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.

 

The Atmos Clock: Perpetual Motion Machine

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Mary Rose

Bedlam
Got any specific examples of something you think 'reuses' electricity?


I was referring to the work of Paul Babcock.


Oh, him. He's another Bearden. And no, flyback power supplies don't create magic free energy.

And yeah, I've designed a lot of them. The equation set (there's that math again) actually starts with power out = power in and goes from there.

edit on 19-11-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Bedlam
And no, flyback power supplies don't create magic free energy.


FlyBack Energy is the name of his company, but I don't know whether or not that's what he's talking about when he talks about using electricity multiple times.

He talks about several things in two lectures from 2012 and 2013, including radiant energy that he has observed in the lab, and his thoughts on what needs to be done for further research, including looking for super low resistance materials.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   
I think this whole thread is just confusing a layman interpretation of perpetual motion with a scientific interpretation of perpetual motion. For a layman, a million years is so long it's perpetual. To a scientist, a million years is NOT perpetual. Similarly, the amount of energy radiating out from the sun in all directions seems to me to be infinite. We're like a period on a page 60 feet away from a soccer ball and only a small fraction of the incoming energy striking Earth could power the electric grid of the whole world. To a scientist the energy radiated from the sun is NOT infinite. And again, when I see people land on the moon I think we can do anything. A scientist does not think we can do anything just because we landed on the moon.

It's NOT misplaced for scientific-minded people to voice their concerns when layman people believe incorrect things because conmen exploit the layman and lots of money and time is lost chasing impossible things, all driven by incorrect layman interpretations. If the scientific-minded people lived in a separate universe they wouldn't have to care so much what layman people do because they'd be safe.
edit on 19-11-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


The important thing is that patent offices not reject inventions that tap the environment, either by utilizing atmospheric conditions, or by converting ZPE, to power the invention.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Will the prospects of perpetual motion machines be altered if and when super cooling and super conductors are exponentially perfected and efficiently made and controllable? Is there anything like that (our current technological limits) that you can forsee if altered would allow us to create perpetual motion machines? I understand the principle of symmetry and why you and science holds the view you do and see why it is correct, but do you think lack of imagination and/or lack of exhausting all possibilities has a probability of preventing discovery or loopholes or devices? Or do you think the law is the law because the law is the law and because the law is the law breaking the law or building a machine that goes against your current understanding and imagination is impossible? If an energy could harness the energy of the metric expansion of space would that be a perpetual motion machine, all you would need to do is create a chamber anywhere in space and it should be increasing its quantity of energy right?



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Mary Rose

Bedlam
And no, flyback power supplies don't create magic free energy.


FlyBack Energy is the name of his company, but I don't know whether or not that's what he's talking about when he talks about using electricity multiple times.


My take on it after doing a browse of his claims is that he is 'capturing the used electricity', pumping it back into the battery. In other words, his coal re-burner is a transformer, only more sciency with a switching power supply attached!




He talks about several things in two lectures from 2012 and 2013, including radiant energy that he has observed in the lab, and his thoughts on what needs to be done for further research, including looking for super low resistance materials.


That appeal to 'radiant energy' is a giveaway that he's a crank.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Mary Rose
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


The important thing is that patent offices not reject inventions that tap the environment, either by utilizing atmospheric conditions, or by converting ZPE, to power the invention.


Oh, they don't reject them. They require a demonstration, to their satisfaction, in their lab. That screens out 100% of them.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   

ImaFungi
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Will the prospects of perpetual motion machines be altered if and when super cooling and super conductors are exponentially perfected and efficiently made and controllable?


Superconductors are nice for some applications. You see them in the MRI magnets at the local hospital, for instance. But they don't permit perpetual motion machines.



Or do you think the law is the law because the law is the law and because the law is the law breaking the law or building a machine that goes against your current understanding and imagination is impossible?


I think way back in the early 1830's to the late 1860's, a lot of really bright people came up with formalized definitions of thermodynamics. There followed a lot of other really bright people looking for reasons why they were wrong. They didn't find any. No-one has found any since. In order for perpetual motion to work, you've got to accept energy coming from no-where, which no one has ever seen post-Bang. Basic thermodynamics has stood up to the test of so many people hammering away at it for so long that it became a 'law'. Not because someone said so, but because it is a rock upon which many peoples' fantasies have been crushed.

In physics, imagination is great. But you have to face the fact that eventually what you imagined has to fit observation. You don't get to change things to fit what you'd like them to be by being creative or dreaming it.

As a somewhat educated observer of these things, I have seen the same hokum wrapped in many different ways. I actually DO look into what the guys are claiming, and generally it's either totally baseless or they've got measurement errors, and you can generally spot what sort right off. Take Bearden for instance. He's got a transformer. It's a special sort of transformer in that he says you have to have amorphous glass cores. Ok, that's not hard to come up with (for me anyway), so what next...and there it comes, you have to have pulsed power. It's pretty tough to accurately measure that. So strike one...and what's next, oh, yeah, the special sauce of hucksters, you have to have a special load that's non-linear. Oh, and it only works at Tom's place because (drumroll) "space" has to be conditioned by previous operation of such a supply, so if I take one to my shop where Tom can't 'help' it won't work. Well, if you claim pulsed power and non-linear loads, it's a lead-pipe cinch you have either intentional or un-intentional mismeasurement. Tom, he's using a RMS type metering system that can only read clean sine waves, and that's what he hasn't got. If you measure the "MEG" in a proper setup, it's not only not putting out power, it's not that efficient as a transformer.

That always results in them also needing a battery somewhere as part of their con job. Like Bedini.

I'd be HAPPY if someone could hand me a box that just put out magic power. If I could get it in the shop where they couldn't diddle with it or fox the test setup. If it was real, man, I'd be dancing in the streets. But none of them are. I actually had some hope for Steorn, they have an interesting effect that still bothers me somewhat. But in the end, nada. At least with Steorn, it was a new approach, if it was intentional fraud.



If an energy could harness the energy of the metric expansion of space would that be a perpetual motion machine, all you would need to do is create a chamber anywhere in space and it should be increasing its quantity of energy right?


If expansion of space is energy, maybe you could figure out some way to tap it. I'll wait to see someone come up with it. But I won't buy some guy trying to sell me a device that does so and claims "It runs off the expansion of space!", but when you ask how, he handwaves it. If it's really doing that, it should be obvious how. Not that he runs pulses through a glass core transformer and magically they tap into space expansion while they're running around the wire because Tesla.
edit on 19-11-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Mary, the clock might not be perpetual, but it is amazing. There are also many other machines out there that seem to run all by themselves or with very little outside help. These guys can argue with you all they want about whether it is perpetual, zero point, free energy, etc., but it still runs practically by itself and it is an amazing machine.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


From "Paul Babcock uses magnetic flyback - for our benefit" by Jeane Manning:


. . . Babcock said that when he demonstrated his insights to graduate students, university gatekeepers threw him out. He took it in stride, realizing that, for career reasons, some people cannot listen.

Why did he and his partners choose the name Flyback Energy for their business? Other experts in magnetism and electricity try to get rid of flyback. . . .

The Flyback Energy company partners turn a problem into a solution and are in the business of magnetic energy recovery. . . .


This is a screenshot about the radiant energy described by Tesla which Babcock has seen in the lab working with plasma:




posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Mary Rose
reply to post by Bedlam
 


This is a screenshot about the radiant energy described by Tesla which Babcock has seen in the lab working with plasma:



You just had to figure on them appealing to Tesla as well, right? Radiant energy AND Tesla.

Oh, and he's got Jeanne Manning doing his writing for him, too. We're up to three strikes now.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


It's not radiant energy and Tesla. Radiant energy is a phenomenon first discovered by Tesla.

Jeane Manning is a leader in the field of breakthrough energy research and co-author with Joel Garbon of the book Breakthrough Power.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Mary Rose
reply to post by Bedlam
 


It's not radiant energy and Tesla. Radiant energy is a phenomenon first discovered by Tesla.

Jeane Manning is a leader in the field of breakthrough energy research and co-author with Joel Garbon of the book Breakthrough Power.


yeah, buddy!

She writes all sorts of literature of that nature. A real leader. Wrote "Angels Don't Play this HAARP" for Nick Begich, too, another shiny jewel of accuracy and scientific acumen.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Mary Rose
From Peter Lindemann's Perpetual Motion Reality, presented at the 2012 Bedini-Lindemann Science and Technology Conference:




He emphasized the importance of the fact that an average is used to create a "constant" and that this is not a good practice.



He talked about the value of being a natural philosopher and that what we need to do is study the behavior of nature so that we know what we're trying to mimic.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Mary Rose

He emphasized the importance of the fact that an average is used to create a "constant" and that this is not a good practice.

He talked about the value of being a natural philosopher and that what we need to do is study the behavior of nature so that we know what we're trying to mimic.


The statement in the slide is totally incorrect. The numbers do NOT relate to the machine being used to do the work, that is the definition of the constant. It's just unit conversions. That's why the guy is a putz.

It doesn't matter, for example, if one associates miles per hour with cars and feet per hour with people. Changing from mph to fph is a simple rate conversion.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Bedlam
The numbers do NOT relate to the machine being used to do the work, that is the definition of the constant.


That's what he's saying the problem is. Different devices produce different energy conversion.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Metaphysique

Mary Rose
reply to post by Metaphysique
 


As well as the atom, correct?



DING! DING! DING!

We have a winner!

see how clear things become when you take off the blinders of limiting/controlling definitions ?


edit on 13-11-2013 by Metaphysique because: added edit & comment


IT won't run FOREVER so iot's NOT!!!


perpetual never ending or changing



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Mary Rose

Bedlam
The numbers do NOT relate to the machine being used to do the work, that is the definition of the constant.


That's what he's saying the problem is. Different devices produce different energy conversion.


He's wrong though. The units are not defined by the device. An electrical horsepower is DEFINED as 746 Watts. The ruling unit in SI is the Watt. A horsepower is not defined as what a horse actually can power. It's a secondary unit defined in terms of the SI unit.

If he actually thinks what's on that slide, he's a fool. I don't mean that lightly. You learn what units are and what we base them on in high school. These days, if you're in science or engineering the ruling units are what SI uses, everything else is a secondary/legacy unit.

mbkennel's hoity-toity physics guys use a different unit base for some of the units because it makes things easier for them.
But the units are still the same values.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Behold.

SI units

Definitions of SI units

Historical background of SI units

The rest you see are all derivations of SI these days, somewhere there's a conversion to furlongs/fortnight from meters/second, but how you travel that rate doesn't change the unit, whether it's by sheepback or on roller skates. You judge the device against the units, not the units against the device. The guy is completely, irrevocably wrong.

eta: Here are the little birds coming to save the guy's 'fail whale' statement:


edit on 20-11-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Bedlam,

I don't understand what you're saying. Granted you're the scientist and I'm the researcher.

However, what he's saying is that the unit of measurement, should reflect the fact that, in nature, different ways of creating heat for a given experiment (case in point the modern version of Joule's paddle wheel experiment) produce different results. Therefore, the unit of measurement should not be averaged to come up with a "constant."

He said that water at different temperatures requires slightly different amounts of stirring to raise its temperature by more than one degree Fahrenheit. Still, the mean average is considered the official rate.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join