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

Originally posted by InsideYourMind

But surely if the machine can create just enough energy to "self-power" its own motor... then it works.

Sure, you could tune it so that it generated just enough energy each cycle to make up for losses to friction. Then it would be at a steady state. You also wouldn't need the bloody great CAR BATTERY attached to it.

But why would you do this anyway? If it really did generate energy, then let it rip - attach a dynamo to it, start powering your house and disconnect from the grid. Just like all those other free-energy inventors have done...oh...

Originally posted by jude11

The patent office will not allow patents on perpetual motion machines .

energy can be changed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed.

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.

There is a fuel sorce, GRAVITY, and a secondary fuel source, MAGNETISM.

I have seen this a few years ago. There was actually a local news piece done on it. Until I can find it, here is a link to more information.

Alpha_Omega_Galaxy_Freefall_Generator_(AOGFG)

Hopefully the news clip is still out there for you curious types.

reply to post by jude11


I'm intrigued as well...just not educated enough.

I think the tech is out there, but quite possibly, , being withheld form the masses.

It's all about profits Baby!

reply to post by moebius

OMG you're awesome. Throw all the physics away immediately and embrace hawkiye's precious insight on the inner works of the universe.

Who said I was throwing all physic out? Its just simple logic.. Just because it goes beyond your status quo does not mean it is wrong. What is amazing is how far it seems to go over peoples heads who are stuck in thier tiny boxes of orthodoxy thinking they have things figured out even though the logic slaps them right in the face of thier arrogance and limitations.

Err... just for the misguided among us. Would you please explain the need to "gathering more perpetual motion machines (atoms) to the form". And if your body is a perpetual motion machine as you state it shouldn't be a big deal for you to cease breathing right now.

Why would I stop breathing? Should the solar system stop rotating to prove it is a perpetual motion machine? The idea of perpetual motion is to keep everything going so stopping breathing makes no sense whatsoever but I bet yo thought it sounded good when you wrote it...

Btw of course do "atoms don't burn sugar". The sentence doesn't make any sense. Sugar is a compound of atoms, just to help you a bit with the terminology.

You're the one that claimed burning sugar creates electricity, had you read my posts more carefully I already said sugar is composed of atoms and thus atoms are gathered together to create form. No help needed here on this end might want to check your end though...

been hearing a bunch of reasons/speculation as to why they wont accept this patent (which i believe they need to change this rule, due to new technology), i got this explaination from my California State Series, Energy. an older text book from 1967, but still one of the best books i have ever read on energy

i believe the french patent office was the first to stop accepting these. the reason the patent office wont accept these anymore is because there was a time when they were getting so many perpetual motion machines, and literally none of them worked that they got tired of denying them, geniuses wasting their time money and intelligence that they said they would no longer accept perpetual motion machines because it has been "proven" to not work.

this was a long time ago, the late 1700s in france, and a bit later here i believe, and the machines that they had then were very very primitive compared to the many perpetual motion machines i have seen lately. most of these older machines used water or weights and springs. the french academy of sciences said in 1775 that they would no longer accept this type of research and that "this sort of research...has ruined more than one family, and in many cases mechanics who might have rendered great services have consumed their fortune, their time, and their genius on it."

this was more than 225 years ago, and we have made MANY scientific and technological advances that may now allow this type of machine to come into existance, or, at the very least, looked at again to see if it is possible. we have already found a few flaws or questions in newtonian physics, maybe this machine can find a niche in that

i would also like to state tho, that i do believe that there is no way they would allow us to have "free energy" and the fact that i am constatnly seeing articles about incredible inventions that are rejected (not only PMMs), especially medical inventions, for no real reason, which causes me to ask lots of questions, most importantly, why.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by N3k9Ni

 

There's no output from the wheel.

How do you know that? He seems to be saying it's a generator. Which means he's probably using the rotations to turn an electric generator or something like that.

The motor is getting it past that balance point.

As I said, if the power produced by the spinning is greater than the power needed to keep it spinning a feedback loop would make it a perpetual motion machine.

Ummmm.....if that feedback loop were switches, operating electromagnets to pull past the position of equilibrium and then switch off until the next revolution, etc......also, if the purpose of this device is to produce energy at a constant rate, over the duration and extent of the revolution, then...consider that the point of equilibrium is durational only to a single degree of rotation, the remaining 359 degrees of rotation will be producing "energy" not needed to power the "system"...The "constant", being the consistant flow of energy across the entire rotation.
Further, if the "bearings" or bearing surfaces were magnetic and vacuume/nitrogen sealed, or "frictionless" and the conductors, superconducting, or very close to a negative ohm value...
It seems that such a device might be feasable in a gravity well, the largest obstacle would be frictional air resistance...unless the entire "generator" were housed in a vacuume/nitrogen innert "vessel"...of course...not too impractical IMO...
A digital or analog "fuzzy", "timing" program, activates the "switches", could alternately be used to "balance" the device.

