Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: LB7 on 20/09/2018 19:52:36
-
++
-
Are you putting energy in to turn the disc?
-
Yes, I give an energy to rotate the disk and I counted all I lost and all I win during the time the spring is rolling up on the helix. I lost the work from 2 torques on the disk and I win the length of the spring. But maybe I made a mistake on my calculations.
What did you count putting in.
-
You're giving a mind game.
You're suggesting through various methods that energy can be created through convoluted mechnaisms without using "real" science.
Should a scientific purist think that is trolling or just sheer ignorance?
-
"Where it is not basic law of physics"?
Well.....where is a language a language and how well that is spoken?
Ideally language should capture what it is trying to define, a reality it exists within.
what's the go there with you, language, and alllllll the acknowledgement of scientific theory people expect?
-
I don't understand. Have you understood the device ? If yes, and like you know physics tell me where is my mistake if you find it.
Your mistake is using the idea of diagrams with springs and flywheels to generate energy.
No research, right?
Your mistake is not acknowledging "prior art", previous ideas on the subject.
Aaaa…..aaaanother mistake is that you're not even setting a platform to deliver your brilliance in a way to demonstrate the Earth is a better place because of your energy-generating device.
-
I'm wondering if your post is setting a new standard of logic.
What do you think?
What do the moderators think?
-
I think I get you....so funny.
Good luck ;)
-
Why does the design of perpetual motion machines get such a generous allocation of time on this forum ?
-
The thing about "free energy" machines is that humans are not "free energy" devices. Humans need to put energy in to "themselves" to do work. For a human to "create" something beyond its own repertoire of conscious operation is almost super-silly. Imagine for a second humans created a free-energy device.....would there be a temptation to implement it into the human biology? No longer human?
Dirac proposed the idea of negative energy, the Dirac sea, the "emergence" of energy, naturally, to explain the relativity of bodies under the influence of gravity. Yet that wasn't proposing a free-energy device, it was a way to explain the relativistic conditions of bodies undergoing gravitational effects.
-
You should go to Area 51 ;)
Say you want to be test pilot....that sort of thing...
-
Ha ha.
Moderators must be on holiday.
I was given a 30 day cooler for multiple posting.
Sounds like the muppet show to me.
LB7, forum hierarchy blessed, whatever, whats your pitch, what do you want to promote in one sentence?
-
Understood.
disk, helix, spring, and whatever else sounds like a fairground ride.
no offence.
I hope it makes you money :)
And this is a lesson to everyone in the forum...there's nothing wrong with making some money through such devices.
-
Is this from contemporary science or maybe a type of philosophy of science?
-
Yet another version of the flopping hammer contraption with lots of added complexity and blind you with science jargon.
-
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pathological_science
-
This strange lecture on how to build a perpetual motion machine really hangs around is there no way to kill it off
-
Have you mistaken this for a blog site?
-
No, I post my ideas and try to prove with calculations it is possible to create/destroy the energy.
And still, we know you can't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
That's why you are not getting many replies.
You are more or less soapboxing.
-
After you have built your demonstration model get on to NASA and see if they can build a space qualified version to replace RTG,s which are becoming difficult to build do to a shortage of Uranium
-
I don't believe in the principle of least action,
Reality does.
-
no, I can't use the centrifugal force, i need to let free the axes, all axes, the spheres must be symetrical like that the centrifugal force is cancel by itself.
-
What causes the gas to flow?
-
" support rotates at w,"
Why?
Also,
Do you realise that the gas will have viscosity and drag ?
-
but the gas can't give any torque on the support to slow down it.
Yes it does.
Did you not understand what I said about viscosity?
-
At least in theory, i can imagine the chocs between the helix and the fluid at the perpendicular of the arm. There are only 2 lines on the helix that could accelerate the gas and accelerate the bolt. I will do the calculation even for the full helix because i think the axial accelerations are cancel by the radial, but it rest the down acceleration.
-
It works only if the shape of the gas is perfect, the mass in the center at a dot and a perfect sphere for the shape. I suppose the wall of the helix perfect, i mean a line in the side view, mathematical walls not physical walls composed of atoms. Like that i have the 2 directions in the same time, i move of Rwt in horizontal and I move in tan(30)Rwt in vertical. I don't use the trajectory of a fixed dot on the helix because the fixed dot move in horizontal of Rwt only. The sphere that envelopp the mass can rotate because there is no mass, and it will, i don't follow the fixed dot on the helix. Like that I have the movment in horizontal and the movment in vertical. And it could explain why in the elementary particle the mass is in the center with the envelopp of a sphere. I can build a bigger device to extract the energy:a sphere and an axe in the center.
-
Helium could be used, the viscosity is low I think.
"low" is not the same as zero.
-
But I don't know how to calculate it. I
That seems to be just one item on a long list.
Why can't you get to grips with the fact that your idea doesn't work?
-
I don't need a gas in rotation. I need the bolt in rotation around A1, and i need to let the bolt free around its axis A2, at start the bolt don't rotate around A2. I don't need the gas in rotation, the problem with the gas is friction. With ideal gas, no mass, no friction but a volume for each particle i have the flow too, but i can't use the mass to extract the energy but the flow by the velocity. It is like a pump which could be closed to itself, i add in the loop tube a turbine to extract the energy
-
It is easy to realize there is a problem in the sum of energy if you compare the same device with only one difference:
1/ The nut is fixed on the support: the sum of energy is constant, at start the sum of energy lost by the support due to the nut is RFwt
2/ The nut can rotate around A2, I give the forces F1, F2 and F3 to the nut, at start, the sum of energy lost by the support due to the nut is (√3/2)RFwt
-
You can't destroy energy.
-
Arf, no the sum of energy is 0, the vertical force on the bolt gives 0.375.
It is crazy, it seems it is impossible !!