0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
This is a speculative topic, hence it belonging in lighter-side.It is also a topic that actively denies established science (energy conservation).The last straw was the invocation of scientific 'dogma', a classic troll resort.Build a prototype and show us wrong. If you can't do that (and only show a simulation), then science was right all along.
the point of physics is to examine such questions in the abstract before deciding whether a proposal is worth spending time and resources to develop.
Let's cut to the chase.You can do this yourself by simply looking at your design and calculating the torque at any point in the rotation. Or just build it and see what happens.If the laws of physics are wrong, you can bring me a working prototype built to your specification. I will help you apply for the necessary patents (in your name as sole inventor) and raise capital to get it into mass production. Nobody will invest if it isn't (a) demonstrated and (b) patented. My fee will be 1% of the factory-gate sale price for every device that incorporates the agreed design - we'll let the lawyers sort out the details. What you do with the rest of the money is entirely up to you - you can mirror the Gates Foundation if you want the world to benefit, or spend it on "slow horses and fast women", as you please.
Oh dear, things are going south, rapidly....
There's nothing politically inconvenient about perpetual motion or free energy. It would set some Middle Eastern potentates and religious perverts back into the Dark Ages, but most of the population wouldn't notice the difference and the rest of the world would be a better place. Instead of complaining about people like me who offer to help, why not just do it? Naive? Not according to my company balance sheet.Don't get too wound up about money. In its purest form it is just virtual work - you get it by doing something useful for someone, and it allows you to get others to do stuff for you. It's the oil that lubricates collaboration, which in most people's opinion is a Good Thing and the basis of civilisation. Or are you intending to steal the materials for your prototype?
What a load of cobblers
I said he was naive and I stand by it.
One thing I noticed at mensa meetings
Perhaps we would be better off discussing the device
Then you are a fool.What were you doing there?It. Does. Not. Work.What's to discuss?
I would advise you to develop (in the sense of engineering drawing) your cam assembly in two dimensions, when it will become apparent that even if there were no hysteresis or frictional losses, the system has at least one point of stable equilibrium and therefore will not rotate continuously.
Now do as I told you.
"It does not work" is an assertion, not an explanation
Here's how you described it.Quote from: Prajna on 29/08/2024 12:18:11Am I wrong? The laws of thermodynamics would suggest so,I didn't think I needed to confirm it.
Just for the record, the impossibility of breaking the conservation of energy is one of the few laws of nature that's not just experimentally true; it was mathematically proven about a hundred years ago, by Emmy Noether (who should be more famous).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem