Perpetual Motion

Question:

A patent has just issued for a perpetual motion machine so what the hell do we need hydrogen for? Believe it or not pat. number 6,362,718 by Patrick, et al. describes a magnetic perpetual motion machine but doesn’t use those words in the description or claims. The patent is long and poorly worded so it’s hard to figure out what’s going on. I’d like others to dig this up and comment on it. Dr. Bob

Response:

> A patent has just issued for a perpetual motion machine so what the hell > do we need hydrogen for? Believe it or not pat. number 6,362,718 by > Patrick, et al. describes a magnetic perpetual motion machine but > doesn’t use those words in the description or claims. The patent is long > and poorly worded so it’s hard to figure out what’s going on. I’d like > others to dig this up and comment on it. > Dr. Bob

This is the web site for the offenders: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/meg.htm Which brings a song to mind… What’s flux go to do got to do with it? What’s flux but a second hand induction? …. They have a biased toroidal transformer and measure the change in flux at two points on the toroid, and add those two changes together, and announce that they have doubled the flux change. See the simple (minded) explanation at: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/megdsqth.htm This is analogous to throwing a rope over a pulley, and pulling down one foot on one end, while measuring both that move, and the upward 1 foot move on the other end of the rope, and announcing that you have produced a machine that doubles the energy you put into it. Nowhere do they do an energy analysis of anything. They just keep taking about flux. The patent is very crafty. In the claims section, they do not mention any claim of over unity or perpetual motion, but just include the claim that the input can be run from power from the output after a starting phase with an external source of power. The over unity people will read this as implying continuous operation after that, but it is not claimed. Of course, if you take all the energy out of the output and put it back into the input, it will have a normal decay time constant as it grinds to a halt, but that isn’t mentioned. They also claim that the operation will eventually degauss the magnets, implying that they are extracting energy from them, but this is also not stated explicitly. I think this is how they got it past the patent office. Any electrical engineering student should be able to analyze this design well enough to see that the bias magnet has no effect on what is otherwise an ordinary toroidal transformer, as long as the core is not magnetized enough to saturate (which is specified as a requirement for the operation of the "generator". What a hoot. — John Popelish

Response:

This is the same MEG device that has been discussed on sci.physics.electromagnetic Naudin doesn’t know how to use his instruments- reduce the output to 10% of what is claimed and you will be right on -efficiency about 30%. Big deal. As for the patent, it isn’t the first "perpetual motion" patent that has been produced. As long as the words "perpetual motion" are not mentioned and the concept is wrapped in deep enough manure, the poor overworked and undereducated patent clerks wont know the difference. — Don Kelly remove the urine to answer

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> A patent has just issued for a perpetual motion machine so what the hell > do we need hydrogen for? Believe it or not pat. number 6,362,718 by > Patrick, et al. describes a magnetic perpetual motion machine but > doesn’t use those words in the description or claims. The patent is long > and poorly worded so it’s hard to figure out what’s going on. I’d like > others to dig this up and comment on it. > Dr. Bob > This is the web site for the offenders: > http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/meg.htm > Which brings a song to mind… > What’s flux go to do > got to do with it? > What’s flux but a second hand induction? > …. > They have a biased toroidal transformer and measure the change in flux > at two points on the toroid, and add those two changes together, and > announce that they have doubled the flux change. See the simple > (minded) explanation at: > http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/megdsqth.htm > This is analogous to throwing a rope over a pulley, and pulling down > one foot on one end, while measuring both that move, and the upward 1 > foot move on the other end of the rope, and announcing that you have > produced a machine that doubles the energy you put into it. > Nowhere do they do an energy analysis of anything. They just keep > taking about flux. > The patent is very crafty. In the claims section, they do not mention > any claim of over unity or perpetual motion, but just include the > claim that the input can be run from power from the output after a > starting phase with an external source of power. The over unity > people will read this as implying continuous operation after that, but > it is not claimed. Of course, if you take all the energy out of the > output and put it back into the input, it will have a normal decay > time constant as it grinds to a halt, but that isn’t mentioned. They > also claim that the operation will eventually degauss the magnets, > implying that they are extracting energy from them, but this is also > not stated explicitly. I think this is how they got it past the > patent office. > Any electrical engineering student should be able to analyze this > design well enough to see that the bias magnet has no effect on what > is otherwise an ordinary toroidal transformer, as long as the core is > not magnetized enough to saturate (which is specified as a requirement > for the operation of the "generator". What a hoot. > — > John Popelish

Response:

[EL] I have to disagree with you on your final conclusion, but I do agree with you on many parts of your post. See below. > A patent has just issued for a perpetual motion machine so what the hell > do we need hydrogen for? Believe it or not pat. number 6,362,718 by > Patrick, et al. describes a magnetic perpetual motion machine but > doesn’t use those words in the description or claims. The patent is long > and poorly worded so it’s hard to figure out what’s going on. I’d like > others to dig this up and comment on it. > Dr. Bob <snip> > They have a biased toroidal transformer and measure the change in flux > at two points on the toroid, and add those two changes together, and > announce that they have doubled the flux change.

[EL] I do not know about that, but I know they are channeling the flux of the permanent magnet into one of two paths. The rate of change of the magnetic field within the core is what produces energy. The permanent magnet should be made from a material that resists demagnetization by a special alloy of cobalt and samarium. The core should be of a very high initial magnetization and the direction of the ‘input field’ is orthogonal to the dipolar axis and along the core. This implies that the field from the magnet is not being opposed at all, and what we have here is the vector some of the two fields, one which is that of the permanent magnet and one which is induced by the electric coil. The resulting direction alternates and we collect the induction of both fields. <snip> > This is analogous to throwing a rope over a pulley, and pulling down > one foot on one end, while measuring both that move, and the upward 1 > foot move on the other end of the rope, and announcing that you have > produced a machine that doubles the energy you put into it.

[EL] No I am sorry to tell you that your metaphor is off the wall and not related properly. > Nowhere do they do an energy analysis of anything. They just keep > taking about flux.

[EL] Yes, not in the patent, but you need to read Tomas Bearden’s papers to find the equations. It is pretty neat I have to admit. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The patent is very crafty. In the claims section, they do not mention > any claim of over unity or perpetual motion, but just include the > claim that the input can be run from power from the output after a > starting phase with an external source of power. The over unity > people will read this as implying continuous operation after that, but > it is not claimed. Of course, if you take all the energy out of the > output and put it back into the input, it will have a normal decay > time constant as it grinds to a halt, but that isn’t mentioned. They > also claim that the operation will eventually degauss the magnets, > implying that they are extracting energy from them, but this is also > not stated explicitly. I think this is how they got it past the > patent office. > Any electrical engineering student should be able to analyze this > design well enough to see that the bias magnet has no effect on what > is otherwise an ordinary toroidal transformer,

[EL] Really! And how is that? How can the bias magnet have no effect if its field is being switched left and right? How can you exclude that field from your sum? Or are you saying that the magnet’s field shall be distributed left and right and shall not react to the polar directions of the atomic magnetic domains induced by the input coils? If I were you I should take my time to analyze what is going on before I make any jerky declarations. >as long as the core is > not magnetized enough to saturate (which is specified as a requirement > for the operation of the "generator". What a hoot.

