[Bored chemist]

Just a thought but maybe the forum should just ban posting of perpetual motion machines.
They are not science.

[paul cotter]

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.

[Origin]

and now, elvis left the building

Claiming you are Elvis is no more absurd than claiming you have a perpetual motion machine.

[Colin2B]

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

[Colin2B]

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

[paul cotter]

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".

[Bored chemist]

Neither is most of what is in new theories, unfortunately

Your observation leads me to consider further opportunities to improve the site...

[Bored chemist]

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?

[alancalverd]

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. 

[Colin2B]

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

[JLindgaard]

 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.

[Kryptid]

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?

[Colin2B]

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.

[Kartazion]

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.

[perPedes (OP)]

go Paul go

[paul cotter]

WTF,??

[Bored chemist]

 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?

[alancalverd]

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? 

[alancalverd]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.