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

reply to post by Aim64C

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

I already have but it seems to have gone right over your head...

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.

And apparently you have not learned your place since you are obviously having trouble thinking...

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.

Perhaps you can explain the difference of billions of years of continual motion compared to perpetual motion and provide some evidence of degrading orbits etc? Motion is motion and as long as it continues it is perpetual no where is it cut in stone that perpetual motion has to last forever. Repeating unproven theories lacking any evidence does not make them true. The only evidence available is the fact they have been in perpetual motion for all that time. All the rest is just speculation.

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?

Ceasing their motion would be an interruption. When has their motion stopped? You guys are really reaching and creating false arguments to try and discredit the simple facts. As for being pulled into the Sun that is speculation. Orbits can change slightly over billions of years but that does not prove they will end up in the sun.

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.

Before calling someone ignorant you should actually try to be accurate about what they said. Of course I never said existing laws of science were both arrogant and incorrect. I said something to effect those who adhere to them blindly as if they are absolutes are stuck in their boxes and cannot see beyond them. The height of arrogance is calling someone ignorant based on something you claim they said and not even being correct about what was actually said.

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.

Funny you could of fooled me all you have done here is try to insult and ridicule me and can't even get what I said right... So much for the monstrous intellect

Originally posted by trollz
This guy is gonna get assassinated.
It will never be allowed into production and circulation.

Everyone, "acquire" this video and spread the knowledge. Firefox has certain uh... Addons that allow you special controls over various web content, if you catch my drift.

No..I don't know what you mean. Roll it too me about these add on features.
If this machine works, I'll build one myself.

reply to post by hawkiye

I already have but it seems to have gone right over your head...

Oh? My apologies, I was not aware I was in the presence of a sufficiently advanced being so as to be post-entropic. Please forgive this merely entropic being for not being acute enough to recognize the obvious accomplishments of your post-entropic existence.

And apparently you have not learned your place since you are obviously having trouble thinking...

Speaking of things over one's head.... Perhaps you could display the ability to think beyond a single line of reasoning. Thought is pointless when stuck on preclusion. I have considered your line of thinking quite thoroughly, and have found it to be lacking.

Perhaps you can explain the difference of billions of years of continual motion compared to perpetual motion and provide some evidence of degrading orbits etc?

You're lucky. My own personal insecurities are showing, today, and it will manifest as a barrage of citations that, if you so choose, can be used to increase your knowledge of the subject.

burtleburtle.net...

A primer. This demonstrates orbits, complete with some visual simulations.

A world at rest at distance infinity has escape velocity. The kinetic energy of a world going at escape velocity is equal to the potential energy lost because of being close to a sun. Since the kinetic energy of escape velocity is twice that of a circular orbit, and the kinetic energy required for a circular orbit approaches infinity as distance goes to zero, we see that the maximum potential energy that can be lost is infinite. Potential energy has to be measured as a negative quantity, with zero being the potential energy of a world at rest at distance infinity.

The potential energy between two worlds is -mass1*mass2/distance1,2. (The potential energy between n particles is the same formula for all particles i,j where i is not j). The kinetic energy energy of two particles is 0.5*mass1*velocity12 + 0.5*mass2*velocity22. Total energy is kinetic plus potential energy.

The total energy of a system remains constant. Momentum is conserved. Angular momentum about the center of gravity is also conserved.

www.universetoday.com...

Frame dragging will also have effects on the behavior of orbiting bodies (it not only applies to rotating objects, but also to vector motion).

www.physics.mcgill.ca...

Since the earth and its oceans are continuously deformed by the tides of the moon and sun, the earth's rotation is also being slowed. Each century, the day increases by about 3 milliseconds. This seems small, but over 100 million years (not long in geological time), the day will increase by about an hour.

wheatoncollege.edu...

I'm not going to put external tags on anything in that link - but it's a much more comprehensive breakdown of how tidal friction affects orbiting bodies.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

The tidal forces on an orbiting body slowly change the character of the orbit. For example, assume an orbiting moon which is also rotating about an axis perpendicular to the orbital plane. The tidal force stretches the moon along the line joining it with the planet, and then that stretching relaxes as that diameter rotates away from the line. There is frictional resistance to the stretching, and energy is dissipated to heat in the stretching and in the relaxing of the deformation, gradually taking energy away from the rotating system.

Ceasing their motion would be an interruption. When has their motion stopped? You guys are really reaching and creating false arguments to try and discredit the simple facts. As for being pulled into the Sun that is speculation. Orbits can change slightly over billions of years but that does not prove they will end up in the sun.