[EL] I think you are making a big mistake sir. Kind regards. EL

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > [EL] > I have to disagree with you on your final conclusion, but I do agree > with you on many parts of your post. > See below. (snip) > Any electrical engineering student should be able to analyze this > design well enough to see that the bias magnet has no effect on what > is otherwise an ordinary toroidal transformer, > [EL] > Really! > And how is that? > How can the bias magnet have no effect if its field is being switched > left and right? > How can you exclude that field from your sum?

The field contribution of the magnet is a fixed bias added to the field in both halves of the core. it has no effect on the change in the amount of flux when the input coils are pulsed. The fact that one half of the core goes from the bias field to zero, and the flux in the other half goes from the bias value to twice the bias value, does not change the fact that the bias coil changed the flux in both halves of the core in the same direction by the same amount (given that the bias field goes the opposite way in each half). Since only the flux change affects the output, the starting bias has no effect given that it is a constant added to the input signal flux. This is just a transformer with a bias in the core. (snip) > [EL] > I think you are making a big mistake sir. > Kind regards. > EL

Perhaps, but you haven’t explained what it is. — John Popelish

Response:

Snip.. > Any electrical engineering student should be able to analyze this > design well enough to see that the bias magnet has no effect on what > is otherwise an ordinary toroidal transformer, >[EL] >Really! >And how is that? >How can the bias magnet have no effect if its field is being switched >left and right? >How can you exclude that field from your sum?

Because you are adding or subtracting from a constant, BH losses do not help either Regards, Boris Mohar

Response:

> [EL] > I have to disagree with you on your final conclusion, but I do agree > with you on many parts of your post. > See below.

Is this some new theory which violates known theory and observations? In this case, without any mechanical output, within a given time interval, the change of electrical energy in = change of magnetic field energy stored + change of electrical energy out +losses. This is true whether the change occurs quickly or slowly. No net energy is being produced by the magnetic field – it acts as a transfer mechanism not an energy source. Any decent electromagnetic energy conversion text covers this. The bias, if it doesn’t cause saturation does not enter into the situation. > The permanent magnet should be made from a material that resists > demagnetization by a special alloy of cobalt and samarium. > The core should be of a very high initial magnetization and the > direction of the ‘input field’ is orthogonal to the dipolar axis and > along the core. > This implies that the field from the magnet is not being opposed at > all, and what we have here is the vector some of the two fields, one > which is that of the permanent magnet and one which is induced by the > electric coil. The resulting direction alternates and we collect the > induction of both fields.

Not so – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> <snip> > This is analogous to throwing a rope over a pulley, and pulling down > one foot on one end, while measuring both that move, and the upward 1 > foot move on the other end of the rope, and announcing that you have > produced a machine that doubles the energy you put into it. > [EL] > No I am sorry to tell you that your metaphor is off the wall and not > related properly. > Nowhere do they do an energy analysis of anything. They just keep > taking about flux. > [EL] > Yes, not in the patent, but you need to read Tomas Bearden’s papers to > find the equations. > It is pretty neat I have to admit.

Beardon uses math in the same way that some use statistics- looks good but his conclusions bear little resemblance to reality. It looks good but doesn’t really mean anything. This is particularly applicable to his use and interpretation of a scalar potential where the physical meaning of the actual quantities of importance is lost, rather than preserved. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The patent is very crafty. In the claims section, they do not mention > any claim of over unity or perpetual motion, but just include the > claim that the input can be run from power from the output after a > starting phase with an external source of power. The over unity > people will read this as implying continuous operation after that, but > it is not claimed. Of course, if you take all the energy out of the > output and put it back into the input, it will have a normal decay > time constant as it grinds to a halt, but that isn’t mentioned. They > also claim that the operation will eventually degauss the magnets, > implying that they are extracting energy from them, but this is also > not stated explicitly. I think this is how they got it past the > patent office. > Any electrical engineering student should be able to analyze this > design well enough to see that the bias magnet has no effect on what > is otherwise an ordinary toroidal transformer, > [EL] > Really! > And how is that? > How can the bias magnet have no effect if its field is being switched > left and right? > How can you exclude that field from your sum? > Or are you saying that the magnet’s field shall be distributed left > and right and shall not react to the polar directions of the atomic > magnetic domains induced by the input coils? > If I were you I should take my time to analyze what is going on before > I make any jerky declarations.

The sea level makes no difference to the height of waves and any energy obtainable from waves. It is simply a bias. The same thing holds here. The field can be broken into a fixed (due to the bias) and a time variable part- it is only the variable portion which can produce an emf in the output coils The fixed component cotributes nothing. The device works but at about 30% efficiency , not in excess of 100% as claimed. Naudin’s measurements, while amateurishly described do have a glaring fault- the current out as claimed is 10 times the actual current.This can be determined from his own data , the measurement resistor, the load resistor, and the characteristics of the scope used. Wishful thinking is not a substiture for hard analysis/ documented testing, etc. — Don Kelly remove the urine to answer

Response:

It is a real strange system and a magnetic transistor is a good thing to study. It will never "take energy from the vacumn", but the system forms a field theory which takes energy from a theorectical vaucum. A system may also be stated so the energy is taken from the efficiency measurement current. A magnetic transistor field is initiated and persistes to cause this strange form of field theory. Except a magnetic transistor is not able to be correctly stated with field theory, so every one gets confused about a true experimental, strange behavior. A transistor using a magnetic quanta statement will be a form of theory most applicable. And the concept of a quanta flux causing the current, is the true cause of the flow of energy. That was a quick study of the device. It is worthy of a patent. It can be used for the switching of a current by a magnet. Except it needs a "base signal" logic to complete the transistor. And the efficiency energy is just this. Just one small logic error. Douglas Eagleson Gaithersburg, MD USA

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> A patent has just issued for a perpetual motion machine so what the hell > do we need hydrogen for? Believe it or not pat. number 6,362,718 by > Patrick, et al. describes a magnetic perpetual motion machine but > doesn’t use those words in the description or claims. The patent is long > and poorly worded so it’s hard to figure out what’s going on. I’d like > others to dig this up and comment on it. > Dr. Bob > It is a real strange system and a magnetic transistor is a good > thing to study. It will never "take energy from the vacumn", but > the system forms a field theory which takes energy from a > theorectical vaucum. > A system may also be stated so the energy is taken from > the efficiency measurement current. > A magnetic transistor field is initiated and persistes to cause this > strange form of field theory. Except a magnetic transistor > is not able to be correctly stated with field theory, so > every one gets confused about a true experimental, > strange behavior. > A transistor using a magnetic quanta statement will > be a form of theory most applicable. And the concept > of a quanta flux causing the current, is the true cause > of the flow of energy. > That was a quick study of the device. It is worthy > of a patent. It can be used for the switching of a current > by a magnet. Except it needs a "base signal" logic to > complete the transistor. And the efficiency energy is just > this. Just one small logic error. > Douglas Eagleson > Gaithersburg, MD USA

There is some anecdotal evidence that, if you take your patent, frame it and put it on the north wall of your Nebraska office, that it will prevent or at least reduce the severety of walrus attacks. See http://www.tinaja.com/patnt01.asp — Many thanks, Don Lancaster Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552 Please visit my GURU’s LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

Response:

Some people are so stupid it must be painful. Don Widders

Response:

If the terms ZPE, or vacuum energy are used it is all crap. (or the designer has no REAL clue how it works.) If they say it has "harnessed gravity and magnetic forces". than it might have a chance of being real. <G>

Response:

The patent office is full of perpetual motion ideas. A design doesn’t have to be workable for someone to hand over their money, just original.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >[EL] >I have to disagree with you on your final conclusion, but I do agree >with you on many parts of your post. >See below. > > A patent has just issued for a perpetual motion machine so what the hell > > do we need hydrogen for? Believe it or not pat. number 6,362,718 by > > Patrick, et al. describes a magnetic perpetual motion machine but > > doesn’t use those words in the description or claims. The patent is long > > and poorly worded so it’s hard to figure out what’s going on. I’d like > > others to dig this up and comment on it. > > Dr. Bob ><snip> > They have a biased toroidal transformer and measure the change in flux > at two points on the toroid, and add those two changes together, and > announce that they have doubled the flux change. >[EL] >I do not know about that, but I know they are channeling the flux of >the permanent magnet into one of two paths. >The rate of change of the magnetic field within the core is what >produces energy. >The permanent magnet should be made from a material that resists >demagnetization by a special alloy of cobalt and samarium. >The core should be of a very high initial magnetization and the >direction of the ‘input field’ is orthogonal to the dipolar axis and >along the core. >This implies that the field from the magnet is not being opposed at >all, and what we have here is the vector some of the two fields, one >which is that of the permanent magnet and one which is induced by the >electric coil. The resulting direction alternates and we collect the >induction of both fields. ><snip>

The magnetic flux change in the permanent magnet is zero. Only a changing magnetic field can induce an electric current. The device should work just as well without the magnet in the circuit. If it works with the magnet in place, but not without it, Bearden has won himself a Nobel Prize for discovering that electromagnetism is not a conservative force. However, if electromagnetism is not a conservative force, it cannot fall off with the inverse square of the distance (which it does). Bearden has to do serious measurements with the highest sampling rates, so we can verify this. The non-conservative nature and disobedience of the inverse sqare law changes enough of physics that the burden of proof is on the claimant. > This is analogous to throwing a rope over a pulley, and pulling down > one foot on one end, while measuring both that move, and the upward 1 > foot move on the other end of the rope, and announcing that you have > produced a machine that doubles the energy you put into it. >[EL] >No I am sorry to tell you that your metaphor is off the wall and not >related properly.

You are incorrect, the metaphor has someone shouting "amazing", as he pulled one end for one foot, yet the two ends are now two feet apart. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The patent is very crafty. In the claims section, they do not mention > any claim of over unity or perpetual motion, but just include the > claim that the input can be run from power from the output after a > starting phase with an external source of power. The over unity > people will read this as implying continuous operation after that, but > it is not claimed. Of course, if you take all the energy out of the > output and put it back into the input, it will have a normal decay > time constant as it grinds to a halt, but that isn’t mentioned. They > also claim that the operation will eventually degauss the magnets, > implying that they are extracting energy from them, but this is also > not stated explicitly. I think this is how they got it past the > patent office. > Any electrical engineering student should be able to analyze this > design well enough to see that the bias magnet has no effect on what > is otherwise an ordinary toroidal transformer, >[EL] >Really! >And how is that? >How can the bias magnet have no effect if its field is being switched >left and right? >How can you exclude that field from your sum? >Or are you saying that the magnet’s field shall be distributed left >and right and shall not react to the polar directions of the atomic >magnetic domains induced by the input coils? >If I were you I should take my time to analyze what is going on before >I make any jerky declarations.

As its field contribution to the flux in the coils is unchanging, and only a changing flux will induce current in the output coils, its contribution to the output energy is, exactly, zero (unless Bearden wins that prize from Oslo). The flux in the outer legs in the MEG is equal to half of the magnet’s flux, plus a variable amount that is changes between +1/2 and -1/2 of the magnet’s flux. When you take the time derivative to determine output current, the constant value becomes zero. This is the point where you cry out "Magnetic re-gauging", and we say "Prove it". – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->as long as the core is > not magnetized enough to saturate (which is specified as a requirement > for the operation of the "generator". What a hoot. >[EL] >I think you are making a big mistake sir. >Kind regards. >EL

Response:

> The patent office is full of perpetual motion ideas. A design doesn’t have > to be workable for someone to hand over their money, just original.

A patent does NOT have to be original. It just has to be poorly enough researched that it fails to pick up the prior art. — Many thanks, Don Lancaster Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552 Please visit my GURU’s LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > If the terms > ZPE, > or vacuum energy are used > it is all crap. (or the designer has no REAL clue how it works.) > If they say it has "harnessed gravity and magnetic forces". > than it might have a chance of being real. > <G> > A patent has just issued for a perpetual motion machine so what the hell > do we need hydrogen for? Believe it or not pat. number 6,362,718 by > Patrick, et al. describes a magnetic perpetual motion machine but > doesn’t use those words in the description or claims. The patent is long > and poorly worded so it’s hard to figure out what’s going on. I’d like > others to dig this up and comment on it. > Dr. Bob

Oh, the ZPE is quite real. It is a math artifact needed to get information theory to work. There is enough ZPE in an earth sized volume that, if fully and efficiently extracted, would equal the energy in a gallon of gasoline. — Many thanks, Don Lancaster Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552 Please visit my GURU’s LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

Response:

Sad but true. Unfortunately patents are used not only to protect an inventor and spread information, one main use is to garner investment. Investors offen use the fact that patents have issued as a guide to an inventions viablility. "It’s patened so it must work and be a good idea." I think the patent office has fallen down in this case and allowed pure crap to prevail. I agree, it’s not the first time. Dr. Bob – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > The patent office is full of perpetual motion ideas. A design doesn’t have > to be workable for someone to hand over their money, just original.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > A patent has just issued for a perpetual motion machine so what the hell > > do we need hydrogen for? Believe it or not pat. number 6,362,718 by > > Patrick, et al. describes a magnetic perpetual motion machine but > > doesn’t use those words in the description or claims. The patent is long > > and poorly worded so it’s hard to figure out what’s going on. I’d like > > others to dig this up and comment on it. > > Dr. Bob > It is a real strange system and a magnetic transistor is a good > thing to study. It will never "take energy from the vacumn", but > the system forms a field theory which takes energy from a > theorectical vaucum. > A system may also be stated so the energy is taken from > the efficiency measurement current. > A magnetic transistor field is initiated and persistes to cause this > strange form of field theory. Except a magnetic transistor > is not able to be correctly stated with field theory, so > every one gets confused about a true experimental, > strange behavior. > A transistor using a magnetic quanta statement will > be a form of theory most applicable. And the concept > of a quanta flux causing the current, is the true cause > of the flow of energy. > That was a quick study of the device. It is worthy > of a patent. It can be used for the switching of a current > by a magnet. Except it needs a "base signal" logic to > complete the transistor. And the efficiency energy is just > this. Just one small logic error. > Douglas Eagleson > Gaithersburg, MD USA > There is some anecdotal evidence that, if you take your patent, frame it > and put it on the north wall of your Nebraska office, that it will > prevent or at least reduce the severety of walrus attacks.

Ok, that’s good, that’s an expression everyone gets. Unlike "exergy" that few people understand. Way to go Don, I knew you could do it. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> See http://www.tinaja.com/patnt01.asp > — > Many thanks, > Don Lancaster > Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552 > Please visit my GURU’s LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

Response:

<snip> – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> It is a real strange system and a magnetic transistor is a good > thing to study. It will never "take energy from the vacumn", but > the system forms a field theory which takes energy from a > theorectical vaucum. > A system may also be stated so the energy is taken from > the efficiency measurement current. > A magnetic transistor field is initiated and persistes to cause this > strange form of field theory. Except a magnetic transistor > is not able to be correctly stated with field theory, so > every one gets confused about a true experimental, > strange behavior. > A transistor using a magnetic quanta statement will > be a form of theory most applicable. And the concept > of a quanta flux causing the current, is the true cause > of the flow of energy. > That was a quick study of the device. It is worthy > of a patent. It can be used for the switching of a current > by a magnet. Except it needs a "base signal" logic to > complete the transistor. And the efficiency energy is just > this. Just one small logic error. > Douglas Eagleson > Gaithersburg, MD USA

I hope the other post I made today doesn’t sound to others as this one sounds to me. PLEASE say it isn’t so! Nonnaho

Response:

> Oh, the ZPE is quite real. It is a math artifact needed to get > information theory to work.

No, it’s a bunch of mathheads that picked ZPE instead of finding out what the stuff realy is made of and what realy makes the energy. IT’s ignorance in it’s purest form. Zero means zero. giving it anything other than zero is ignorance. Zero point energy is a joke in it’s own wording. > There is enough ZPE in an earth sized volume that, if fully and > efficiently extracted, would equal the energy in a gallon of gasoline.

No, there is enough unaccounted for energy. calling it zero point is dumb and stupid. for it can’t be a zero if it has energy at all. recalibrate your zero will ya! sheesh! your zero should be larger than zero if it is not truly zero.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > A patent has just issued for a perpetual motion machine so what the > hell > > > do we need hydrogen for? Believe it or not pat. number 6,362,718 by > > > Patrick, et al. describes a magnetic perpetual motion machine but > > > doesn’t use those words in the description or claims. The patent is > long > > > and poorly worded so it’s hard to figure out what’s going on. I’d like > > > others to dig this up and comment on it. > > > Dr. Bob > > It is a real strange system and a magnetic transistor is a good > > thing to study. It will never "take energy from the vacumn", but > > the system forms a field theory which takes energy from a > > theorectical vaucum. > > A system may also be stated so the energy is taken from > > the efficiency measurement current. > > A magnetic transistor field is initiated and persistes to cause this > > strange form of field theory. Except a magnetic transistor > > is not able to be correctly stated with field theory, so > > every one gets confused about a true experimental, > > strange behavior. > > A transistor using a magnetic quanta statement will > > be a form of theory most applicable. And the concept > > of a quanta flux causing the current, is the true cause > > of the flow of energy. > > That was a quick study of the device. It is worthy > > of a patent. It can be used for the switching of a current > > by a magnet. Except it needs a "base signal" logic to > > complete the transistor. And the efficiency energy is just > > this. Just one small logic error. > > Douglas Eagleson > > Gaithersburg, MD USA > There is some anecdotal evidence that, if you take your patent, frame it > and put it on the north wall of your Nebraska office, that it will > prevent or at least reduce the severety of walrus attacks. > Ok, that’s good, that’s an expression everyone gets. Unlike "exergy" that > few people understand. > Way to go Don, I knew you could do it. > See http://www.tinaja.com/patnt01.asp > — > Many thanks, > Don Lancaster > Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552 > Please visit my GURU’s LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

Just to prove how effective it is, there has not been one walrus attack reported in Nebraska in the last twenty minutes. — Many thanks, Don Lancaster Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552 Please visit my GURU’s LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

Response:

Congratulations on stringing together a mix of statements with a maximum use of buzzwords and minimal (approaching zero) meaningful content. .– Don Kelly remove the urine to answer

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Congratulations on stringing together a mix of statements with a maximum > use of > buzzwords and minimal (approaching zero) meaningful content. > .– > Don Kelly > remove the urine to answer > > A patent has just issued for a perpetual motion machine so what the hell > > do we need hydrogen for? Believe it or not pat. number 6,362,718 by > > Patrick, et al. describes a magnetic perpetual motion machine but > > doesn’t use those words in the description or claims. The patent is long > > and poorly worded so it’s hard to figure out what’s going on. I’d like > > others to dig this up and comment on it. > > Dr. Bob > It is a real strange system and a magnetic transistor is a good > thing to study. It will never "take energy from the vacumn", but > the system forms a field theory which takes energy from a > theorectical vaucum. > A system may also be stated so the energy is taken from > the efficiency measurement current. > A magnetic transistor field is initiated and persistes to cause this > strange form of field theory. Except a magnetic transistor > is not able to be correctly stated with field theory, so > every one gets confused about a true experimental, > strange behavior. > A transistor using a magnetic quanta statement will > be a form of theory most applicable. And the concept > of a quanta flux causing the current, is the true cause > of the flow of energy. > That was a quick study of the device. It is worthy > of a patent. It can be used for the switching of a current > by a magnet. Except it needs a "base signal" logic to > complete the transistor. And the efficiency energy is just > this. Just one small logic error. > Douglas Eagleson > Gaithersburg, MD USA

The content requires someone who likes to think about the meaning of a true taking of energy from the field. That is a simple concept to consider. Do you agree or disagree with the patent considered? Douglas Eagleson Gaithersburg, MD USA

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > <snip> > It is a real strange system and a magnetic transistor is a good > thing to study. It will never "take energy from the vacumn", but > the system forms a field theory which takes energy from a > theorectical vaucum. > A system may also be stated so the energy is taken from > the efficiency measurement current. > A magnetic transistor field is initiated and persistes to cause this > strange form of field theory. Except a magnetic transistor > is not able to be correctly stated with field theory, so > every one gets confused about a true experimental, > strange behavior. > A transistor using a magnetic quanta statement will > be a form of theory most applicable. And the concept > of a quanta flux causing the current, is the true cause > of the flow of energy. > That was a quick study of the device. It is worthy > of a patent. It can be used for the switching of a current > by a magnet. Except it needs a "base signal" logic to > complete the transistor. And the efficiency energy is just > this. Just one small logic error. > Douglas Eagleson > Gaithersburg, MD USA > I hope the other post I made today doesn’t sound to others > as this one sounds to me. PLEASE say it isn’t so! > Nonnaho

Please say the answer to this simple field theory question. Does the space of the vacuum contain? So now you know how I write. I write to communicate good thoughts of theory. And the question above is trivial. Douglas Eagleson Gaithersburg, MD USA

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > A patent has just issued for a perpetual motion machine so what the hell > > do we need hydrogen for? Believe it or not pat. number 6,362,718 by > > Patrick, et al. describes a magnetic perpetual motion machine but > > doesn’t use those words in the description or claims. The patent is long > > and poorly worded so it’s hard to figure out what’s going on. I’d like > > others to dig this up and comment on it. > > Dr. Bob > It is a real strange system and a magnetic transistor is a good > thing to study. It will never "take energy from the vacumn", but > the system forms a field theory which takes energy from a > theorectical vaucum. > A system may also be stated so the energy is taken from > the efficiency measurement current. > A magnetic transistor field is initiated and persistes to cause this > strange form of field theory. Except a magnetic transistor > is not able to be correctly stated with field theory, so > every one gets confused about a true experimental, > strange behavior. > A transistor using a magnetic quanta statement will > be a form of theory most applicable. And the concept > of a quanta flux causing the current, is the true cause > of the flow of energy. > That was a quick study of the device. It is worthy > of a patent. It can be used for the switching of a current > by a magnet. Except it needs a "base signal" logic to > complete the transistor. And the efficiency energy is just > this. Just one small logic error. > Douglas Eagleson > Gaithersburg, MD USA > Some people are so stupid it must be painful. > Don Widders

A concept of a correct theory statement and an experiment that proves this theory not capable of a true statement is the way I addressed this posting. Douglas Eagleson Gaithersburg, MD USA

Response:

Gravity is only the unbalance of the wave function of a atom. To harness this would require this unbalance to be removed which would cause the item to become weightless. This energy can be easily harnessed. Littlefish

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> If the terms > ZPE, > or vacuum energy are used > it is all crap. (or the designer has no REAL clue how it works.) > If they say it has "harnessed gravity and magnetic forces". > than it might have a chance of being real. > <G> > A patent has just issued for a perpetual motion machine so what the hell > do we need hydrogen for? Believe it or not pat. number 6,362,718 by > Patrick, et al. describes a magnetic perpetual motion machine but > doesn’t use those words in the description or claims. The patent is long > and poorly worded so it’s hard to figure out what’s going on. I’d like > others to dig this up and comment on it. > Dr. Bob

Response:

A concept of a correct theory statement and an experiment that proves this theory not capable of a true statement is the way I addressed this posting. Douglas Eagleson Gaithersburg, MD USA

Response:

Congratulations on stringing together a mix of statements with a maximum use of buzzwords and minimal (approaching zero) meaningful content. .– Don Kelly remove the urine to answer

Response:

> Oh, the ZPE is quite real. It is a math artifact needed to get > information theory to work.

Response:

I hope the other post I made today doesn’t sound to others as this one sounds to me. PLEASE say it isn’t so! Nonnaho

Response:

> The patent office is full of perpetual motion ideas. A design doesn’t have > to be workable for someone to hand over their money, just original.

Response:

The patent office is full of perpetual motion ideas. A design doesn’t have to be workable for someone to hand over their money, just original.

Response:

Some people are so stupid it must be painful. Don Widders

Response:

Perhaps, but you haven’t explained what it is. — John Popelish

Response:

Because you are adding or subtracting from a constant, BH losses do not help either Regards, Boris Mohar

Response:

> [EL] > I have to disagree with you on your final conclusion, but I do agree > with you on many parts of your post. > See below.

Response:

[EL] No I am sorry to tell you that your metaphor is off the wall and not related properly. > Nowhere do they do an energy analysis of anything. They just keep > taking about flux.

[EL] I think you are making a big mistake sir. Kind regards. EL

Response:

> What is the point of taking the word perpetual to mean eternal, when what > is relevant, is our perception of what is continuous, indefinitely.

Because that is not always what is relevant. "perpetual" means "forever" – it doesn’t mean "for a very long time so that it seems like forever". [SNIP] > Therefore perpetual motion (as defined) is not impossible, and who > suggested no energy source?

Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary: perpetual motion – _mech._ the motion of a theoretical mechanism that, without any losses due to friction or other forms of dissipation of energy, would continue to operate indefinitely at the same rate without any external energy being applied to it. The idea of no energy source is integral to the expression "perpetual motion" – which is why you will always be misunderstood if you choose to use your own, personal defintion of the term. > -no motion is possible without a source of energy-

Sure it is. No acceleration is possible without a source of energy however. > If you will explain the precise source of energy of the flowing > river,

Fusion-reactions in the sun. L. R. Moldskred (+47) 73 50 94 31 N-6065 Ulsteinvik N-7018 Trondheim There is so much good in the worst of us,; And so much bad in the best of us,; That it hardly becomes any of us; To talk about the rest of us. – Various attributions

Response:

I believe this is the posting that Ken has asked me to substantiate or withdraw. I will attempt to clarify. Ken’s response to this message has not appeared on my news server, so I am guessing a little as to what the problem is. >Perpetual Energy of Motion converted from the Perpetually renewed Energy >Resource, the Global Thermal Environment, in strict compliance with the >Laws of Thermo-dynamics. >Make a prototype of your machine, and I promise you that if it’s >anywhere near what you claim, you’ll be richer and more popular than >Bill Gates overnight.

I will stand by this. Whoever invents and succesfully patents unlimited free energy will become incredibly rich. If their technology is well exploited, then this person will be very popular with environmentalists and the energy-poor. I can’t see how this statement was offensive. >A word of warning, however. If all I wanted to do was discredit >renewable energy, then I might just set about it by issuing >ridiculously inflated claims sprinkled with meaningless technobabble, >like you get in Star Trek.

If you ever watch Star Trek, you will notice that they attach very little meaning to the technical words they use. Witness: *The planet with a surface temperature of -290 degrees Celcius. *"Captain! I believe the crew are de-evolving." *The common misuse of terms like "field", "phase" and so on. *The usual explanation of the transporter. (There is a better but inconsistent explanation for it which crops up in the episode where people hide in the transporter beam.) Real hooters crop up about twice an episode on average. This is the style Ken’s postings and web pages remind me of. Technical terms like "perpetual motion" crop up, but are obviously misused. Star Trek might be convincing to non-scientists, and I dare say some of this "perpetual motion" stuff might be too. But every indication is that the scientific basis is very flimsy indeed. I have given one possible, rather cynical, explanation for this. I’m sure there are others. The correct response from you would be to explain why my possible explanation might be wrong, rather than moan on about how offensive I’m being. No insult is intended, simply analysis. Joe — Joe Otten, Sheffield, England, Europe. Research Student and Green Party Policy Co-ordinator http://freespace.virgin.net/joe.otten/ Opinions expressed are my own, and not necessarily those of the Green Party, Sheffield University, Virgin net, or anybody else in particular. However each of these organisations would be well advised to concur.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->You fellows seem to be making very heavy weather in your contemplation of >perpetual motion/energy. >It depends on your interpretation of perpetual, but if, like me, you >consider it in >a practical sense as indefinite, but finite, then the flow of our rivers is >perpetual motion.? > If you really want to. The usual meaning of perpetual motion refers to > an impossible device without an external energy source. If you use > "perpetual motion" to mean something else, then you will most likely > cause confusion. > You will also increase your chances of being dismissed as a crank, and > of having any good ideas you might have ignored. Doesn’t seem worth it > to me. > Joe > PS Is the Web site done yet? > — > Joe Otten, Sheffield, England, Europe. > Research Student and Green Party Policy Co-ordinator > http://freespace.virgin.net/joe.otten/ > Opinions expressed are my own, and not necessarily those of the Green Party, > Sheffield University, Virgin net, or anybody else in particular. However > each of these organisations would be well advised to concur.

I have repeatedly asked you, by email, to substantiate, what little constructive comment you make in your posting, and to withdraw your advice to others, because it is considered nonsensical and invalid. You have responded but made excuse after excuse to avoid having to justify your observations. What is the point of taking the word perpetual to mean eternal, when what is relevant, is our perception of what is continuous, indefinitely. How far do you want to go back, to the Garden of Eden or to the obliteration of human life from pollution in the future? It is reasonable to assume the Euphrates will still be flowing even then. No the flowing of the rivers is to all intents and purposes, (for mankind, anyway, ) perpetual. Therefore perpetual motion (as defined) is not impossible, and who suggested no energy source? -no motion is possible without a source of energy- If you will explain the precise source of energy of the flowing river, and how it becomes, by my definition, perpetual, I feel sure you will impress all, that you are capable of more than the offensive unsupportable comments that your posting displays. Regards, Ken

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >You fellows seem to be making very heavy weather in your contemplation of > >perpetual motion/energy. > >It depends on your interpretation of perpetual, but if, like me, you > >consider it in > >a practical sense as indefinite, but finite, then the flow of our rivers > >is perpetual motion.? > If you really want to. The usual meaning of perpetual motion refers to > an impossible device without an external energy source. If you use > "perpetual motion" to mean something else, then you will most likely > cause confusion. [...] >I have repeatedly asked you, by email, to substantiate, what little >constructive comment you make in your posting, and to withdraw your advice >to others, because it is considered nonsensical and invalid. You have >responded but made excuse after excuse to avoid having to justify your >observations. >What is the point of taking the word perpetual to mean eternal, when what >is relevant, is our perception of what is continuous, indefinitely. How far >do you want to go back, to the Garden of Eden or to the obliteration of >human life from pollution >in the future? >It is reasonable to assume the Euphrates will still be flowing even then. >No the flowing of the rivers is to all intents and purposes, (for mankind, >anyway, ) >perpetual. >Therefore perpetual motion (as defined) is not impossible, and who >suggested no energy source? >-no motion is possible without a source of energy-

The phrase "perpetual motion" has a specific meaning that is slightly different from the combined meanings of the words "perpetual" and "motion." Specifically, my copy of Webster’s defines "perpetual motion" as "the motion of a theoretical mechanism that, without any losses due to friction or other forms of dissipation of energy, would continue to operate indefinately at the same rate without any external energy being applied to it." This is the accepted definition of the phrase "perpetual motion." If you choose to redefine it, as you have above, be assured that you will confuse people who expect the accepted definition. Andrew Moskalik

Response:

* I read of something similar being done with superconductors. * Supposedly the idea was to store reserve energy from power * grids in a superconducting ring to be flushed when power * demands required it. Yes, devices based on this principle are for sale. I received a catalog for one of them as a substituts for industrial battery powered uninterruptible power sources. Its power rate was in the 100 kilowatts range, I think. About the size of a refrigerator. John Popelish

Response:

> You’re right, of course, Jim > An alternative to an input of energy, OR to make it part of a system > which has a positive, performance energy ratio, i.e. an "open" vapour > compression cycle, or heat engine in reverse.

Huh? > See the atmospheric depressions and and high pressure whorls that "develop" > in our weather systems. > But of course, they CANT just develop can they? they must be self > regenerating mustn’t they,?

