It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ask any question you want about Physics

page: 7
74
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 09:53 PM
link   
If the laws of physics allow for time travel... How could it be possible for one to travel backwards beyond their conception. To reverse time would be to reverse one's own physical and mental development... Doesn't anyone else find this a possible setback?




posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: AFewGoodWomen

I'm not saying there are no paradoxes associated with backwards time travel (if it is even possible), but in my idea of time travel -- and the idea of most science fiction out there -- I don't think you are actually "reversing" time. Instead, you would be leaving the present time and then entering time again someplace in the past. That's not the same as reversing your way through time.

Put it this way, it's not like running a record backwards where you hear a backwards voice on the record as you spin it the wrong way. Instead, it would be more like picking up the needle and putting it back down in some earlier part of the record.


By the way, some people have a thought-solution to the "grandfather paradox" (i.e., the paradox that says If I go back in time and kill my grandfather before he gave birth to my father, how could I have ever been born? -- AND how could I have gone back in time to kill my grandfather?).

Their solution is that since I exist in time, that means there is no way I could have killed my grandfather. Therefore, if I go back in time and try to do it, I will find myself failing every time (the gun jambs, or my grandfather ducks out of the way, or he gets medical attention that saves him, etc.). The point is that the episode of me being there trying to kill my grandfather is already part of history; therefore I must have tried to do it and failed.

...but, it's all just hypothetical, anyway.


edit on 7/13/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thats funny free energy from an electric cord. Wow if that could work every house on the planet would only need an initial start since in essence they are just a huge circular circuit. Guess its that whole resistance thing ah well who said nothing in life is free?



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 05:46 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr
Yeah I was just joking like AugustusMasonicus. (At least I hope it was a joke).

There probably is a way to make perpetual motion electrons in a circuit like this, just put them in a superconducting loop, give them a kick start and they should keep going forever, right? That may be the only real perpetual motion physics allows, but of course as soon as you plug anything in, the power used by what you plug in would be drained from the superconducting circuit and the electron motion would eventually cease as a result, meaning you'd get back out exactly the amount of energy you put in (assuming zero losses in the zero resistance superconductor). So still, no free energy, but perpetual motion is pretty cool, unless there actually is some small resistance in superconductors, but so far it's just been too small to measure.

edit on 14-7-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 06:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur
So what is actually going on with Ed's PMH? For some reason it seems to fascinate even the likes of Verbelli.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 06:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



There probably is a way to make perpetual motion electrons in a circuit like this, just put them in a superconducting loop, give them a kick start and they should keep going forever, right? That may be the only real perpetual motion physics allows,


Or at least until the super conductor decays



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 06:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Yeah I was just joking like the AugustusMasonicus. (At least I hope it was a joke).


Of course it was a joke. I would never get fooled by such silliness.


Now excuse me, I have to go and apply my anti-chemtrail salve.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 07:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Arbitrageur
So what is actually going on with Ed's PMH? For some reason it seems to fascinate even the likes of Verbelli.
Verbelli seems to be fascinated by lots of junk stuff, so that's not saying much.

I only said I have the plans, but I never built the perpetual motion holder, because so far I haven't had any perpetual motions that needed holding.

Maybe someone who actually built it can tell you what it does?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Of course I didn't take you seriously, and had this been about any other site besides ATS, I wouldn't have added the caveat. But seeing as this is ATS, sometimes you can't be too sure when people are joking, I'm serious!
edit on 14-7-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: dragonridr
Yeah I was just joking like the AugustusMasonicus. (At least I hope it was a joke).

There probably is a way to make perpetual motion electrons in a circuit like this, just put them in a superconducting loop, give them a kick start and they should keep going forever, right? That may be the only real perpetual motion physics allows, but of course as soon as you plug anything in, the power used by what you plug in would be drained from the superconducting circuit and the electron motion would eventually cease as a result, meaning you'd get back out exactly the amount of energy you put in (assuming zero losses in the zero resistance superconductor). So still, no free energy, but perpetual motion is pretty cool, unless there actually is some small resistance in superconductors, but so far it's just been too small to measure.


what exactly has the electron motion to do with electric potential difference ?
to get energy from it you need more electrons on the one end of the wire than the other end.

balanced systems are bad for energy production



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma
I haven't thought about it a lot, so these are just some off-the-cuff comments, but you'd probably have to use some kind of inductive type arrangement to get the electrons moving in the superconducting loop, and then to extract the energy from them. At least I think that might work, but I haven't tried it. I don't know if anybody else has tried it.

edit on 14-7-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


Maybe someone who actually built it can tell you what it does?
Maybe but I was hoping you could. This is a serious question. I would just like to know what the physics answer is. Skip to 5:45 and watch until about 9:30, that should be enough. It's not a permanent magnet and it's not your typical electromagnet. So what is actually going on? Anyone?



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation
OK I can tell you what's going on here.
For background you may want to see the post I made in a Leedskalnin thread here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
You might want to watch both videos but especially the second one, which shows how magnets are made in a factory.

What is shown in the video you posted around 5:45 is a variation of that process in the second video in my post (time index about 45 seconds), of making magnets in a factory, using electricity.

There are some differences which I'll try to explain. The magnetic field strength is proportional to the number of turns of wire in the coil, and I don't know if the video ever says how many turns of wire are in the coils, but it's surely a large number.

Because of this, it's possible with a lot of turns of wire to generate a fairly substantial magnetic field from a low voltage source like the battery, and that's what is happening in the perpetual motion holder video. The coils in the perpetual motion holder look even larger than the coils in the factory magnet maker, but if you look at both sets of apparatus hopefully you can see the similarities, they are using essentially the same principles of physics.

So, he's got a permanent magnet maker.

edit on 14-7-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Not dismissing the rest of the answer but


So, he's got a permanent magnet maker.
It doesn't make a permanent magnet. Breaking contact and reversing polarity seem to end the magnetism.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

This device is definitively not a magnet maker.

I followed this device for a while now, with the right configuration one can make only one of the open ends magnetic and not the other, or both,
the top bar is closing a magnetic loop but it gets not magnetized.

I say now that this device works on the difference of propagation speeds of electric and magnetic field in a conductor.
Doesn't fit the standard believes, right ?



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
This device is definitively not a magnet maker.
Definitely not a very good one, but yes that's what it looks like, it just makes very poor quality magnets.


originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
It doesn't make a permanent magnet.

Breaking contact and reversing polarity seem to end the magnetism.
I didn't say it was a good one. What do you expect from a 1.5 volt battery? The factory model makes much better permanent magnets. It's a low quality magnet because of the low output of the 1.5 volt battery, so breaking contact may jar the magnet enough to reduce its magnetism.

If you reverse polarity in the factory magnet maker for a short enough period of time you can reduce the magnetism, and if you do it longer you'll reverse the magnetism.

Also I didn't see the light flash in the video when he said the light flashed, around 8:40, did you?
edit on 14-7-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


Also I didn't see the light flash in the video when he said the light flashed, around 8:40, did you?

No but I don't expect much from him. It may flash or not. ATM not concerned with that aspect though.

Might have found an answer though. Could this be a demonstration of an odd form of electroplating?



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks.

It just seems like a lot of whistle blowers over the years have asserted some variation of

'Einstein was wrong. And now we know where and therefore what accordingly.'



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
Might have found an answer though. Could this be a demonstration of an odd form of electroplating?
No. Here is your answer:

web.archive.org...://www.nequaquamvacuum.com/en/english-section/alt-sci/9-pmh-2006.html

During 2006 I had some spare time so I decided to make exact replica of Ed Leedskalnin's PMH (Perpetual Motion Holder). I used soft steel which retains almost no magnetism .
So I was right, it's just making exceptionally poor permanent magnets because the material used is unsuitable for making permanent magnets, yet it exhibits exactly the properties observed for "soft steel", namely:

www.stainless-steel-tube.org...

Hard or Soft Magnetic Characteristics Magnetic materials can be classified as “Hard” or “Soft”. Hard magnetic materials retain a large amount of residual magnetism after exposure to a magnetic field. Soft magnetic materials can be magnetised by a relatively small magnetic field and when this is removed they revert to low residual magnetism.
Looks to me like this explains exactly what is going on. So you could put this "soft" material in the factory magnet maker and adjust the power levels and do the same thing with the factory magnet maker, I don't see any difference except materials, number of windings, currents, voltages, etc.

Conversely if you used the "permanent magnet" steel that the factory uses in the Leedskalnin device, and used something stronger than the 1.5 volt battery, then it would retain more of its magnetism after breaking the connection. So the main difference is the material used, one uses the "soft" and the other uses the "hard' type.

a reply to: BO XIAN
You're welcome. Yes of course there are claims like that, but so far I haven't found any particularly credible.

edit on 14-7-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation


No hes creating a magnet just low voltage if he ran 120 volts hed make a real magnet. Of course with that rig liable to be electrocuted. But this is sort of how they make magnets.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr
It's not a "weak" magnet. It's not a permanent magnet. It's a one time use only magnet. Refrigerator magnets are "weak" but they keep on working.

Maybe I just don't remember at the moment but I don't recall seeing anyone in one of these 'PMH' vids show the damn thing IS a magnet. When not 'powered' it will show no other signs of being magnetic.

The focus is horribly bad but this vid illustrates the point.




top topics



 
74
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join