Ummm....Sorry, just thinking aloud again.........for what it's worth...

YouSir

reply to post by john_bmth

If only your knowledge was matched by your towering arrogance. There are so many things wrong with your statements that I'm thankful they've already been addressed. Seriously, open a textbook before opening your mouth, intelligent discussion isn't about making stuff up as you go along, it requires all parties to be informed.

It always the last refuge of those who cannot refute the logic to attack and try and ridicule because they have nothing else to intelligently argue.

Gotta love arrogant orthodoxy... As I said it is why we still use 150 year old technology for transportation. It is amazing they cannot fathom perpetual motion because they were taught it is impossible even though the solar system has been in perpetual motion for millions of years.... I guess they can't fit it into thier little box... Sigh!

reply to post by hawkiye

Gotta love arrogant orthodoxy... As I said it is why we still use 150 year old technology for transpiration. It is amazing they cannot fathom perpetual motion...

 

Perpetual motion machines are older than our "transpiration" technology.

In 1607 Cornelius Drebbel in "Wonder-vondt van de eeuwighe bewegingh" dedicated a Perpetuum motion machine to James I of England.

*

^ And that is a recent one

*Da Vinci worked on them as well....

...even though the solar system has been in perpetual motion for millions of years....

Ah see, you have been giving people hard time because of their "orthodox learning" but, you fail to even note the definition of perpetual, or perpetual motion.

per·pet·u·al
adjective /pərˈpeCHo͞oəl/ 

Never ending

Perpetual motion describes hypothetical machines that operate or produce useful work indefinitely and, more generally, hypothetical machines that produce more work or energy than they consume, whether they might operate indefinitely or not.

And as you said:

for millions of years....

Millions of years just ain't infinite these days now is it?

reply to post by blah yada


"Backyard inventors are the scourge of the nation"
You mean people like the Wright brothers, Baird, Benz, Edison, Tesla, Faraday, Curie, Harvey, Newton,Hubble, Marconi, Pasteur, Sinclair,Gates,Thompson, Brunel, etc, etc......

I made something similar to this some time ago, it ran for 3 minutes--just enough for a YooToob video
Let me see it run for an hour at least, then i can get interested.

Originally posted by playswithmachines
reply to post by blah yada

 

"Backyard inventors are the scourge of the nation"

You mean people like the Wright brothers, Baird, Benz, Edison, Tesla, Faraday, Curie, Harvey, Newton,Hubble, Marconi, Pasteur, Sinclair,Gates,Thompson, Brunel, etc, etc......

thank you for putting this, because if you didn't, i certainly would have. ive seen some wacky mad scientist looking inventors here in america that have come up with amazing inventions. backyard inventors are what made us what we are, human ingenuity is inside us all, and backyard inventions are the beginnings of some of our greatest achievements. not just physical inventions either, amateur astronomers and physicists creating and finding new ways and theories too look at the world. from a cave man making a knife out of rocks, to franklin and his seemingly casual kite flying experiment, or Galileo inventing his telescope to newton inventing modern physics. an inventor is an inventor regardless of where he works or what his qualifications are. a good idea is a good idea, period. just because an inventor has long wild hair doesn't mean he shouldn't have a chance to explain his invention. i saw a story not too long ago about a guy who invented this thing that was basically a trashcan that vaporized whatever was put into it, it shot a HUGE amount of electricity into it and it apparently vaporizes competely the stuff inside, and the guy looked like a straight up mad scientist, so it took him a while to get people to take him seriously. just goes to show that you dont need to be a certified scientist to make and contribute to humanity's scientific development.

reply to post by president

There is a fuel sorce, GRAVITY, and a secondary fuel source, MAGNETISM.

Perhaps you could explain how gravity is a viable "fuel."

Because, from where I stand, gravity is not even a force. It is an entropic principle. When I throw a ball into the air, it occupies a position allowed by its vector and velocity (technically, a vector includes velocity - but I'll separate the two for the common man's sake). Since I am He Man - the ball will, of course, go into orbit when I throw it. The elevation and characteristics of that orbit depend entirely upon how much energy is put into accelerating that ball.

This is the same any time you lift an object. It is occupying a new energy state. In order to extract energy from an object utilizing gravity, you must lower its energy state, whereby it will shed all or a portion of its energy, assuming a different position based on the energy it has.

Magnetism is not much different. When dealing with permanent magnets, their function is more entropic than it is anything else. Any object attracted to a magnet will require energy to increase the separation from that magnet. Further, permanent magnets tend to have their magnetic properties weaken as they are exposed to like-poles. It is, at least in theory, possible to create "perpetual" magnet arrangements that will never find an equilibrium and end up causing the magnets to de-magnetise - effectively drawing the energy they do generate from the energy used to create the magnet in the first place (using it as a form of battery).

I do recall a device that was talked about a few years back that was an arrangement of magnets along a disk. It was -claimed- that the disk would cool down while the device was in operation, and there were some theories floating around about how the interaction of the magnetic fields would somehow create a zero-point reference at the subatomic level, allowing the device to be powered from volumetric/radiant heat sources.

If that, truly, is what the device was doing - then it would be quite phenomenal - but I believe the claims were over-hyped, and I haven't seen mention of the device since (it could be built for under $1,000 - depending upon how elaborate you wanted to get). The thing is - there is no such thing as a "permanent fuel" - even a zero-point machine is limited to the density of energy existing above the zero-point reference.

reply to post by hawkiye

Why would I stop breathing? Should the solar system stop rotating to prove it is a perpetual motion machine? The idea of perpetual motion is to keep everything going so stopping breathing makes no sense whatsoever but I bet yo thought it sounded good when you wrote it...

Again:

Would you please explain the need to "gathering more perpetual motion machines (atoms) to the form".

Please allow me to rephrase the other part to make it more clear. If you state that atoms are perpetual motion machines, means are doing work perpetually by definition. Why should there be a need to breathe and eat? The "perpetual motion machines (atoms)" should provide more than enough power for the body to function perpetually. Where is the simple logic?

You're the one that claimed burning sugar creates electricity

Please help me out with this one. Can't find where I've stated that burning something produces electricity. Or what electricity has to do with the topic at all?

had you read my posts more carefully I already said sugar is composed of atoms and thus atoms are gathered together to create form. No help needed here on this end might want to check your end though...

Then why are you writing such nonsense:

however atoms don't burn sugar.

My God,

If I had a nickel for every time one of these post were submitted here over the last 8 years I have been a member, I'd have about 5 bucks!

Always a scam and and always breaking the laws of physics and always people decrying the gubment for holding back the technology and always... it disappears into obscurity, always.

People, we used to say around here when Simon was running things, "deny ignorance". Yet now it appears that no one listens.

Heck Phage won't even reply to these anymore ...

reply to post by boncho

Ah see, you have been giving people hard time because of their "orthodox learning" but, you fail to even note the definition of perpetual, or perpetual motion.



per·pet·u·al
adjective /pərˈpeCHo͞oəl/ 

Never ending

Perpetual motion describes hypothetical machines that operate or produce useful work indefinitely and, more generally, hypothetical machines that produce more work or energy than they consume, whether they might operate indefinitely or not.

And as you said:



for millions of years....




Millions of years just ain't infinite these days now is it?

Your own definition says it does not have to operate indefinately or infinitely. Theoratically a machines parts would wear out eventually and have to be replaced. The problem with you guys is you have to steup your own box and then claim that is the only box it can operate in. And your box assumes that things only operate within your box. But of course your box does not have room for the fact that millions of years of perpatual motion is millions of times more evidence for the solar system being a perpetual motion machine compared to your evidence or rather lack of evidence that it is not. In fact that is tons more evidence then about 90% if not 100% of scientific thoery accepted as fact.

So you can continue to assert your baseless theories and I will just point to the facts of millions of years of uninterrupted motion showing the ridiculousness of your claims.

reply to post by hawkiye

Your own definition says it does not have to operate indefinately or infinitely.

Yes, but you missed the context of the "and". hypothetical machines that produce more work or energy than they consume, whether they might operate indefinitely or not.

But of course your box does not have room for the fact that millions of years of perpatual motion is millions of times more evidence for the solar system being a perpetual motion machine compared to your evidence or rather lack of evidence that it is not.

Can you please show me a solar system that outputs more energy than is available or that has a history of eternity?

In fact that is tons more evidence then about 90% if not 100% of scientific thoery accepted as fact.