Yes and No. The earth is not a closed system. L. R. Moldskred (+47) 73 50 94 31 N-6065 Ulsteinvik N-7018 Trondheim There is so much good in the worst of us,; And so much bad in the best of us,; That it hardly becomes any of us; To talk about the rest of us. – Various attributions

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Perpetual Energy of Motion converted from the Perpetually renewed Energy >Resource, the Global Thermal Environment, in strict compliance with the >Laws of Thermo-dynamics. > Make a prototype of your machine, and I promise you that if it’s > anywhere near what you claim, you’ll be richer and more popular than > Bill Gates overnight. > A word of warning, however. If all I wanted to do was discredit > renewable energy, then I might just set about it by issuing > ridiculously inflated claims sprinkled with meaningless technobabble, > like you get in Star Trek. > Joe > — > Joe Otten, Sheffield, England, Europe. > Research Student and Green Party Policy Co-ordinator > http://freespace.virgin.net/joe.otten/ > Opinions expressed are my own, and not necessarily those of the Green Party, > Sheffield University, Virgin net, or anybody else in particular. However > each of these organisations would be well advised to concur. >Perpetual Energy of Motion converted from the Perpetually renewed Energy >Resource, the Global Thermal Environment, in strict compliance with the >Laws of Thermo-dynamics. > Make a prototype of your machine, and I promise you that if it’s > anywhere near what you claim, you’ll be richer and more popular than > Bill Gates overnight. > A word of warning, however. If all I wanted to do was discredit > renewable energy, then I might just set about it by issuing > ridiculously inflated claims sprinkled with meaningless technobabble, > like you get in Star Trek. > Joe > — > Joe Otten, Sheffield, England, Europe. > Research Student and Green Party Policy Co-ordinator > http://freespace.virgin.net/joe.otten/ > Opinions expressed are my own, and not necessarily those of the Green Party, > Sheffield University, Virgin net, or anybody else in particular. However > each of these organisations would be well advised to concur.

Response:

>You fellows seem to be making very heavy weather in your contemplation of >perpetual motion/energy. >It depends on your interpretation of perpetual, but if, like me, you >consider it in >a practical sense as indefinite, but finite, then the flow of our rivers is >perpetual motion.?

If you really want to. The usual meaning of perpetual motion refers to an impossible device without an external energy source. If you use "perpetual motion" to mean something else, then you will most likely cause confusion. You will also increase your chances of being dismissed as a crank, and of having any good ideas you might have ignored. Doesn’t seem worth it to me. Joe PS Is the Web site done yet? — Joe Otten, Sheffield, England, Europe. Research Student and Green Party Policy Co-ordinator http://freespace.virgin.net/joe.otten/ Opinions expressed are my own, and not necessarily those of the Green Party, Sheffield University, Virgin net, or anybody else in particular. However each of these organisations would be well advised to concur.

Response:

>[...] >Much like a frisbee flies and also falls if you could spin it >indefinatly would it fly indefinatly? >Im thinking it would. But I could be wrong.

You are wrong. A frisbee’s spinning has nothing to do with its remaining in flight. The spin only serves to keep its angle of attack through the air constant, and to prevent it from tumbling. It glides in exactly the same way any other glider does, with the only differences being the way its attitude is maintained and the lack of control surfaces for maneuvering.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Now, consider an option. My kids just brought home some kind of spinning >> toys from McDonalds (they came with the meal). Those things have at least >> 100 x the energy potential of the dipping birds… >> — >> John D. Goulden >> Veritas Computing Systems and Services >Yes spinning mass fit’s into the final picture of perpetual motion. >Much like a frisbee flies and also falls if you could spin it >indefinatly would it fly indefinatly? >Im thinking it would. But I could be wrong. > Yes Terry, but to continue spinning, it would need a *source of energy* > to replace that lost through friction, creation of noise, etc. > And if you put in the energy source, it is no longer a closed system. > In fact you would need even more energy to overcome the effect of > gravity. > I fear there is more to follow on this one. > Cheers jim > remove s from swandana to email reply > Jim Barr Machine Conversation > http://www.wandana.demon.co.uk/ > Best is the enemy of good enough > Leaves rustle, blades turn, water moves > Barrs Law of Recursive futility:— > If you are smart enough to use one of these….. > …..you can probably manage without one!

You’re right, of course, Jim An alternative to an input of energy, OR to make it part of a system which has a positive, performance energy ratio, i.e. an "open" vapour compression cycle, or heat engine in reverse. See the atmospheric depressions and and high pressure whorls that "develop" in our weather systems. But of course, they CANT just develop can they? they must be self regenerating mustn’t they,? back to the positive performance energy ratio? Think about it Jim Are we talking about seeding flying saucers? Cheers, Ken

Response:

You fellows seem to be making very heavy weather in your contemplation of perpetual motion/energy. It depends on your interpretation of perpetual, but if, like me, you consider it in a practical sense as indefinite, but finite, then the flow of our rivers is perpetual motion.? Have you ever contemplated, the source of this "perpetual" energy, and its route from thermal to potential to kinetic energy.? I believe the answer to man’s quest for perpetual energy is staring us in the face. cheers. Ken – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Now, consider an option. My kids just brought home some kind of spinning >> toys from McDonalds (they came with the meal). Those things have at least >> 100 x the energy potential of the dipping birds… >> — >> John D. Goulden >> Veritas Computing Systems and Services >Yes spinning mass fit’s into the final picture of perpetual motion. >Much like a frisbee flies and also falls if you could spin it >indefinatly would it fly indefinatly? >Im thinking it would. But I could be wrong. > Yes Terry, but to continue spinning, it would need a *source of energy* > to replace that lost through friction, creation of noise, etc. > And if you put in the energy source, it is no longer a closed system. > In fact you would need even more energy to overcome the effect of > gravity. > I fear there is more to follow on this one. > Cheers jim > remove s from swandana to email reply > Jim Barr Machine Conversation > http://www.wandana.demon.co.uk/ > Best is the enemy of good enough > Leaves rustle, blades turn, water moves > Barrs Law of Recursive futility:— > If you are smart enough to use one of these….. > …..you can probably manage without one!

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Much like a frisbee flies and also falls if you could spin it > indefinatly would it fly indefinatly? > Im thinking it would. But I could be wrong. > Yes, it would spin indefinitely, but that’s far easier said than done. > Nobody has yet built a system free of energy loss mechanisms, though. > This reminds me of flywheels designed to store electrical energy (like a > battery). > A flywheel consists, essentially, of a spinning disc mounted in a vacuum > (no skin friction from atmosphere) and suspended magnetically such that > the wheel simply floats inside its enclosure. It can be coupled and > decoupled to a rotating shaft so that it may be spun up ("charged") or > down ("discharged"). Theoretically, these devices can be highly > efficient, but they still lose energy to skin friction (no vacuum is > perfect) and the magnetic field that keeps them suspended.

I read of something similar being done with superconductors. Supposedly the idea was to store reserve energy from power grids in a superconducting ring to be flushed when power demands required it.

Response:

> Yes spinning mass fit’s into the final picture of perpetual motion. > Much like a frisbee flies and also falls if you could spin it > indefinatly would it fly indefinatly? > Im thinking it would. But I could be wrong.