It's a fact of life that all orbiting bodies experience friction and will eventually return to a central mass. It's not speculation. It is a measurable effect. There were potentially thousands of planets about the size of our Earth that were not so fortunate. Their velocities were insufficient for stable orbits, or their interactions with other planets degraded their orbit to a point where they could no longer remain.

The height of arrogance is calling someone ignorant based on something you claim they said and not even being correct about what was actually said.

Do you think your fickle words are all that is necessary to obfuscate your beliefs? Take the resources I have given you and apply them. Then, you will understand that you have been refusing to understand.

reply to post by Aim64C

Do you think your fickle words are all that is necessary to obfuscate your beliefs? Take the resources I have given you and apply them. Then, you will understand that you have been refusing to understand.

Thanks but why would i want to revisit a box I broke out of long ago. I see no point in continuing the discussion since you refuse to see outside your box and continue to stroke your limitations by reviewing data that only reinforces the walls of your box/ When ever I ask you a question you just hand me your box and claim these are the answers and you use your box as the the reference for you answers. It called circular reasoning of course you won't agree and think me mad for you think your box holds all the answers so good luck and one day you will break out of the box believe it or not.

reply to post by hawkiye

I see no point in continuing the discussion since you refuse to see outside your box and continue to stroke your limitations by reviewing data that only reinforces the walls of your box/

"When asked to prove to me I'm wrong, you show me math and science that I deem to be invalid!"

Why are you posting, then? Obviously, you should know that I already knew how you would respond.

When ever I ask you a question you just hand me your box and claim these are the answers and you use your box as the the reference for you answers.

When did I hand you a box?

It called circular reasoning of course you won't agree and think me mad for you think your box holds all the answers so good luck and one day you will break out of the box believe it or not.

Circular reasoning? Circular reasoning starts from a focus - an arbitrarily established point - about which all factors are made to encompass. See: "Global Warming."

Where did I ever present circular reasoning? What was the "focus" of my circular reasoning? I suppose you could try and use 'energy and momentum are conserved in orbital systems' as a focal point of "circular reasoning" - but it really isn't. You asked for evidence that orbits express a loss of energy over time. That was satisfied. It is not circular reasoning to, then, expect that those systems will continue to lose energy until they collapse, entirely.

Thanks but why would i want to revisit a box I broke out of long ago.

Have you really broken out of the box? I would be willing to bet you pay your electric bill like everyone else. All of this "out of the box" thinking you allow yourself to do has absolutely nothing to show for itself. It is like my thoughts on how 'magic' (or what amounts to it) might work within a fan-fiction of mine... it only works in my head and in the story, where I am free to make the rules. Reality is a little more hard-nosed.

You have not broken out of the box. You have not overcome the box. You have simply refused to acknowledge the box exists.

The 'box' is a challenge. It represents the nuts and bolts that comprise our universe. We have what is in that box to work with - and if we wish to 'break out' of the box; we must first understand the box.

Do not act like you have managed some great feat of intelligence as you stand and embrace ignorance of the systems and mechanics that govern our universe. You have accomplished nothing. Your ideals of an infinite universe, infinite energy, and impossible machines are nothing new or unique. In fact, you will find that many of us who quest to further understand the laws of the universe are doing so in the hopes that we may one day find a loophole to "break out of the box."

It is why we test the speed of light. It is why we test the gravitational constant. It is why we go to the extremes we do to see just a -little- deeper inside of an atom.

What separates "you" from "us" is the very simple fact that you find yourself unable to accept that there are mechanics. "You" can't handle the challenge of a world that doesn't work exactly as you want it to. And because of that, "you" deny it and embrace "your" delusional constructs.

*Note: "you" does not necessarily mean you, personally, but is more indicative of the type of mentality and thought process that is being displayed (and is not limited to a single person).

i was thinking if this thing were true the wobble was also significant to push it past the equilibrium? maybe?

oh and PS the guy above me verbally owned someone, gg

Originally posted by Aim64C
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.

Ouch. Those are some big, impressive words. But, I will try to "explain how gravity is a viable "fuel'" as best I can. But, I warn you, I am not as smart as you.
The way I always thought it worked, was, movement requires energy. Or, movement equals energy. Or something like that. Kinetic energy I think.

Kinetic energy is defined as the (work) needed to accelerate a body of a given mass, from rest, to its stated velocity. That is from wikipedia. I don't know what the hell it means.

But, when you throw a ball up, you create movement. Therefore, you were the fuel that created the movement.
Then, gravity makes the ball move in the opposite direction. Down. That means gravity created the downward movement.
Gravity creates movement, therefore, gravity is energy.

I think it is the same with Magnetism. When you put two magnets close to each other, the magnetic attraction causes the magnets to move.
Magnetism creates movement, therefore, magnetism is energy.
Right?

reply to post by president


Here you go.

reply to post by president


The debate over whether or not gravity is a force is for another thread.

When you throw a ball up in the air, you must first impart a force upon that ball. That ball assumes a position proportional to the amount of energy imparted on the ball (in pure ballistics - no atmospheric or topographic/elliptic geometry concerns), before either remaining because the state is stable, or returning to the central mass, because the state is not stable.

The energy imparted upon the ball is returned in the acceleration and impact of the ball. No more energy can be extracted from that process than was put into it to begin with - IE, the ball cannot fall faster or 'hit harder' than it was originally thrown.

The only way to bypass this would be some method of transporting mass to a higher elevation using less energy than it would give off, being released from that elevation. It will take something a bit more elaborate than a wobbly Ferris Wheel to overcome this limitation, I suspect.

I know I said I was going to run out and buy magnets but hear me out LOL.

Magnets can be made by using electricity, hence they contain energy in and of themselves.
Basic grade school science tells us that two like ends of a magnet repel against one another.
Kinetic energy is basically the energy contained in, or generated by, motion.

Using the kinetic energy of the motion of magents repelling should one be able to harness that and convert it to some othe rform of energy, such as electricity? My issue would be figuring out how to harness the kinetic energy to convert it for electical use..... Any ideas?

Inventor:Oh S*** Hank, I think I accidently invented that thing Larry was talking bout last week dem scientists been trying to figure out...Hank= you mean perpetual motion lol?

Doesn't a hydroelectric generator use the combination of water and gravity to develop a force that is converted into mechanical energy ? What about about wind generators, wind (air and forces of nature) is used to develop a force that is converted into mechanical energy. Both use a complex mechanics to convert the forces of nature acting upon air and fluids to convert into mechanical energy. Why is it so ridiculous to believe the same cannot be done by putting solid objects in motion and use the forces of nature combined with complex mechanics to develop energy that can be converted into mechanical energy?

If you look at all forms of energy they all have a source , except mechanical energy, science says we can only covert other forms of energy into mechanical energy, it has no source. Could it be that putiing air, water and solid objects in motion is the source of mechanical energy ?

The patent system in the USA is retarded. You can basically patent anything you can possibly think off even if it doesn't work, as long as you pay money to get it patented. How realistic or viable something is, is therefore completely unrelated to whether it's been patented or not.

Originally posted by mhc_70
If you look at all forms of energy they all have a source , except mechanical energy, science says we can only covert other forms of energy into mechanical energy, it has no source. Could it be that putiing air, water and solid objects in motion is the source of mechanical energy ?

What you have to ask is, what is the source of the energy used to create the mechanical motion?

In your hydroelectric example, it's heat from the sun that evaporates the water so it can fall as rain and power the dam in a continuous cycle.

If you push a wheel until it turns, you are the source of the power, which is derived from your food which is again derived from the sun.

There's always a source somewhere. If you can't figure out what that source is, then you may have an unworkable device. History is replete with them, as shown at this link:

www.lhup.edu...

I think we could add the device in the OP to that list of machines. Most are some kind of wheel that will turn if you push it, but after you stop pushing it, it may have a little momentum for a while, but eventually it stops turning.

Originally posted by primoaurelius

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.

It gets worse
How many world changing inventions were not invented by 'backyard inventors'
Not many. Did you know that the Sony Walkman was invented by a junior technician at Sony, not the company itself, or any of their engineers.

Perpetual motion! Humbug!

Originally posted by Raelsatu
So far I'm not too impressed, primarily because the name throws things off. Alpha Omega Galaxy generator? Seriously? That name would be deserving if he made a generator that could tap into space-time and siphon 'infinite' energy or something else revolutionary. Putting some magnets onto a fan...sorry, but change the name. Anyway, Rossi's energy catalyzer is far more impressive and so far seems to be the real deal. He also gave it a humble title.

Good point!
I thought Rossi had been debunked?
My generator is going to be called the OMFG unit

Originally posted by choppedbrisket
Could it be that the wobble of the machine is integral in it's performance?

no.

it doesnt work.

even if it does "use gravity" it doesnt create more energy than it produces. Just because you don't pour the energy in like fuel doesnt mean it doesn't use the energy.

Learn physics and study it or don't comment on it