Huh? You just said that because solar systems have been around awhile your ideas are more valid than 90% of scientific theory.

Newsflash! You wouldn't know the age of the solar system if Science didn't tell you! You would still think the heavens were for Gods with thunderbolts...

So you can continue to assert your baseless theories and I will just point to the facts of millions of years of uninterrupted motion showing the ridiculousness of your claims.

In the age of the Universe millions of years is equal to us blinking our eyelids.

reply to post by hawkiye

even though the solar system has been in perpetual motion for millions of years

Google perpetual motion

reply to post by hawkiye

The problem with you guys is you have to steup your own box and then claim that is the only box it can operate in. And your box assumes that things only operate within your box.

Then, by all means - use your knowledge of the extra-box to transcend our boxy existence.

But of course your box does not have room for the fact that millions of years of perpatual motion is millions of times more evidence for the solar system being a perpetual motion machine compared to your evidence or rather lack of evidence that it is not.

This, honestly, is why the average person should not be allowed to think. It is not that they are incapable of occasionally being 'right' - it is that they feel their insignificant views are somehow absolute. Animals, as I have said before, need to learn their place.

The universe is many billions of years of -continued- motion. This is different from -perpetual- motion. Within the universe, solar system, etc; there has, to this date, only been evidence of conserved motion. Planetary orbits slowly degrade as planets exchange energy through tidal interactions and viscous friction of the materials composing those bodies. Those planets eventually end up as part of the central body - thereby behaving according to the known laws of entropy.

You need to do more than simply say: "planets have been moving for centuries - therefor we can build perpetual motion machines in our basements!" You need to either A: - demonstrate that the behavior of planets falls outside the known laws of entropy or B: build said perpetual motion machine and demonstrate it is possible. Or both.

So you can continue to assert your baseless theories and I will just point to the facts of millions of years of uninterrupted motion showing the ridiculousness of your claims.

Uninterrupted? Where the hell did the craters on the moon come from? What do you call the tidal forces acting on our planet? How about the moon's orbit - gradually receding from our planet as it will be doomed to be 'pulled' into the sun?

If you would be paying attention - few here actually say that "perpetual energy" is impossible to acquire. The difference between these individuals and yourself is a matter of intelligence. Bugs and non-sentient animals do the same thing over and over again completely oblivious to the fact it is not working. Even wasps - some of the more intelligent among insects, will beat themselves against a window for hours before collapsing. Insect traps are not "one way" devices - they are simply designed so as to be easier to navigate into than out of - thus many insects cannot figure out how to escape from them.

You claim that existing laws of science are both arrogant and incorrect while supporting the same failed concepts and ideas with a blind fervor. This displays a startling amount of self-ignorance by being incapable of recognizing your own arrogance.

Even I - wielding a monstrous intellect backed by a nearly infallible memory, recognize my own incomplete perspective and take the time to poke humor at my own inconsistencies and vulnerabilities. I routinely assail my own opinions (sometimes openly - creating for a quite interesting display of schizophrenia) and develop multiple theories for any given phenomena.

reply to post by boncho

Yes, but you missed the context of the "and". hypothetical machines that produce more work or energy than they consume, whether they might operate indefinitely or not.

I did not miss anything I was using your definition which you contradicted which by the way is not necessarily "the" definition. Perpetual motion is perpetual motion it goes beyond the definition you posted and is not hypothetical it is a fact in the solar system.

Can you please show me a solar system that outputs more energy than is available or that has a history of eternity?

I don't need to show you one you are making a false argument that a perpetual motion machine has to run for eternity. When all it has to do is run till it parts wear out without external inputs. I'd say the solar system running for millions of years without an external power source far exceeds anything you have claimed as evidence... Oh wait you still haven't offered any evidence for your assumption and have failed miserably to try and refute the simple fact that the solar system is in perpetual motion. In fact you are stuck flailingly trying to discredit it because you have absolutely zero evidence to support your assumptions.

Huh? You just said that because solar systems have been around awhile your ideas are more valid than 90% of scientific theory.

Facts are facts Are you trying to dispute the fact the solar system has bee around for a long time and been in motion all that time hmmmmm?

Newsflash! You wouldn't know the age of the solar system if Science didn't tell you! You would still think the heavens were for Gods with thunderbolts...

News flash science only guesses at he age of the solar system. However lets just deal with what we know for sure it has been around as least several thousand years of recorded history and in motions all that time. That is still thousands of times more evidence compared to the complete lack of evidence you have have for your position.