Uh-uh. The spinning in a Frisbee stabilizes it qyroscopically. Keeps it flat and prevents it from tipping sideways and crashing. It stays in the air because of forward motion producing lift, just like an airplane wing. You would have to keep it spinning to keep it stable and you have to keep it moving to keep it flying. Kurt

Response:

> I once calculated that America’s energy needs could be met by a mere > 10^(18) drinking birds, and these rather small.

Let’s see, that’s about 10^10 birds per person. Where do we get the energy to build these things? Or the money to purchase them? To finance birds, at a dime each, for the population of little ‘ole Bethany, OK would take about 10^13 dollars, which exceeds the national debt. We’re a hard-working bunch, but I doubt that our total productivity is up to that level. And even if we had them, who’s going to maintain them? Not me; my lifetime is less than 10^10 seconds, so I can devote a few milliseconds to each of my personal energy birds over my entire working lifetime. Where do we put them? Do I have enough shoreline in my personal national shoreline allottment for my 10^10 birds? What will happen to the populations of MN (land of ten thousand lakes?) and NM (dry as dust) when we convert to birds? Where do I get the several million gallons of alcohol (or whatever the working fluid is) and how do I prevent an ecological catastrophy if I break .01% of my birds? I think this plan is (ahem) for the birds. Now, consider an option. My kids just brought home some kind of spinning toys from McDonalds (they came with the meal). Those things have at least 100 x the energy potential of the dipping birds… — John D. Goulden Veritas Computing Systems and Services

Response:

> Now, consider an option. My kids just brought home some kind of spinning > toys from McDonalds (they came with the meal). Those things have at least > 100 x the energy potential of the dipping birds… > — > John D. Goulden > Veritas Computing Systems and Services

Yes spinning mass fit’s into the final picture of perpetual motion. Much like a frisbee flies and also falls if you could spin it indefinatly would it fly indefinatly? Im thinking it would. But I could be wrong.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Now, consider an option. My kids just brought home some kind of spinning > toys from McDonalds (they came with the meal). Those things have at least > 100 x the energy potential of the dipping birds… > — > John D. Goulden > Veritas Computing Systems and Services >Yes spinning mass fit’s into the final picture of perpetual motion. >Much like a frisbee flies and also falls if you could spin it >indefinatly would it fly indefinatly? >Im thinking it would. But I could be wrong.

Yes Terry, but to continue spinning, it would need a *source of energy* to replace that lost through friction, creation of noise, etc. And if you put in the energy source, it is no longer a closed system. In fact you would need even more energy to overcome the effect of gravity. I fear there is more to follow on this one. Cheers jim remove s from swandana to email reply Jim Barr Machine Conversation http://www.wandana.demon.co.uk/ Best is the enemy of good enough Leaves rustle, blades turn, water moves Barrs Law of Recursive futility:— If you are smart enough to use one of these….. …..you can probably manage without one!

Response:

HELP ME!!

Response:

I need to talk to some one who would know any thing about renewable energy…PLEASE

Response:

"Mad" magazine has proposed ringing every reservoir, lake, river, stream, and puddle with giant drinking birds, their butts tied to lanyards pulling on electric generators. The difference between their proposal and your proposal is that their proposal is firmly based in reality. — Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals) "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Perpetual Energy of Motion converted from the Perpetually renewed Energy > Resource, the Global Thermal Environment, in strict compliance with the > Laws of Thermo-dynamics. > On the assumption that the spectrum of light radiated from the Sun, is > considered to be perpetual, within mankind’s conception of time, the > author makes this sober statement in a sound balance state of mind, and > thereby formally establishes his claim, as the first individual to > realise, and prove, beyond reasonable doubt, man’s ability to realise > perpetual energy, from the world’s thermal environment, which is capable > of meeting all mankind’s current energy requirements, without pollution. > It is further claimed, that such perpetual energy is the product of the > environmental natural process, which avails of an efficiency "gain", > within the energy generating system, to control, and sustain it > indefinitely, > The concept of efficiency gain, which is well established, under the > titles of "performance efficiency ratio", or "coefficient of > performance", extends mankind’s scientific capabilities to exploit > uniquely new opportunities, to regenerate and progressively regenerate > characteristics, which control the rate of extraction and conversion of > thermal energy from a primary source of energy, namely, the global > thermal environment, to the limit of the renewable source to sustain it.

Response:

I once calculated that America’s energy needs could be met by a mere 10^(18) drinking birds, and these rather small. — John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Response:

: I once calculated that America’s energy needs could be met by a mere : 10^(18) drinking birds, and these rather small. : — Ah, but consider the task of maintenance. :-> Harry C.

Response:

> : I once calculated that America’s energy needs could be met by a mere > : 10^(18) drinking birds, and these rather small. > Ah, but consider the task of maintenance. :->

Let’s get to it then. A job for everybody for life. — de-pave paradise: pull up a parking lot!

Response:

>Perpetual Energy of Motion converted from the Perpetually renewed Energy >Resource, the Global Thermal Environment, in strict compliance with the >Laws of Thermo-dynamics.

Make a prototype of your machine, and I promise you that if it’s anywhere near what you claim, you’ll be richer and more popular than Bill Gates overnight. A word of warning, however. If all I wanted to do was discredit renewable energy, then I might just set about it by issuing ridiculously inflated claims sprinkled with meaningless technobabble, like you get in Star Trek. Joe — Joe Otten, Sheffield, England, Europe. Research Student and Green Party Policy Co-ordinator http://freespace.virgin.net/joe.otten/ Opinions expressed are my own, and not necessarily those of the Green Party, Sheffield University, Virgin net, or anybody else in particular. However each of these organisations would be well advised to concur.

Response:

can you hear me?

Response:

Perpetual Energy of Motion converted from the Perpetually renewed Energy Resource, the Global Thermal Environment, in strict compliance with the Laws of Thermo-dynamics. On the assumption that the spectrum of light radiated from the Sun, is considered to be perpetual, within mankind’s conception of time, the author makes this sober statement in a sound balance state of mind, and thereby formally establishes his claim, as the first individual to realise, and prove, beyond reasonable doubt, man’s ability to realise perpetual energy, from the world’s thermal environment, which is capable of meeting all mankind’s current energy requirements, without pollution. It is further claimed, that such perpetual energy is the product of the environmental natural process, which avails of an efficiency "gain", within the energy generating system, to control, and sustain it indefinitely, The concept of efficiency gain, which is well established, under the titles of "performance efficiency ratio", or "coefficient of performance", extends mankind’s scientific capabilities to exploit uniquely new opportunities, to regenerate and progressively regenerate characteristics, which control the rate of extraction and conversion of thermal energy from a primary source of energy, namely, the global thermal environment, to the limit of the renewable source to sustain it.

Renewable Energy Source

Q&A's about Renewable Energy

Renewable Energy

Perpetual Motion

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response: