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.

 

"It Just Keeps Running and Running"

page: 9
15
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 06:24 AM
link   

. . .blog.hasslberger.com...




Is it possible that angular momentum is being converted to power in this device to recharge the battery?




posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   
No, it's not recharging the battery. What this device is basically is a motor that is powered by electricity. In fact many motors are powered by electricity and magnets. To be real he would have to have a motor powered by magnets and magnets with no electricity added. But the laws of physics isn't going to allow that because everything seeks balance and you would have to have perpetual imbalance, and that would mean it would be a perpetual motion machine and that isn't going to happen.

It's just a new fangled electric motor with an elaborate setup of magnets, that's all.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   
And what about this one. Which motor for your work would you want, the one the OP showed from the German inventor or this one.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 


I'm not convinced you're right about that.

There is alternative literature that covers experimental data not understood or accepted by the mainstream and not in textbooks.

There is a book I'm looking into today regarding violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics: Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures by Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, which may or may not have anything to do with this device.

The point is, there is alternative physics which eventually will force textbook writers to revise their textbooks.
edit on 02/04/14 by Mary Rose because: Clarify



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Mary Rose
reply to post by Fromabove
 

The point is, there is alternative physics which eventually will force textbook writers to revise their textbooks.


Pretty obvious quote... but the issue is that this alternative physics 99% of the time is garbage under actual inspection and operation in the real world. Sorry to steal a quote but

Do you know what they call alternative physics that has been proven to work? Physics. As iv said many times before... being on the outside of what you guys call 'mainstream' physics, has got nothing to do with being 'sidelined' 'ignored' 'conspiracy to kick down alternative thinkers' It is that for all the lusting for acceptance, no 'alternative thinker' is smart enough to try and bring down the system from within... a system that according to them is so broken that it is lying about everything (bare in mind much of the technology you use today would thus by definition not exist... so enjoy that imaginary computer
)

by being 'alternative' does not mean you are right any more than being 'mainstream' being right. The difference is, the alternative tends to make statements and claims that they cannot and will not back up... while the mainstream does. All this about physicists not understanding electricity is also total garbage.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   
I will say this. The universe is showing us that some things can and do remain in motion for what seems to be a very long time. I believe that something we are missing is in the mix but we cannot perceive it right now. So we can have almost free energy to a limit by what I see when I realize that the moon goes around the earth in an endless loop, and the galaxy does the same thing.

We can only understand the basics of the laws of physics so far. They cannot be broken, but, can we bend them a little? That is the question, and if we can, what could it mean.

For instance, we are using the electron as the workhorse of the engine, but, what if another particle more useful and powerful than the electron, one that is seeming fluid throughout the universe, and one that reacts to another type of metal alloy and is excited not by magnetism but by some other force, what if that is some day discovered. The electron would then be to us what a wood fire was to cavemen and nuclear energy is to us today.

But the machine in the OP can't achieve what is stated because we understand how electricity is derived and used. Entropy will always win out in the end. It takes force to make energy and energy to create force to do work.





edit on 4-2-2014 by Fromabove because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Particle physics is always looking for new particles, and yet people say we are doing nothing useful.

The issue is that what we have been able to detect and show the existence of is the stable low energy configuration of matter, We see protons, neutrons and electrons.

Another particle? there are unstable ones and thus would not make them very useful as charge carriers. there are also mesons, but these are unstable too. We are starting to make applications for muonic atoms but these are extremely novel at this point and have little application outside of science at this point.

So it is good to dream and say what if! but if what if is essentially magic even by realistic models, it is not really helpful to the progress of science and life.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ErosA433
 


The problem with mainstream physics and those who defend it is the arrogance.

Physics and science in general should just be physics and science. There shouldn't be classifications of them.

But unfortunately, the fallacy of ridicule is used to shut dissidents up.

People defending mainstream physics try to use appeals to authority.

That is absolute crap.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Mary Rose
The problem with mainstream physics and those who defend it is the arrogance.

Physics and science in general should just be physics and science. There shouldn't be classifications of them.
Richard Feynman once said that you can't prove a scientific theory right, but you can prove one wrong when it fails to match observation and experiment.

Let's take a real scientific belief that was once held, that arrows stayed in motion because the air behind them was pushing them. Observation and experiment have since proven it's momentum that causes the arrows to continue to move, and that nothing needs to be pushing them for them to move.

So if someone makes a scientific theory today that arrows move because air pushes them, how do you propose we treat that theory, when we can prove it wrong?


Fromabove
I will say this. The universe is showing us that some things can and do remain in motion for what seems to be a very long time. I believe that something we are missing is in the mix but we cannot perceive it right now.
This is related to the above question, except that to understand why this happens you also need to consider things like friction. If friction is low relative to momentum, things will move a long time, and we have equations to describe this. While some aspects of nature are still not understood, I think this aspect of momentum versus friction is understood.
edit on 4-2-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   
It is only a perception of arrogance. Iv actually seen more arrogance emanate from those from the alternative more than I have the other side.

How many posts do we see were the proponents of the alternative make statements like "Mainstream science knows nothing" "Mainstream science is wrong" "You are a mainstream scientist, you wouldn't understand what Im talking about" "mainstream scientists cannot think outside the box"

If that is not many statements of arrogance in the way of "Oh what do you know!" from the alternative then i don't know what is.

The true problem is the kind of holding on to ideas and theories that have long been shown not to have any empirical evidence to support. Or the idea that if someone doesn't understand a theory it must mean it is wrong. Take the, universe is a result of our consciousness stuff in threads here... The universe existed long before we did. It did so just fine. All evidence I have seen put forward is extremely sketchy at best, and most of the data that seems to 'prove' the alternative in this area is more about not understanding their experiment and inventing results that the data doesn't support.

Sorry if looking at the evidence and the world around us and trying to understand it all makes the mainstream arrogant in your eyes, but the reality seems to be that you should try and interact more with the mainstream and actually see what they are like. Yes, there are some annoying people, it comes with the territory. Many scientists are laden with social problems that make them seem like idiots, but the truth tends to be that if you actually want to communicate, many scientists will be very happy to do so



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Mary Rose
The problem with mainstream physics and those who defend it is the arrogance.


Well, there is mainstream physics (whatever that is) then there is made up nonsense pushed by free energy people etc..


Physics and science in general should just be physics and science. There shouldn't be classifications of them.


There isn't.... there is physics, then made up nonsense. Physics has been tested many times, made up nonsense has never worked, not even once!


People defending mainstream physics try to use appeals to authority.
That is absolute crap.


As opposed to those pushing nonsense made up crap, like free energy devices.... who just like to whine.

What you refuse to accept is that if any of the made up free energy crap was actually shown to work when properly tested it would be embraced by real Physicists...... but no one pushing free energy devices has shown them to work under controlled conditions, or allowed them to be properly tested!



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 05:39 AM
link   

ErosA433
So it is good to dream and say what if! but if what if is essentially magic even by realistic models, it is not really helpful to the progress of science and life.


It isn't magic if it's a phenomenon that is simply not understood by all and is used in a new concept.

The proper attitude to take is neutral when there is reason to believe something could be real.

Those who have an understanding of the suppression endured by inventors over the decades have an advantage over those who don't because it puts things in perspective.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Somewhere in Germany, a businessman has a second such motor at his company, which runs with 1200 RPM. The man called some days ago he says, and recounted that, when the motor was covered with an acrylic hood, its rotational speed diminished. Engel does not know the reason for this.

blog.hasslberger.com...


For the sake of argument, assume the above is true.

What is the acrylic hood doing?



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Mary Rose

Somewhere in Germany, a businessman has a second such motor at his company, which runs with 1200 RPM. The man called some days ago he says, and recounted that, when the motor was covered with an acrylic hood, its rotational speed diminished. Engel does not know the reason for this.

blog.hasslberger.com...


For the sake of argument, assume the above is true.

What is the acrylic hood doing?
well you could posit two things (at least.)

1. it prevents air currents and diminishes thermal effects.

2. it acts as a capacitor or dielectric shield.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Mr. Engel is convinced that his machine uses the enormous energy which is inherent in quanta, those inconceivably small components of atoms which were first described by the physicist Max Planck in the early part of the last century. He therefore calls his machine an "quantum deviation apparatus".

blog.hasslberger.com...


Maybe Engel's use of the term "quantum deviation" is within the context of his clock making avocation.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Mary Rose
Maybe Engel's use of the term "quantum deviation" is within the context of his clock making avocation.


I'd be happy if he'd expand on the 'enormous energy in quanta', since that doesn't seem to make sense either. And no, don't think he'd be building a quantum effects mechanical clock.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Bedlam
I'd be happy if he'd expand on the 'enormous energy in quanta', since that doesn't seem to make sense either.


It makes sense to me.

Modern physics calls it zero point energy or virtual particles and claims it does nothing.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Bedlam
And no, don't think he'd be building a quantum effects mechanical clock.


I was thinking in terms of his mechanical ability being used to utilize the ether, which does exist, in the form of a gaseous (as Tesla called it) or dynamic, rather than a solid, (as Hertz thought it was) ether.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Mary Rose

Bedlam
I'd be happy if he'd expand on the 'enormous energy in quanta', since that doesn't seem to make sense either.


It makes sense to me.

Modern physics calls it zero point energy or virtual particles and claims it does nothing.


Quanta, zero point energy and virtual particles are all very different things.

Second line.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Bedlam
I'd be happy if he'd expand on the 'enormous energy in quanta', since that doesn't seem to make sense either.


Mary Rose
It makes sense to me.

Modern physics calls it zero point energy or virtual particles and claims it does nothing.
Also known as vacuum energy, modern physics says you probably can't extract it because it's already at the lowest possible energy state (which is why they call it "zero-point"). Some like Bernard Haisch think it might be worth a shot but even he seems somewhat skeptical about his own patent's chances for success.

There is a lot of vacuum energy, but that's because it's a property of space and space is vast. The energy density is pretty low and even if you could extract 10% of the vacuum energy, you'd need to do it from a volume equivalent to 574 trillion Olympic sized swimming pools per day, to power the average home:

The mathematics of hypothetical extraction of energy from the vacuum

So you probably can't extract it but even if you could, you'd be disappointed with the amount of energy you extracted. Observations show the energy density is extremely small (energy per unit volume).



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join