Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: perPedes on 20/09/2022 08:32:33
-
WARNING. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS POSTER IS TRYING A SCAM TO SELL A FAKE PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE
Hi you can see the Pm on a website, so can I put the link herein ?
-
No, but you can explain your machine in new theories unless you have already published elsewhere.
If you are trying to link to a website then you have already published, sorry.
-
we are talking about the first real existing Perpetual motion, so sorry too. i suggest you take a look at the 13 min video and than you decide . thank you
-
we are talking about the first real existing Perpetual motion, so sorry too. i suggest you take a look at the 13 min video and than you decide . thank you
We did, our rules are clear, because it has been published elsewhere. You need to develop it for larger scale and to extract energy eg to operate a refrigerator requires driving a compressor.
We’ll pass it around the moderator team and decide whether to make an exception.
PS your video is very boring, with lots of old film number etc which don’t add anything, I would recommend making it more snappy.
-
we are talking about the first real existing Perpetual motion, so sorry too.
You don't really have anything useful, sorry. What you are trying to do is not possible and a waste of time.
-
Very interesting.
I dont understand the part with the ferrofluid but the principe with the capilarity mixed with archimedes looks obvious as soon as you have understand it.
The guy dont explain it clearly (even if i speak german fluently) so i will do it here :
You use some device to elevate the water using capilarity.
You put a floating thing into this elevated water.
You let the floating thing fall after it has elevated above the flat surface of the water (because of the elevation added by the capilarity), into the part of the flat surface of the same water -but not elevated- using some circular chain of those things.
The device he presented in his video seem to be functional and at very first glance could be right in a physical point of view.
So, 2 possibilities.
1. He is a crook.
2. It works.
Everyone can test his invention and verify if 1 or 2, so thats at least the good point.
-
The device he presented in his video seem to be functional and at very first glance could be right in a physical point of view.
If it's a perpetual motion machine then you don't understand the "physical point of view".
So, 2 possibilities.
1. He is a crook.
2. It works.
Incorrect, #2 would be he is ignorant of physics.
-
I don't see the flaw in his device.
Do you ?
-
I don't see the flaw in his device.
Do you ?
Conservation of energy.
-
I don't see the flaw in his device.
Do you ?
The obvious flaw is that it's a perpetual motion machine and they are impossible.
-
Conservation of energy.
In fact you dont even have understand anything.
The obvious flaw is that it's a perpetual motion machine and they are impossible.
You are wrong.
It is not a perpetual motion machine.
It is a superunitary machine.
-
You are wrong.
It is not a perpetual motion machine.
It is a superunitary machine.
Actually, it's a mistake.
-
Actually, it's a mistake.
Explain us (no general claim like it cant because it cant) why it cant work and i will believe you are some scientist.
Actually i just know you dont even understand how his machine work.
So actually you are at level 0
-
I just have understand how ferrofluid could be used to improve his device.
If you put some ferrofluid in some container and instead of using capilarity you elevate the ferrofluid using some permanent magnet (here you can elevate it much more than water...) you can use this elevated liquid like in the previous machine.
-
Actually, it's a mistake.
Explain us (no general claim like it cant because it cant) why it cant work and i will believe you are some scientist.
Actually i just know you dont even understand how his machine work.
So actually you are at level 0
Someone already explained it a hundred years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
i will believe you are some scientist.
Reality doesn't care what you believe, and nor do I.
Were you not aware of that?
-
Someone already explained it a hundred years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
This is a lazy general argument.
A true scientist would try to understand the detail.
Reality doesn't care what you believe, and nor do I.
Were you not aware of that?
My appreciation is not intended for you.
Were you not aware of that?
-
It won't work because the force of buoyancy on the chain would be equal on both spots that are passing through the water's surface. It doesn't matter whether one is higher than the other or not. If the forces are equal, you don't get movement. So what we are looking at is either a hoax or some CGI that is only meant to portray what the OP thinks it would look like.
-
A true scientist would try to understand the detail.
In order for you to understand the detail, you need to understand the fundamentals.
That's why I pointed out the fundamental reason why the OP is wrong.
The detail of why the OP is wrong are actually issues of psychology.
-
It won't work because the force of buoyancy on the chain would be equal on both spots that are passing through the water's surface.
The force is not equal, because the length of the chain immersed in water, left (with water elevated) and right (water at normal height) is not equal.
You would be right if you used some floating objects, immersed at the place where the water is elevated and some other at the place where the water is not elevated.
You would effectively end up with the same force acting on the same type of object, because they would end up with the same equilibrium, independently of the fact that water is elevated or not... but you would however have some difference => potential energy of the object would be greater at the place where water is elevated.
But here we are not talking about the difference of potential energy of separated objects (because there is no equilibrium so there is no difference in potential energy when the objects are linked) but about the difference in term of force.
Instead of potential energy difference when objects are separated we have the production of some force when the objects are linked.
And the work of this force is easy to calculate : Because of the energy conservation principle, its value is equal to the potential energy difference when the objects are separated.
-
And the work of this force is easy to calculate : Because of the energy conservation principle, its value is equal to the potential energy difference when the objects are separated.
Great, demonstrate this easy calculation and we can show you where your error is.
-
I repeat my usual offer.
Bring me a working model and I will give you unlimited riches. Investors and craftsmen standing by to put it into commercial production. We will require a nondisclosure agreement, so suppress your video lest you reveal the secret. And don't apply for a patent - it will be refused at best or published at worst.
But we are getting a bit bored with waiting and may go to the dog track instead - better chance of winning, and a lot more fun.
-
Because of the energy conservation principle, its value is equal to the potential energy difference when the objects are separated.
Conservation of energy is the reason why this device won't work in the first place.
Potential energy is a good thing to focus on, though. Objects move under the influence of a force when potential energy is capable of being turned into kinetic energy. The system is capable of undergoing a change of state where the potential energy decreases and the kinetic energy increases. A falling rock is a good example. Under the influence of a gravitational field, the potential energy of the rock decreases over time as it is turned into kinetic energy and the rock speeds up.
In the case of this device, that can't happen.
The total amount of chain that is submerged would not change at any point of the rotation cycle: as much chain is being submerged below the water's surface at any given time as is being brought out at the same time. That means that the potential energy of the system is constant at all points in time. If the potential energy cannot be changed into kinetic energy, then the chain cannot move. So the device won't work.
-
the chain in the video is acting with ferrofluid, not with water !
-
the chain in the video is acting with ferrofluid, not with water !
Doesn't make a difference.
-
the chain in the video is acting with ferrofluid, not with water !
Thank you for the clarification, i was wondering about.
Conservation of energy is the reason why this device won't work in the first place.
Is the reason why this device wont work is not equal to this device is not working..
You dont have any device in front of you so you can only speak about theory, not about facts (thats how science work).
In the case of this device, that can't happen.
What "cant happen" ? That the potential energy is turned into kinetic energy ?
Of course, because this is not how this device is supposed to work.
The total amount of chain that is submerged would not change at any point of the rotation cycle: as much chain is being submerged below the water's surface at any given time as is being brought out at the same time. That means that the potential energy of the system is constant at all points in time. If the potential energy cannot be changed into kinetic energy, then the chain cannot move. So the device won't work.
I dont understand what you mean.
I only know that if i put more volume into water i got more buoyancy.
Thats what happen here : More length of the chain in water equal more buoyancy.
I dont think this part of the process is so difficult to understand.
Perhaps there is some countereaction elsewhere, but this point : "more force" is established.
If you dont understand, try again.
More difficult is :
If this is a hoax, where is the flaw ? Is there some new exotic phenomenon trying to maintain the amount of total energy ?
If this is not a hoax, where is the energy coming from ?
-
the chain in the video is acting with ferrofluid, not with water !
Thank you for the clarification, i was wondering about.
Conservation of energy is the reason why this device won't work in the first place.
Is the reason why this device wont work is not equal to this device is not working..
You dont have any device in front of you so you can only speak about theory, not about facts (thats how science work).
In the case of this device, that can't happen.
What "cant happen" ? That the potential energy is turned into kinetic energy ?
Of course, because this is not how this device is supposed to work.
The total amount of chain that is submerged would not change at any point of the rotation cycle: as much chain is being submerged below the water's surface at any given time as is being brought out at the same time. That means that the potential energy of the system is constant at all points in time. If the potential energy cannot be changed into kinetic energy, then the chain cannot move. So the device won't work.
I dont understand what you mean.
I only know that if i put more volume into water i got more buoyancy.
Thats what happen here : More length of the chain in water equal more buoyancy.
I dont think this part of the process is so difficult to understand.
Perhaps there is some countereaction elsewhere, but this point : "more force" is established.
If you dont understand, try again.
More difficult is :
If this is a hoax, where is the flaw ? Is there some new exotic phenomenon trying to maintain the amount of total energy ?
If this is not a hoax, where is the energy coming from ?
Do you understand that no perpetual motion machine or over-unity machine can actually work?
-
Is the reason why this device wont work is not equal to this device is not working..
I'm not sure what you mean.
You dont have any device in front of you so you can only speak about theory, not about facts (thats how science work).
Conservation of energy is a fact.
What "cant happen" ? That the potential energy is turned into kinetic energy ?
Yes, that cannot happen here.
Of course, because this is not how this device is supposed to work.
If it's supposed to move, it is.
I dont understand what you mean.
Things can't move unless they have potential energy that can be converted into kinetic energy (light and gravitational waves notwithstanding). The chain in this device has no potential energy. Without potential energy, you don't get kinetic energy.
If this is a hoax, where is the flaw ?
The flaw is the lack of potential energy.
Is there some new exotic phenomenon trying to maintain the amount of total energy ?
No, conservation of energy is not new.
If this is not a hoax, where is the energy coming from ?
It's not coming from anywhere because this device cannot generate energy. It doesn't work.
-
guys, please, it works, because it has to work. the only wonder would be, a wonder, if the maschine didnt work, because materie has no opportunity to choose, it has to follow physic realities. if you believe, it doesnt work, its your good right, but its my right to demand, build it, i gave you the description, and its a work for three days for a good engineer.
I beg you all, only for a minute, imagine the video is true, and also the calculation, because it would be to much work for a cheap fake. so imagine and start a real diskussion based on calculationes and scientific spirit. and if you say why should i do this, I say, why not, what is a minute in such an universe. ;)
-
guys, please, it works, because it has to work.
Noether's theorem says otherwise.
it has to follow physic realities.
That's why it won't work.
If you want to prove this works, you're better off bringing your device to a scientific institution in person and letting them examine it in detail.
-
if you see what happens in this forum with this true as revoutional concept, you realy think, you can place this in any university in the whole world ;D ;D ;D
and please, good man, the calculation you have, is highest academic standart, so please please please with lots sugar upon, read the sources. its all from books in your own bookshelf. academic work means not to become blessed by acadenics, but holding academic standarts, and again, build it, or are you in fear it works ?
-
Your sources don't matter because Noether's theorem (which is mathematically proven) says it can't work.
-
of course @noether but the mechanical formulas are also to find in this book where you found the noether, only a few pages away, and these formulars are correct used. as you see, and contracict the good old noethy. if you respect noether you also have tho respect thermodynamic und hydrostatic, its in the same book. so please show the mistake in the calculation, and tell me, am I right, you are in fear for the maschine realy works
-
if you respect noether you also have tho respect thermodynamic und hydrostatic
And both the thermodynamic and hydrostatic laws obey Noether's theorem, which is why your machine cannot possibly create net energy.
you are in fear for the maschine realy works
I have no reason to be afraid of it working. If it did, it would revolutionize the world. I just know that it can't because Noether's theorem won't let it.
If you are actually serious about this, you should take up alancalverd on his offer. He has expressed a willingness to observe your machine in person. If you can't book a flight to him, then send him the machine by mail instead.
-
Im not here to have any ethics conversation, so please go on, and I want you all und especially you, give a great compliment. you are the only one forum in the world, where every voice is heard after all. congratulationes. and now the end is near, and go on waiting for microscopic investigation of the calculation or otherwise, one of you, Ladies, dare to build it.
hope i see you soon
-
... I go on... sry ;)
-
I was a bit overgenerous offering "unlimited" riches, since there is only a finite amount of money in the world, and I want my cut. So the offer is for half of all the money in the world (minus production and marketing costs), eventually.
-
realy, you want an addition, smile,
you realy think, the guy who invented a first real Pm, needs to send it by Ups in a oversea country without any warranty for nothing to become successful so i am wondering what in the hell qualifies you to be a mod.
and now, elvis left the building
-
……to send it by Ups in a oversea country without any warranty for nothing to become successful
No one is asking you to send it anywhere, just bring it to a lab in Cambridge.
If you can demonstrate it under lab conditions there is money in it, lots.
so i am wondering what in the hell qualifies you to be a mod.
Wrong question. Success in business, developing and bringing products to market is what counts here. Both Alan & I have strong track records here, particularly in making it happen.
-
I'm always happy to send samples by courier - it's the modern way of business. But if you would prefer to accompany your product, I can collect you and it from Stansted airport or Harwich seaport. Small effort, massive returns.
The advantage of demonstrating it in Cambridge is not only the accessibility of venture capital and prototype manufacturing, but the possibility of telling the world about it through Chris's radio program.
-
Don't do any deals with that alancalverd dude, I'll do a better one . Alancalverd wants 50% of the worlds money in return and 50% to you. I'll give you 75% with 25% for me, that 25% should be adequate for my minimalist needs. Also I will organise patent protection so no chance of greedy miscreants steeling your amazing invention. Contrary to the perceived wisdom on the matter it is possible to patent a perpetual motion device in the us patent system provided one demonstrates a working device.
-
Just a thought but maybe the forum should just ban posting of perpetual motion machines.
They are not science.
-
Indeed, a lot of other forums ( fora? ) won't allow such material. However I wouldn't stop there, there is plenty of other nonsense that could be consigned to the bin.
-
and now, elvis left the building
Claiming you are Elvis is no more absurd than claiming you have a perpetual motion machine.
-
Just a thought but maybe the forum should just ban posting of perpetual motion machines.
They are not science.
Neither is most of what is in new theories, unfortunately
-
Also I will organise patent protection so no chance of greedy miscreants steeling your amazing invention.
How? He has already revealed it in his video, it’s out there
-
Oh dear, colin2b, a logical query to a frivolous remark. I remind you that this is the "new theories" subforum where logic, science and common sense are frowned upon, if not totally banished. You are of course quite correct that the op's device cannot be patented, I was just contributing to the spirit of "new theories".
-
Neither is most of what is in new theories, unfortunately
Your observation leads me to consider further opportunities to improve the site...
-
Also I will organise patent protection so no chance of greedy miscreants steeling your amazing invention.
How? He has already revealed it in his video, it’s out there
Not that it matters much, where is the video?
-
it is possible to patent a perpetual motion device in the us patent system provided one demonstrates a working device.
Dear Sir
We are studying your perpetual motion device with interest and can now state that it meets the criterion of originality.
However it has only functioned for 1,000,000 years to date and the claim of perpetual motion has thus not been conclusively demonstrated.
As you are aware, some other jurisdictions do not require proof of function but they generally follow the European convention of rejecting perpetual motion claims outright.
You should note that in the event that you do demonstrate perpetual motion to the satisfaction of this office, your patent will need to be perpetually renewed if you are to retain monopoly protection. The scale of renewal fees is exponential, to encourage early exploitation, so whilst your device might display a linearly infinite capability to earn revenue, the cost of maintaining the patent will follow a second-order infinite sequence which will quickly overtake any profit you might earn and eventually exceed all the accrued capital.
We respectfully enclose our invoice for annual examination fees to date.
Your faithful servants
The United States Patent Office
PS Alan Calverd offered you the better deal.
-
I remind you that this is the "new theories" subforum where logic, science and common sense are frowned upon, if not totally banished.
By the OPs, true.
However, we do draw a line. For example, if someone frequently misrepresent a known fact or theory then that can be a good reason to censure or lock a thread.
PS thanks for keeping us on track and reminding us that is is the duty of all New Theorists to be as whacky as they can
-
Is conservation of momentum or energy and accepted principle in physics?
Does momentum = mv while KE = 1/2mv^2? Is there any time that momentum and kinetic
energy are not relative to the other? Science has stated that something can increase in
momentum but not energy.
An example is if a 1kg weight accelerates for 10 seconds then it's velocity is 9.81m*10seconds.
It's velocity will be 98.1m/s. Yet it's KE will still be 1kg*0m/s. That is because gravity has no energy.
Yet the laws of physics says it does. Scientists coined the term "perpetual motion" to say that a
body that can create continuous energy from gravity is generating its own energy. Scientists say
that gravity cannot be conserved by mechanical means.
And as history has shown, Samuel Langley, America's foremost scientist proved powered flight
wasn't possible. He crashed 3 airplanes into the Potomac River. And as a scientist he made sure
there was no pilot. There were no rudders, elevators or ailerons on his airplanes yet he made the
first powered flights. He just didn't consider it possible because science didn't allow for it.
People respected his work.
For fun 2bcolin and kryptid, Bessler's Wheel works and I have a seawater desalination project that
I want to pursue. I did that in the U.S. Navy as well as observe gasses having accumulated overnight
and then dispersing by noon. Why did smog occur at night? Science says it doesn't but observation
suggests when the Sun Goes Down.
-
Is conservation of momentum or energy and accepted principle in physics?
Yes.
Science has stated that something can increase in
momentum but not energy.
That's not really what science says. It says that both the total energy and momentum of a closed system are constant. Individual parts of that system can gain or lose momentum or energy, but the total will remain the same.
Yet it's KE will still be 1kg*0m/s.
No, its kinetic energy will increase by the same amount that its gravitational potential energy decreases.
That is because gravity has no energy.
Objects within a gravitational field have gravitational potential energy.
Scientists coined the term "perpetual motion" to say that a
body that can create continuous energy from gravity is generating its own energy.
The energy is constant. All that is happening is the conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy by the field.
Scientists say
that gravity cannot be conserved by mechanical means.
I'm not sure what you mean by that.
And as history has shown, Samuel Langley, America's foremost scientist proved powered flight
wasn't possible. He crashed 3 airplanes into the Potomac River. And as a scientist he made sure
there was no pilot. There were no rudders, elevators or ailerons on his airplanes yet he made the
first powered flights. He just didn't consider it possible because science didn't allow for it.
He never proved such a thing, especially not in such a fundamental, mathematical way as Noether's theorem disproves perpetual motion machines. Your analogy isn't remotely close.
Bessler's Wheel works
So when can you demonstrate this to the world with a working model that is open to detailed investigation?
-
Bessler's Wheel works
So when can you demonstrate this to the world with a working model that is open to detailed investigation?
Yes, @JLindgaard needs to provide a video showing at least 10 revolutions of the wheel before he even gets to the starting blocks. Otherwise he should stop making this claim here.
-
its kinetic energy will increase by the same amount that its gravitational potential energy decreases
Yes. I had already told him at @JLindgaard. He must understand that when he uses perpetual motion with gravity, he must be satisfied with the kinetic energy in relation to the potential energy.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Gravitational_Oscillator_%26_law_of_Conservation_of_Energy_between_Kinetic_Energy_%26_Potential_Energy.gif)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Momentum-ke-pe-vector.png)
-
go Paul go
-
WTF,??
-
Is conservation of momentum or energy and accepted principle in physics?
Yes,
So the rest of your post is pretty much irrelevant but, just to clarfiy.Yet it's KE will still be 1kg*0m/s.
No, it will not.
A moving body does not have zero kinetic energy.
That's obviously silly.
Why did you say it?
-
Samuel Langley, America's foremost scientist proved powered flight wasn't possible. He crashed 3 airplanes into the Potomac River.
...thus proving that powered flight was possible, as demonstrated by birds and insects for several billion years. Or did he just throw the planes into the water?
-
KE = 1/2mv^2.......if a 1kg weight accelerates for 10 seconds then it's velocity is 9.81m*10seconds. It's velocity will be 98.1m/s. Yet it's KE will still be 1kg*0m/s.
Since when did 98.12 = 0? Are you a tax accountant? Or a politician? If the former, I have a job for you. If the latter, it seems that Liz Truss has already appointed you as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
-
I took the time to do the math one day, if this build works it will generate between 4 and 5 watts of power.
I'm sorry to have to say it, but you got the maths wrong.
It will produce zero power.
-
I am building it so I can have corrective surgery. No working wheel, no life ever.
You need a plan B.
-
Of course if I get this working then it will be a black eye for the scientific community.
We have proof that it won't work.
Gravity has no energy, right? That's why it has to generate its own energy
Did you not read what I posted about potential energy?
-
I'm not going to post in here anymore so it doesn't matter. I mean the video in the OP shows that a mechanical advantage can be gained. That kind of proves it is possible. I also saw your kind remarks to someone who posted about potential energy. This means that I am being singled out because I am not welcome here because I do not like bored chemist. He hasn't shown where he knows anything yet has God status. I don't think a "real" science forum would make someone a God. I think that's all I really need to know.
-
He hasn't shown where he knows anything
Yes I have; it's just that you didn't understand it.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
I don't think a "real" science forum would make someone a God.
It's a joke.
. I think that's all I really need to know.
Nope, you also need to know about the conservation of energy.
This means that I am being singled out because I am not welcome here because I do not like bored chemist.
Nobody cares if you like me.
It's not as if you actually know me anyway.
But there's something important you need to realise.
You are not arguing with me, you are arguing with the laws of physics.
You might have a chance against me.
-
I'm not going to post in here anymore so it doesn't matter.
Good
-
I mean the video in the OP shows that a mechanical advantage can be gained. That kind of proves it is possible.
No, it doesn't. Noether's theorem proves it's impossible.
I also saw your kind remarks to someone who posted about potential energy. This means that I am being singled out because I am not welcome here because I do not like bored chemist.
I don't see how one thing is related to another. Neither yours nor perPedes' machines will work. You not liking Bored Chemist has nothing to do with it.
He hasn't shown where he knows anything yet has God status. I don't think a "real" science forum would make someone a God.
Bored Chemist does not have God status. The term "Naked Science Forum GOD!" is a title automatically applied to any member when they make enough posts. Someone who posts genius content and someone who posts stupid content will both receive that title if they make enough posts. It has no correlation to their authority or intelligence here.
-
"Mechanical advantage" is the ratio of output distance or angle to input movement. It does not (cannot) imply an increase in power or energy.
-
its funny to read this, because while you see the maschine is runing, you tell us the whole day why its imposible that such a maschine will run :o
-
you tell us the whole day why its imposible that such a maschine will run
Correct, a perpetual motion machine is not possible. If your machine is running it is not a perpetual machine.
-
and where does the energy come from, that spins the chain and compensates the friction ?
-
and where does the energy come from, that spins the chain and compensates the friction ?
Where indeed! Perpetual motion requires magic energy to work.
-
Correct, a perpetual motion machine is not possible. If your machine is running it is not a perpetual machine.
And, just to clarify, if it's not running, it's not a perpetual motion machine.
-
theres no magic, theres formulas, the problem is, you cant handle even such easy formulas
-
theres no magic, theres formulas, the problem is, you cant handle even such easy formulas
There's plenty of formulae.
If you misuse them you can convince yourself that PM is possible.
But you won't convince anyone who understands why it's impossible and, more importantly, you won't fool reality.
-
only two sides with 5 formulae. no problem. and sources. not my formulae, that are yours, you claim at least
-
no problem.
There's a very clear problem.
You think you have a perpetual motion machine, but you don't.
-
the problem is, you cant handle even such easy formulas
But you can, so bring us the working machine.
-
year of course, to bring it to you, would be much easier than you build the maschine in two days by your own, pumpkin
-
much easier than you build the maschine
It's still impossible to build the machine.
-
of course its imposible - for you for sure. a engineer needs ferrofluid, magnetical chain and a vessel. and viola
-
Viola, a sweet sounding musical instrument with a lower register than a violin. What has a viola to do with pm? i' m baffled.
-
I tell you, a viola and a pm goes together like your knowledge and a solid knowledge, and I know, it cant be a Pm, because if it would, you would know it earlier than the inventor himself. LOL
-
year of course, to bring it to you, would be much easier than you build the maschine in two days by your own, pumpkin
I wouldn't deny you the pleasure and profit. I'm here to help, not steal.
-
Viola, a sweet sounding musical instrument with a lower register than a violin.
Time for a story, whilst the OP whittles in his shed.
The orchestra was on tour. On the second day the conductor contracted COVID and took to his hotel room.
The players met to decide what to do. The second viola said "I played this book with Harry last year, and I have his notes, so I'm happy to conduct until he recovers."
The tour went very well, and on the last day, Harry returned to the podium.
Second viola took his seat, and first viola said "Where the hell have you been for the last two weeks?"
-
Second viola took his seat, and first viola said "Where the hell have you been for the last two weeks?"
Oh no, not another run of viola jokes ;D
-
in the music store : I want the white accordeon and the red trumpet. - ok you can have the fire extinguisher but the radiator has to stay here.
-
New theories, nothing quite compares, certainly not in my experience. I have never been sectioned ( yet! ) in a mental institution so I can't claim to have such universal experience.
-
of course its imposible - for you for sure. a engineer needs ferrofluid, magnetical chain and a vessel. and viola
You wouldn't be building a perpetual motion machine.
Do you not understand that yet?
-
no, i understand that you cant built a Pm, neither I m sure wether you can read formulae, nor wether you can read at all
-
no, i understand that you cant built a Pm, neither I m sure wether you can read formulae, nor wether you can read at all
I can read that you are apparently discussing a castrated ram.
What would be the point of this construction?
ferrofluid, magnetical chain and a vessel.
(With or without a pansy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansy
)
-
now I m sure you cant read. tell the guy who reads the formulae aloud many greetings
-
hey reader, tell him please, that I respect everyone, but I sware, what you see in the video isnt a fake. I m 57, why shoud I make such a sensless fake. but I think in less than one year, we will see who is right, so lets simly wait. ok ?
-
now I m sure you cant read. tell the guy who reads the formulae aloud many greetings
How many formulae do you think there are in this thread?
I guess we could count
"Alancalverd wants 50% of the worlds money in return and 50% to you. I'll give you 75% with 25% for me,"
And there's these two
momentum = mv while KE = 1/2mv^2
All these are reasonable enough, but they don't seem to relate to your idea.
So, when you say " this
tell the guy who reads the formulae aloud
what formulae do you mean?
-
you can have all the money. you have the discription, and if you have 100 $. you can start. so go baby go
-
This is a discussion forum not an advertising site.
You need to discuss the details here, not to advertise your site.
If you have formula or design details eg magnet strength, post them here rather that link out otherwise we will take the attitude that you are advertising. One of our rules is that you should not post ideas here which you have posted elsewhere and we have given you leeway on that, don’t abuse it or the thread will be closed down.
-
i cant post images with my cellphone. please put the formulae at (link removed) herein. thank you. To talk about this, is what I m here for.
-
Just remembered an archetypal mad professor (he really was both) who presented a "working" model to my father (something of a family curse, perhaps, or maybe it's a rite of passage for all engineers) with the wonderful words:
"Calverd! I have had perpetual motion for five minutes!"
-
I have had perpetual motion for five minutes!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loperamide
-
it seems that Liz Truss has already appointed you as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Psychic? Moi? Apparently!
And for their next trick they are going to create growth from nothing!
-
you have the maschine, you have the description and the calculation, so I m wondering where does all these sentences come from, because they all came from obviously comletly empty heads, which claim at the same time, that nothing can come from nothing, but where are than the sentences from ?
-
because they all came from obviously comletly empty heads
Please don't insult our members. That's against the rules.
-
ok this is good enough for a slow motion. You think I m the insulting one inhere. realy ?
-
you have the maschine
No, we don't.
You think I m the insulting one inhere. realy ?
Yes.
-
if I confess, could you please slowly start an reasonable and thorough analysis of the calculation with all the power, this forum has !
please give me all people herein that want only to calculate to be happy. for the rest I want to say, please apologize my behavior, that must mean to you I m a kind of a Neandertaler. Thank you with lots of sugar
-
Quote from: perPedes on Today at 17:36:24
you have the maschine
No, we don't.
-
... cause you won't
-
in the music store : I want the white accordeon and the red trumpet. - ok you can have the fire extinguisher but the radiator has to stay here.
what.
-
if I confess, could you please slowly start an reasonable and thorough analysis of the calculation
What calculation are you referring to?
-
... cause you won't
Because you refuse to post them here.
Let me know when something changes.
-
hi chemiest seriously, i m sure you have some guys inhere, which like to calculate, so called Nerds. i would like to talk to them. where are they
-
hi chemiest seriously, i m sure you have some guys inhere, which like to calculate, so called Nerds. i would like to talk to them. where are they
Like to calculate what?
-
the calculation at (link removed)
-
the calculation at (link removed)
Because you refuse to post them here.
Let me know when something changes.
-
i dont refuse, i cant technical. please go to hwcv copy the calculation and put it in, thank you
-
Do you mean this?
(link removed)
-
the calculation at hwcv
What on earth is hwcv? You are just obfuscation, refusing to post calculations and referring us to other sites. Why should we have to go out of our way to entertain your childish nonsense?
-
the calculation at (link removed)
Humorous Walruses Chasing Voles?
-
i dont refuse, i cant technical. please go to hwcv copy the calculation and put it in, thank you
Is there any particular reason you can't post it here yourself? If you take a look at the reply screen, a lot of scientific symbols are available to insert into your post. Surely you could use those to recreate your calculations here?
-
<link removed>
-
That's almost useful.
But, like a lot of people here, I don't understand German. (I'd be able to get by if it was in French...)
Are you able to say if Google's translation is good enough?
-
It looks very much like an elementary text on capillary action. Nothing to do with perpetual motion, just classical hydrostatics.
-
translation is in work. in 3 days you ll get it
-
meanwhile, lets talk about the first part of the calculation, where the miniskus ihas been calculated. do you think its correct ?
-
It looks very much like an elementary text on capillary action. Nothing to do with perpetual motion, just classical hydrostatics.
Not only.
There is also the archimedes principle at work.
An thats the point.
When everyone say that Noether theorem states that the total energy should be constant, they forget how they come to that conclusion.
Noether theorem is a theoretical (mathematical) approach using the Lagrangian (kinetic and potential energy involved), it is not a empirical approach of physic.
Why this distinction ?
Because energy is not something particular but something polymorphic.
Saying "energy" doesent mean anything if you dont specify of what kind of energy you are talking about.
Furthermore, and this is what is here interesting (and it is why i can eventually believe the PM showed could work) :
If you have some formula saying that some physical phenomenom produce some value of energy, and some other physical phenomenom produce the same value of energy, this do not mean, in reality, that the conversion of the first phenomenom into the second phenomenom will lead to the transfer of the same value of energy.
You have to verify every conversion...
In this case, the capilarity energy is linked to electromagnetic kind of energy, and the Archimedes principle (buyoancy) is linked to gravity.
If we were using some bessler wheel of such kind, sure we remain in the kinetic area, so the conversion is obvious.
But here we have two kind of energy, so we need to verify the conversion.
I dont remember any experience showing the conversion of capilarity to gravity energy, so i remain open minded.
Mathematic can not give us the answer when different kind of energy are used, it needs to be verified, using... physic (yes thats what physic is, experimentation).
-
Saying "energy" doesent mean anything if you dont specify of what kind of energy you are talking about.
Yes it does.
That's why we use the same name for the different types.
-
But here we have two kind of energy, so we need to verify the conversion.
And we have.
-
And we have.
If you are aware of it, just cite the experience involved.
-
And we have.
If you are aware of it, just cite the experience involved.
Which particular sort of conversion do you want?
We can start with the conversion of potential to kinetic energy.
Here's a page aimed at explaining it to schoolkids.
https://physicsteacher.blog/2019/03/09/why-does-kinetic-energy-1-2mv2/
-
Which particular sort of conversion do you want?
We can start with the conversion of potential to kinetic energy.
Here's a page aimed at explaining it to schoolkids.
We are not schoolkids.
We want the conversion of capillar energy to buoyancy energy (i already explained you that the kinetic potential energy do not apply here).
So what is the experience you claim that you have about it ?
-
OK, It has been pointed out that capillary forces are electromagnetic in nature.
And that means those of us who paid attention at school can calculate lots of electrostatic potentials.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_potential
And those of us who find this joke
[ Invalid Attachment ]
funny understand that gravitational and electrostatic potentials behave mathematically the same (They both follow an inverse square law).
So it's clear that the way in which energy is transferred and accounted for is the same.
So we know they are equivalent.
That's why, in spite of your protests, it makes sense to talk about energy without specifying the type, because we know that they can be interconverted.
-
We are not schoolkids.
Are you sure?
-
Noether theorem is a theoretical (mathematical) approach using the Lagrangian (kinetic and potential energy involved), it is not a empirical approach of physic.
Despite sounding similar, theorems and theories aren't the same thing in science. A theorem is a proof that follows logically from its premises. The Pythagorean theorem is probably one of the more famous ones. A theory, on the other hand, is a hypothesis for a phenomenon that has been well-tested to the point where it is believed to be a good explanation for the phenomenon in question. It is possible for a theory to be falsified by future evidence. A theorem, however, is known to be true for any circumstances in which its premises hold true.
Mathematic can not give us the answer when different kind of energy are used
Noether's theorem holds for all kinds of energy. In order for Noether's theorem to not hold, you need a circumstance where time symmetry is violated. A capillary/buoyancy-driven invention like the one talked about here cannot do that, so it cannot violate Noether's theorem.
-
Despite sounding similar, theorems and theories aren't the same thing in science
I am glad you agree that the Noether thorem is not a theory, so it only apply to mathematic.
The mathematic of physic of course, so it remains a theorem, not applicable without verifying the physic with experiments.
Noether's theorem holds for all kinds of energy.
It holds for some Lagrangian, thats all.
In order for Noether's theorem to not hold, you need a circumstance where time symmetry is violated. A capillary/buoyancy-driven invention like the one talked about here cannot do that, so it cannot violate Noether's theorem.
You cant say anything about the transfer of energy from some kind of phenomenom to another without doing the real experimention.
Mathematic cant say anything about it.
-
The mathematic of physic of course, so it remains a theorem, not applicable without verifying the physic with experiments.
Mathematics applies to real life physics. If I have one apple and add another apple, I will have two apples. That works just as well for Noether's theorem.
You cant say anything about the transfer of energy from some kind of phenomenom to another without doing the real experimention.
Mathematic cant say anything about it.
Yes, yes you can. I don't have to physically add one blue whale to another blue whale to know for a certainty that the answer would be two blue whales.
-
You cant say anything about the transfer of energy from some kind of phenomenom to another without doing the real experimention.
Yes you can.
It doesn't matter how often, or how loudly, you are wrong about this.
When you have finished, it will still be possible to add energies together.
-
In order for Noether's theorem to not hold, you need a circumstance where time symmetry is violated.
It's so right. The asymmetry gives a different priority to one of the two parties concerned. IOW and within the framework of an asymmetry, the differential of the force is either more important or be less important according to the side of the symmetry studied. I conclude that at the quantum level this rule does not apply and knowing that the breaking of symmetry is effective.
-
You cant say anything about the transfer of energy from some kind of phenomenom to another without doing the real experimention.
Mathematic cant say anything about it.
There is fairness. Dark matter (energy by emc² equivalence) gives different mathematical interpretation. Understanding this transfer of energy from dark matter to baryonic matter is misunderstood.
__________
Axion Dark Matter Experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axion_Dark_Matter_Experiment
Strong CP problem: The axion was originally postulated to exist as part of the solution to the "strong CP problem". This problem arose from the observation that the strong force holding nuclei together and the weak force making nuclei decay differ in the amount of CP violation in their interactions. Weak interaction was expected to feed into the strong interactions (QCD), yielding appreciable QCD CP violation, but no such violation has been observed to very high accuracy. One solution to this Strong CP Problem ends up introducing a new particle called the axion. If the axion is very light, it interacts so weakly that it would be nearly impossible to detect but would be an ideal dark matter candidate. The ADMX experiment aims to detect this extraordinarily weakly coupled particle.
-
here the calculation in english sry I have only the link, so please let it in.
<link removed>
-
here the calculation in english sry I have only the link, so please let it in.
(link removed)
That does not prove that energy is not conserved.
-
which source do you doubt ?
-
which source do you doubt ?
The problem isn't the sources.
The problem is your conclusion.
If you put a glass tube into water, the water will rise a bit in the tube.
That does not break the conservation of energy.
It also (obviously) does not provide perpetual otion.
-
the problem is that you want to refute a calculation with words, you can only do that with numbers in a calculation, so where did he miscalculate, and please answer with numbers, otherwise Im afraid but you will be considered a gossip in mathematics circles
-
It looks like you are doing calculations based on two separate objects, so it wouldn't be applicable to a single continuous object such as a chain (which has a constant displacement in water: the chain rotating doesn't alter the value of this displacement, so there is no net force acting on the chain).
-
the problem is that you want to refute a calculation with words, you can only do that with numbers in a calculation,
No
I can use words to say
"You are doing the wrong calculation".
The error is not mathematical but logical.
Since nothing in that calculation refers to a moving object, it can not be a mathematical description of any sort of motion.
In particular, it can not be a description of perpetual motion.
-
As you can see under V, different forces act on the two pins, which you doubt.if it works with the sticks, then even more so with a chain
-
I can use words to say
"You are doing the wrong calculation".
i have a short cut. you are only doing wrong
and please stop boring me without a miscalculation you found, by numbers
-
if it works with the sticks, then even more so with a chain
No, because it ignores the mechanism by which objects rise in water in the first place. If you are at the bottom of a pool and exhale a bubble of air, the bubble will rise. Why is that? It's not because the air bubble has antigravity properties. It's because the water is more dense than the air bubble and can thus expend gravitational potential energy to fall further down into the pool by allowing the air bubble to rise. This converts the gravitational potential energy of a parcel of water into kinetic energy, which causes the water to move downwards. This less dense air bubble is pushed up in response. So in order for an object to rise in a water column, the water itself has to be able to move downward.
If you immerse part of a chain in water and wrap it around a cog or gear of some kind (as appears to be the case in your video), then there is nowhere further for the water to fall. The water cannot convert gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy because there is no net change in depth of the submerged part of the chain. If the water tries to push part of the chain up out of the water, then an equal volume of chain on the other side will subsequently become submerged into the water in response. Part of the chain coming out is equal to the same amount of chain being submerged and at the same depth. There is nowhere for the water to go, so it can't release potential energy to power the movement of the chain.
Even if we didn't know why it wouldn't work, we could still say with complete confidence that it would not work because Noether's theorem won't allow it to work. If you disagree, then you need to research Noether's theorem further. Your device doesn't violate time symmetry, so it can't break conservation of energy.
-
As you can see under V, different forces act on the two pins, which you doubt.if it works with the sticks, then even more so with a chain
That makes no sense.
In this instance the issue is language rather than logic or maths.
you are only doing wrong
Pointing out that you r post makes no sense is not "doing wrong".
and please stop boring me without a miscalculation you found, by numbers
If you do not want to hear other people's criticism of your ideas then do not post them on a science discussion forum.
-
You don't seem to realise that you have re-invented this
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Boyle%27sSelfFlowingFlask.png
-
Out of curiosity, how much did it cost you to build your device? Can you make a second one?
and please stop boring me without a miscalculation you found, by numbers
One does not have to do miscalculations in order to be wrong. I can do a calculation showing that a helium balloon rises in air and I can get the numbers fully correct, but I can't use that as proof that I can fly a helium balloon to Mars. Wrong assumptions lead to wrong results.
-
here the calculation in english sry I have only the link, so please let it in.
<link removed>
The second diagram is incorrect.
-
As I already wrote, I'm not contradicting you, but numbers do it if you don't find a calculation error, you don't have a chance. show it to someone who can count
-
The second diagram is incorrect. why ?
-
if you don't find a calculation error, you don't have a chance.
Did you read my previous post?
-
do you know what numbers are 1. ( this is a number ) and 2. whats wrong wizh diagram 2 ?
-
The second diagram is incorrect. why ?
It doesn't show a meniscus inside the small ring. Which means that half of the meniscus equation is missing.
-
as you read at V, the meniscus is sucked off, that's why the pen rises, or why else does the pen do that, what do you think? here you can see it <link removed> 4.30 min ff
-
I am convinced that the awful video is a con.
My offer remains as always: bring me a working model of a perpetual motion machine and I will turn it into semi-infinite wealth.
-
i think that someone who is not able to put a wooden stick in the water and put a tube over it and instead would rather pretend he knows everything like so much better, that these guy cant bring anybody a penny or what do you see that .
the fact is that you can doubt the video if you're too lazy to quickly rebuild it, but the calculation cannot be refuted with faith, whether you like it or not. And as I said, if you can't even do the math, you don't know a thing about numbers and you can't make anyone rich for sure. you should learn elementary school mathematics, then you could at least make yourself rich
-
oh. I forgot, why dont you buy one <link removed>
-
but the calculation cannot be refuted with faith
We aren't refuting it with faith, we are refuting it with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
oh. I forgot, why dont you buy one <link removed>
Ah, finally, you've revealed what your scheme is. This whole thing is just a scam to get people to buy your "perpetual motion" machine. That's why you would never agree to send your machine for analysis, because you know that it doesn't really work. That being said, we do not support scams on this website, so consider this thread closed. If you try to open another thread about this, you will be banned.