the U.S. military is using has shown it possible. I am in the BEGINING! stages of prototype...it may fail. It is certainly worth the time to build it. If you want to discuss your disbilief with them (I am just using the same software as the military is using)I would be glad to give you their e-mail address. | ||
| Simon Quellen Field (Sfield) Senior Member Username: Sfield Post Number: 1223 Registered: 12-2004 |
No reliable software is going to claim you can get more out than you put in. The laws of thermodynamics cannot be avoided. It will not be worth your time to build it. If the U.S. military is using software and formulas that predict they will get out more than they put in, that would explain a lot of our problems in Iraq. | ||
| Jon Hutton (Jjh) New member Username: Jjh Post Number: 3 Registered: 5-2006 |
If nothing else I like what you said about Iraq.....maybe these places are stupid enough to trust this software that I am using. Times Educational Supplement, Jan 2003 Physics Communicator, Summer 1996 MacAddict magazine MacWorl magazine Computers in Physics, May/June 1997 San Rafael High School University of British Columbia University of San Francisco San Jose City College Army Research Laboratory Nasa Net Systems of Bainbridge, WA Abbott Labs The contractors that supply Detroit's "Big Three" automakers with parts and hardware Ford Motor Co Jewett Automation uses Wow what a bunch of idiot's to us a program that dosent work..... | ||
| Simon Quellen Field (Sfield) Senior Member Username: Sfield Post Number: 1224 Registered: 12-2004 |
And you think all of those places believe that you can get something for nothing? Come on, if your accounting software told you that you owed more money in taxes than you earned, would you simply take its word for it, or would you look at what you entered and try to find where you went wrong? All of those people probably also use Windows, and they will all tell you that not only does Windows have no bugs at all, but that it is impossible to get Windows to tell you you're a millionaire if all you did was add a few extra zeros when you entered your paycheck data into your spreadsheet. You can't try to prove that you have invented a new physics by saying that the calculator you used is the same one NASA uses. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you think you have have a way to get something for nothing, you are going to have to do better than say that it is "mathematically proved" because some software said 2 and 2 were 5. No one has ever demonstrated a working perpetual motion machine. No one ever will, and we have the laws of thermodynamics that will explain why. Everyone who has claimed that they have figured out a way to get around the laws of physics is in the same boat you are -- they have an idea, but no working prototype yet, despite claiming that the idea is so simple a monkey could do it. When you ARE running your house on the electricity you produce, then you can come back to me with that proof. Until then, you are no different than all of the others who have never been able to get their perpetual motion machines to make them rich. (Message edited by sfield on May 18, 2006) | ||
| Jon Hutton (Jjh) Junior Member Username: Jjh Post Number: 4 Registered: 5-2006 |
This was the point to yours that I was making about the software...."No reliable software" I'm not just using some program I made on my ti99 computer. Its state of the art, and not cheap.....but, you are probably 99.99999999999 percent right that I am wasting my time, and this boards. I am will though to build it for that .00000000000001 chance, but like you im not holding my breath. Thanks for your comments. |
