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.

 

Generator ‘Breaks The Laws Of Physics’ and that's why it can't be patented?

page: 3
31
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:44 AM
link   


But motion can be converted to work.
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 

Of course it can. Where did I deny this?

edit on 24-9-2011 by moebius because: typo




posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 



Of course they doing work they are producing electricity among other things... Are you saying the atoms in your body are not doing any work... Perhaps you need to rethink this


Hang on, I've been waiting to use this:



Titania, here, would like to illustrate the importance of exercising caution when asserting intellectual relevance.

Subatomic particles do not 'move.' They merely exist to interact with other particles along "wave fronts" as a function of mathematical probability.

Take your basic florescent light. The light emitted from it is a practical demonstration of quantum mechanics. Electrons are excited by an energy source and pushed to occupy a higher energy state (which is restricted to individual, quantized 'states' or energy levels/distances/etc - hence the term "quantum") before they 'drop' to a lower energy state, releasing a photon at a given energy state in the process.

This is also the basis behind lasers (developing solid-state and more advanced lasing techniques has required a very precise knowledge of the function of subatomic particles).

Basically - "where" an electron is within its orbital is not important. In fact, the Heizenberg Uncertainty Principle restricts just how much information can be known about any given particle by any other particle or system of particles. To side-step a tad, theories such as the Holographic Principle challenge the notion that the universe can be adequately described as a physical entity - arguing that it is indistinguishable from a computational data matrix (and perhaps even better understood and predicted from that perspective). The electron's position isn't involved in energy exchange when coupled to an atom - only its energy state(s) are relevant.

If this is something you are really interested in for personal development, then I would suggest getting some books on quantum mechanics or doing some decent reading on the internet about it. Formal education on the matter will be quite expensive (and unnecessary, unless you plan on going into semiconductor/nuclear R&D). There are many avenues for learning outside of college. You just don't get to parade a degree around on resumes and forums.

In all - your post conveys a fundamental lack of understanding. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that we know everything about the universe - the realm of quantum mechanics challenges our very perception of reality (as we are well beyond what we can directly observe). Anyone who claims to be certain about the mechanics behind those subatomic particles simply doesn't know enough about the field. Even fairly egotistical and self-assured nerds, like myself, break down in the face of such a world. In the end - we decide which view to take based on faith, and faith alone.

However, to use subatomic particles as the basis for trying to demonstrate the viability of "perpetual motion," "Over Unity," or "Zero Point" devices is dubious, and incorrect.
edit on 24-9-2011 by Aim64C because: link issue



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by moebius
 


Ok, I understand what you were saying now, and I agree. The motion of the Earth around the Sun isn't equal to work, but it can be converted into work at the cost of altering the motion.

You are wrong about one thing though, lots of things are in fact perpetual motion devices. Your debate with Hawk could easily be settled if you would both just understand what I've been writing. You are both correct in certain aspects.
edit on 24-9-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 




Subatomic particles do not 'move.' They merely exist to interact with other particles along "wave fronts" as a function of mathematical probability.
---
Basically - "where" an electron is within its orbital is not important. In fact, the Heizenberg Uncertainty Principle restricts just how much information can be known about any given particle by any other particle or system of particles.
That is of no relevance because the concept is still completely valid for the solar system and other examples.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 
I've never stated that perpetual motion is impossible, just that it implies that no work is done. Means perpetual motion is only possible if the system is not doing any work.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I'm gonna guess if it breaks the laws of physics it doesn't work as claimed.


Why say that? There are no laws of physics. There are only theories. None of them have ever been 100% proven as true. What they incorrectly call laws are theories that have been around a long time and no one has been able to come up with better alternate theories. That does not mean they cannot be changed. So called laws of physics are being re-written all the time with advances in new technology and new information we could not detect before.

If this thing can be proven to produce more than is put into it the patent office must admit they are wrong. One day it will happen. Just like CERN has now observed a light particle travel faster than the known speed of light. It broke that law that says nothing can travel than the speed of light with new information.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 



That is of no relevance because the concept is still completely valid for the solar system and other examples.


No, it's not.

Orbits are akin to energy states, in a way. One's orbit is a product of the energy put into accelerating the object. The vector merely determines the shape of that orbit.

Any energy extracted from the motion of a body in orbit will lead to the degradation of that orbit. Tidal forces at work between the Earth and Sun will eventually cause the planet to lose velocity to friction amidst the materials composing the Earth. We will eventually fall back into the sun.

At macroscopic scales, even, concepts such as relativistic frame-drag will eventually cause the destabilization and collapse of once stable systems.

All work requires energy. We have yet to discover a phenomena that allows us to recover 'stray' energy; at least, not in the sense of a "zero point" device. The closest thing to that would be a black hole... and that's presuming our theories on them are even remotely accurate. Beyond that - phenomena that allow us to 'create' energy are also in startlingly short supply - so as to be completely unknown.

That leaves us with perpetual motion... which, given our knowledge of the above, can only be achieved so long as a device is not performing work. ... The problem quickly becomes one of figuring out how to keep a device from doing work. Any friction or interaction with the outside environment (merely existing as a moving object, for instance) implies some amount of work is done - for which there must be some kind of energy exchanged. Thus, the only way to achieve true perpetual motion would be to create a "pocket universe" consisting of only a single moving item (where the motion would be irrelevant).

I believe that is known as cutting off the nose to spite the face.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


Ha ha. 40 years ago I designed a 'constant imbalance gravity engine' (that was what I called it). A friend of mine who was an engineer and a member of Mensa said it 'should' work. Everyone else said it was a perpetual motion machine so it could not work. I was young and I was swayed by their arguments. it would not happen now.

Yes I believe this person. This can work.

ETA: By the way my engineer friend did not just look at it he did pages of calculations that meant nothing to me (not got a mathematical brain). They looked impressive. Of course I don't know if he was right.


edit on 24/9/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


There are no laws of physics.
The definition of a physical law is: "Scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behaviour ".

Thus there are laws of physics.



There are only theories.
The definition of a scientific theory: "A mathematical framework which is capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems."

Our complete civilization with its technical advances roots on these "only theories". We wouldn't be able to discuss this topic in this forum being maybe thousands of miles apart without them.

Physical theories are tested, adapted and applied by scientists and engineers day by day. All this theories share common properties that can be generalized as physical laws.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 04:59 AM
link   
A poster on page one claimed that he could not understand why the patent was not handed out. I would like to draw attention to the claims of Kiril Chukanov , who built a generator which supposedly was capable of producing an over unity like effect, by using a captured quantum macro object (or ball lightning) .

Because his machine was considered to be "a threat to the global economic structure" he was refused the right to start a company in order to manufacture the device in Canada I believe. If ever there was a ringing endorsement of his design , its right there. And yet you and I will never see it in our lifetimes in all probability.

peswiki.com...:Chukanov_Quantum_Energy_LLC
Heres a link to a little info on the chap, from which I am sure you can jump to more comprehensive info on his work.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Heres the link to the thread about his issues with the Canadian government preventing him from starting a company around his device.

This sort of crap happens all the time. It happened with the water driven car, it happened with quantum macro power, and its happening with this. Good luck everyone, the suits are out to screw us, and we are out of iron pants!



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 05:03 AM
link   
he needs to get it well documented, online, tv and such,...... go on 'dragons den' lol



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


Because his machine was considered to be "a threat to the global economic structure" he was refused the right to start a company in order to manufacture the device in Canada I believe.

Let me guess. The only source for this claim is the guy himself? I mean what is a over-unity device worth without a conspiracy to suppress it?



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by moebius
Let me guess. The only source for this claim is the guy himself? I mean what is a over-unity device worth without a conspiracy to suppress it?


We have a winner! Like all other "free energy" claims it is all about getting money from the gullible.

Remember Orbo by Steorn? it never worked as claimed also!
I know that it has only been just over 5 years since they first made their silly claims, and they have yet to show any sign of overunity...
edit on 24-9-2011 by spoor because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 07:36 AM
link   
That supposed 'free energy' device looks remarkably like the fraudulent proposals put forward many times going back at least 500 years so, to me, we have evidence of the patent office taking their jobs seriously in preventing something like this getting recognition. Many many investors, some in very high positions, have been taken in by this same basic idea of a perpetual motion wheel over the centuries and impressive as it might look on paper, it simply doesn't work.

This is just a wheel being driven by an electric motor which isn't really hard considering the thing has no load on it apart from bearing friction and windage. All the fancy levers are just what I'd call 'monkey puzzle' to make it look more impressive. If the wheel accelerated till it disintegrated under no load condition with no outside energy input from batteries, motors etc then it might be worth a second glance. Ever wonder why these perpetual motion devices never seem to need any sort of regulator to control them under varying load conditions?



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   
I personally find it quite amusing that this invention was denied a patent, apparently due to it not being possible that the laws of physics - yet another news report this very week is calling into question the possibility that we have measured neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light.

Does this invention work? I don't know. Will the speed limit of light be confirmed or fall by the wayside thanks to quirky neutrinos? I don't know. But for science to claim that it already understands everything about energy and therefore can make such a determinate judgement - that is laughable. The greatest breakthrough's in science came from men and women who challenged what was "known" as fact in the past, and came up with some of the very knowledge that is being used as "proof" that NOW we now what is possible.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Open2Truth
I personally find it quite amusing that this invention was denied a patent,


It was? Any proof at all for that claim?


But for science to claim that it already understands everything about energy


Where has science ever claimed that?

Anyone know why people make up such rubbish as this, and expect it to be believed?



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Open2Truth
 


apparently due to it not being possible that the laws of physics

Just for your info. Physics is not about patents. Patents are about business. Patents applications need to follow certain rules. Rules based on experience and established by the society not science. If you don't follow the rules you won't get your stuff patented. The question is, why does he want it to get patented. To get people to buy it? I see no science here.


But for science to claim that it already understands everything about energy and therefore can make such a determinate judgement - that is laughable.

Where do you have this from? He is free to prove the known physics wrong btw.


The greatest breakthrough's in science came from men and women who challenged what was "known" as fact in the past, and came up with some of the very knowledge that is being used as "proof" that NOW we now what is possible.

Actually the greatest breakthroughs came from scientists, people who spend most of their life doing science.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by moebius
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


There are no laws of physics.
The definition of a physical law is: "Scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behaviour ".

Thus there are laws of physics.



There are only theories.
The definition of a scientific theory: "A mathematical framework which is capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems."

Our complete civilization with its technical advances roots on these "only theories". We wouldn't be able to discuss this topic in this forum being maybe thousands of miles apart without them.

Physical theories are tested, adapted and applied by scientists and engineers day by day. All this theories share common properties that can be generalized as physical laws.



Er.. so what? I don't care for definitions because people don't speak that way. Would you rather I say hypothesis? A law, is like you said a generalization based on observation. A generalization. That does not mean the law is foolproof or that isn't flat out wrong in the face of other observations. You see the thing is people take "laws" and confuse them with facts. Facts do not exist. For anything to be a fact you would have to prove beyond any doubt that the thing can NEVER under ANY circumstances be changed, even in the light of future information and observations. This simply cannot be done. Ever. That's what they are trying to say when they say, Oh, you cannot do that, it will break this Law. They are saying This Law is a fact that is set in stone. Hogwash.

Yes, our complete civilization with its technical advances roots on these "only theories". Does that mean if the theory changes our world will fall apart? No, that would be silly. We need to use these terms to help us understand and operate in the world around us. It is a convenience, no more. You see, Science is really Philosophy. That's all it is, a way in which we give understanding to things, think about things. When new evidence causes a theory to change why do some "scientists" embrace it and some balk at it? Even though the new evidence can be proven out or calculated - some still refuse to believe it. It's the philosophy behind that persons science that is where the problem lies. One scientists science is different from anothers only because in reality it's all just a philosophy. A theory or Law will change because we have new understanding we did not have before. Scientists like to play this game and say the theory evolved. Hogwash, the theory was Wrong. Could it be too that the reason the theory was wrong is because the scientists philosophy of science was wrong? Yes. that is exactly what happens. It may not be the scientists fault, he was just going on his understanding of his knowledge data and observations he had at the time. Religion and philosophy is closely related. When one scientists believes in his philosophy of science so strongly that he refuses to believe that a theory or law can change even in the face of repeatable observable mathematical evidence then it is no longer a philosophy. Science has become Religion. Things only get worse from there.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by jude11
 


If he was a real scientist he'd first publish his new hypothesis to the scientific community rewriting the law of energy. Otherwise he's saying I know it can't happen but it happened and I don't know why..


And what is wrong with that?



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by jude11


The reason it can't be patented is because it breaks the laws of physics...that's the reason he's getting anyway.

 



The machine, largely created out of leftover bicycle parts and a windscreen-washer motor uses high-powered magnets and a series of flywheels to apparently create energy from gravity.


Creating energy from gravity does not break the laws of physics. See: Hydroelectric dams.

Maybe his explanation breaks the laws of physics?

Or maybe the machine made out of leftover bicycle parts is a scam.




new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join